it’s a territory of Palestine…
ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-ki ( Revision 27th Dec 2009 – additional material )
Since childhood I was told that five Arab States invaded Israel immediately after Israel Declared Independence. That was good enough for me. How dare they. Then someone posed the question: “Which Sovereign Israeli territories were attacked and which UNSC resolution condemned the alleged Arab League invasion of Israel?”
What? That’s a ridiculous question. Of course they did. Israel was fighting for it’s life. We’ll have none of this nonsense. So in order to substantiate my beliefs, I began looking through UNSC resolutions for something condemning the Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine. In those days, it was books and the public library. A tedious business. Today the information is at our fingertips.
Here I’ve used the United Nations, Yale Law repository OnLine at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/scres049.asp, the Truman Library, Jstor, the Jewish Virtual Library and the Israeli Government website, Hansard. There is only primary source information, no citations from the likes of Ilan Pappé, Benni Morris. In fact I’ve never read anything they’ve written.
Rather than find what I was looking for, a UNSC condemnation of the Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine or confirmation that the Arab League had attacked Sovereign Israeli territory, I began to notice the UNSC resolutions seemed rather at odds with what I’d been told. The more I looked the more apparent it became that something was amiss in the rhetoric I’d been led to believe. Even the Arab League Declaration contradicted what I’d been told.
There was the story that Israel had no defined borders. Yet 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.
The first item listed at the Yale Law repository, after Israel’s Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel , is the letter from the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15th 1948, informing him of the Declaration and on which the US based it’s recognition of Israel as an Independent Sovereign State.
In particular, it says “..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. “
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 29,1!>47, 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.”
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.”
All quite at odds with the notion that Israel had never defined it’s boundaries with Palestine in 1948 and the notion that UNGA resolution was irrelevant because the Arabs had rejected it. The first of the fallacies had fallen.
Next step was recognition. Was Israel given de jure recognition or de facto recognition? Here I went through a maze only to discover the British record shows recognition of Sovereignty (state) is different from the recognition of Government (the authority in power).
Hansard 27 April 1950 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.
In announcing these two acts of recognition, His Majesty’s Government wish to reaffirm their conviction that the problem of Palestine is capable of solution by peaceful means, given good will and understanding on the part of all the parties concerned. It is their earnest hope that the steps they have now taken will help to create stability in the areas concerned, and will, therefore, make a contribution towards the peace of the Middle East as a whole. “
The British recognized Israel’s sovereignty over territories is bound by it’s Declaration of Sovereignty, not ‘facts on the ground’. Sovereignty is in law, of the state. The state in law is de jure, regardless of whether the Government in authority is provisional, de facto, or elected, de jure.
The Provisional Government was given de facto recognition by the USA. The Elected Government was subsequently given de jure recognition.
The USSR gave de jure recognition of the authority of the Provisional Government. Israel’s provisional Government was de facto, with authority to elect a Government to the state, which would, in law become de jure when a Government was elected. The USSR gave de jure recognition to this provisional authority.
Israel was a Sovereignty, (the State) recognized de jure, the provisional Government recognized de facto, the elected Government eventually recognized de jure and the British made it clear that Israel did not have Sovereignty over the territories it had captured by war by 1949. They were “occupied”.
Furthermore rather than Jordan’s control over the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) being illegal as I’d been led to believe, A) Jordan and Israel signed an Armistice Agreement, whereby Israel AGREED to Jordanian occupation. B) There is no UNSC resolution condemning 1) Jordan’s occupation, as a regional power, protecting the territories of Palestine OR 2) It’s temporary annexation as a trustee was requested by the Palestinians and was demanded by the Arab League, in accordance with the UN Charter covering regional powers and the notion of being a trustee. The Arab League was in accordance with legal procedure.
The refutation of the first fallacy confirmed and three more shredded, in one fell swoop. My interest was well kindled and ablaze by now, fueled in part by a hard to reconcile, indoctrinated partisan dis-belief and in part by an equally non-partisan and unbridled inquisitiveness.
Link to this section
If the Arab League had launched a war of aggression on Israel’s newly Declared Sovereign Boundaries, there would be the customary UNSC resolution condemning it. Right? See UNSC Resolution 660 on the invasion of Kuwait for an example.
The first UNSC resolution after the 14th May 1948, UNSC Resolution 49; May 22, 1948, asks all parties for a ceasefire. In UNSC resolution after resolution none bears a condemnation of the Arab States Declaration. What was going on? Was it a war of aggression or not? Were the Arab League actions legitimate? Legal?
What makes a war ‘legal’? Bouvier’s Law Dictionary tells us 6. To legalize a war it must be declared by that branch of the government entrusted by the constitution with this power. The Governments of the Arab League States did so. Informing the UNSC on 15th May 1948 . This of course does not tell us if it was a war of aggression. For that, we must look to a UNSC resolution, because all wars of aggression, even if declared, are illegal and customarily condemned by the UNSC.
The first thing that struck me, was all the UNSC resolutions on the War of Independence, say “in Palestine”. Surely the UNSC knew that as of the 15th May 1948 Israel, as an Independent Sovereign State, was no longer a part of the of Palestine. They’d also be aware that the boundaries of what remained of the Palestine after Israel declared, were defined by default by Israel’s declared boundaries and those of the neighbouring Arab states. Did the UN simply forget it was Israel who was invaded? Or is Israel the Sovereign state, in the non-state entity of Palestine?
The fact is, the UNSC was aware, as was the Israeli Government, who confirmed with the UNSC the extent of Israeli Sovereignty on May 22nd 1948 and on June 15th 1949
Link to this section http://wp.me/pDB7k-ki#armistice-agreements
So what actual sovereign Israeli territories were attacked? The armistice agreements should tell us.
The first article in the Egypt/Israel General Armistice Agreement also says ‘in Palestine’. Article 1 – “With a view to promoting the return to permanent peace in Palestine“
Withdrawal is first mentioned where it tells us Egyptian forces are required to withdraw from Al Faluja (Al Fallujah), which was NOT a part of the Declared Israeli Sovereign territories. (load the Google Earth overlay, then type ‘ Al Faluja Israel ‘ into the search box) It was, according to the Israeli Government, outside of Israel, occupied.
The agreement goes on in Article V to say:
1. The line described in Article VI of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Line and is delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolutions of the Security Council of 4 and 16 November 1948.
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.
3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.
4. Rules and regulations of the armed forces of the Parties, which prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement with application to the Armistice Demarcation Line defined in Article VI.
The Lebanon/Israel General Armistice Agreement Tells a similar story. “in Palestine”. Same “not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary”. Same “…prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement..” It also tells us in Article V – 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.
It does NOT say ‘shall follow the international boundary between Lebanon and Israel’!!!
The Jordan/Israeli General Armistice Agreement Similar again “in Palestine”. Same “not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary”. Same “…prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement..”
Being an agreement, Israel agrees to Jordan occupying the West Bank! Another piece of information at odds with the rhetoric claiming Jordan’s occupation was illegal AND showing it was by AGREEMENT that Israelis, Jewish or non-Jewish, not enter the area.
It also says in Article VI – 6. “Wherever villages may be affected by the establishment of the Armistice Demarcation Line provided for in paragraph 2 of this article, the inhabitants of such villages shall be entitled to maintain, and shall be protected in, their full rights of residence, property and freedom. In the event any of the inhabitants should decide to leave their villages, they shall be entitled to take with them their livestock and other movable property, and to receive without delay full compensation for the land which they have left. It shall be prohibited for Israeli forces to enter or to be stationed in such villages, in which locally recruited Arab police shall be organized and stationed for internal security purposes.”
Israel AGREED that if people left voluntarily, they should be compensated.
Syrian/Israeli General Armistice Agreement Same, “in Palestine”. Same “not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary”. Same “…prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement..” It also adds, in Article V: “1. It is emphasized that the following arrangements for the Armistice Demarcation Line between the Israeli and Syrian armed forces and for the Demilitarized Zone are not to be interpreted as having any relation whatsoever to ultimate territorial arrangements affecting the two Parties to this Agreement.”
The two parties being Syria and Israel. Not Israel and Palestine. It also tells us the Armistice line is between ‘forces’, not ‘countries’.
Further to Article V: “5. (a) Where the Armistice Demarcation Line does not correspond to the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the area between the Armistice Demarcation Line and the boundary, pending final territorial settlement between the Parties, shall be established as a Demilitarized Zone from which the armed forces of both Parties shall be totally excluded, and in which no activities by military or para-military forces shall be permitted.”
As with Lebanon, it is telling us that in places, Syria borders Palestine. At the time of the armistice, Israel was a Sovereign Country, no longer a part of what was left of Palestine.
In all the UNSC resolutions and all the Armistice Agreements, nowhere is there anything about any Sovereign Israeli territory being attacked. No where are any Sovereign territories of Israel required to be withdrawn from. They all tell us Israeli forces were “in Palestine”. None mention the Palestine as being a part of the ‘final territorial settlement’. The UNSC Resolutions are between existing sovereign ‘states’.
You won’t find UNSC condemnation on the Arab League invasion of Palestine, simply because there is none. The Arab League States were UN Members and High Contracting Regional Powers and the British Mandate over Palestine had ended. Under the UN Charter Article 52 it was their right and as representatives of Palestine at the time, their duty to protect it from the aggression the Sovereign state of Israel had inherited from Plan Dalet, from the moment Israel declared. What had been a civil war, became a war waged by a state on Palestine.
So where did the armistice agreements leave the territories of Palestine that Israel controlled? Were they Israel’s to do as it wished? Were they automatically Israeli? Or occupied? What was their status?
Based on the Israeli Government’s statements of the 22nd May 1948 and 15th June 1949, the Laws of War tell us they were occupied. The British considered them occupied. Although Israel didn’t ratify the Geneva Conventions until July 1951, after it became a UN Member State May 11, 1949. At the time of the armistice agreements, Israel was not obliged to the Geneva Conventions. It was however through it’s Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel obliged to the UN Charter and subsequent notification, obliged to discharge “.. the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law”
International Law tells us that in order for a Sovereignty to acquire territories, it must legally annex them under an agreement or treaty. Now If I could just find the annexation document………… Perhaps there was something in regard to their status in the correspondence to the Conciliation Commission, prior to Israel’s acceptance into the UN.
Link to this section
A letter of the 31 August 1949, addressed to the Chairman of the Conciliation Commission by Mr. Reuven Shiloah, Head of the Delegation of Israel.
“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”
There we have Israel’s intention is to acquire all of Palestine and an admission that at that point in time the territories of Palestine were not yet actual Israeli territory. There goes the argument that Israel has never wanted all of Palestine and the twaddle that they were Israel’s because it won the war.
The reply dated 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”
Now If I could just find the annexation document…………
What began as a search for something to substantiate my long held and firmly entrenched beliefs, had only shown their deep flaws.
All the UNSC resolutions tell us peace is sought “in Palestine“. They also tell us that the “question of Palestine” needs to be resolved. Not peace ‘in Israel’. Not the ‘Israel/Palestine question’. Not peace ‘in Israel and Palestine’. Why?
The ‘Israel question’ was resolved on the 14th May 1948, when the Jewish People’s Council Declared a Sovereign Jewish State within the frontiers of UNGA res 181 and Israel was recognized as such by the International Community of states. There is no question over it’s Sovereignty, it’s boundaries or it’s existence as a state.
The wars have been in Palestine, not Israel. The “territories occupied” have been in Palestine, not Israel.
The harder I look, the more the fallacies fall.
Link to this section
The Arab Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine, contradicts the notion that the Arab League was bent on a genocidal attack, threatening to drive all Jews into the sea. To be sure they were against Israel’s existence, based on legal grounds, but their Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine says: “The Governments of the Arab States emphasise, on this occasion, what they have already declared before the London Conference and the United Nations, that the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed.
Democracy!! Equal rights!! How dare they! Nowhere did the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine threaten Israel or threaten to actually institute the legal basis of their argument. It merely stated the legal case as a basis for protecting their ward as regional powers per the UN Charter. Israel was no longer a part of Palestine on the 15th May 1949. The Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine was given to the UNSC, making the war a legally declared defensive war. Which is why there is no UNSC resolution condemning it.
Meanwhile Israel continues to this day to take more and more territory. Ignore more and more UNSC resolutions. The “Palestine question” is when will they stop and what can be done about it!
First, find out what isn't true... 
“What actual Sovereign Israeli territory did they attack?”
Jordanian forces did not attack any Israeli territory: their objective was to incorporate into Jordan the area of the Arab State as specified in the Partition Plan.
Syrian artillery shelled Jewish settlements in Israeli territory across the border. Egyptian air-force planes raided Tel Aviv and southern Jewish settlements. Iraqi air-force planes raided Jewish settlements in the Jordan valley.
One Egyptian column crossed Israeli territory in the Negeb into Arab territory in central Palestine.
Syrian forces crossed Israeli north-eastern Galilee into Arab north-western Galilee. Syrian forces occupied a small piece of Israeli sovereign territory to the south-east of Lake Tiberias and held it until Israeli sovereignty was restored in 1967. (This is the al-Himmah area mentioned in Article 24 of the PLO Charter of 1964).
Arab forces had a right to enter Israeli territory to protect the Arab population, and hold it under military occupation if necessary. Israeli forces had a right to enter Arab territory to protect the Jewish population, and hold it under military occupation if necessary.
Israel did not have the right to incorporate captured territory into the State of Israel, and this proved this was an aggressive war of expansion on its part.
If the purpose of your question is to suggest that the Arabs were respecting Israeli sovereignty, then I disagree. They did not do that until 1988. I believe that if they had been able to reach Tel Aviv, bring down the Israeli government and re-unite Palestine, they would have done so.
“Why is there no UNSC resolution condemning the attack?”
The Security Council met on 15 May 1948 and had before it documents from both sides complaining of aggression and atrocities by the other. On 22 May they passed Resolution 49 calling for a cease-fire.
Comment by walktallhangloose — July 28, 2014 @ 1:30 pm
@ walktallhangloose
At precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) when Israel’s declaration came into effect there were Jewish military forces in territory outside the State of Israel. The war immediately changed from being a civil war in Palestine to being a war waged by the State of Israel in and on what remained of Palestine.
The Laws of War only come into effect once war has been started. Only then are incursions by either side on either side permissible. Only then may territory be gained for strategic purposes (only). Specific dates and times after 00:01 May 15th 1948 are necessary to determine who was taking what are considered defensive measures.
UNSC Resolution 49 called for a cease-fire it did not condemn any Arab state for any attack on Israeli territory as Israel had already started the war before the Arab states became involved.
It should also be noted that UN/UNSC resolutions cannot directly censure non-Member states and Israel is not named in any UNSC resolution until after it became a UN Member state. In order for territory captured by Israel in 1948/50 to legally become Israeli, it must still be legally annexed by agreement with the legitimate citizens of that territory sans all Israeli citizens. This has never happened. No country has ever recognized any territory as Israeli other than that of UNGA res 181, per Israel’s plea for recognition (ibid).
If Israel attempts to unilaterally annex the territories it captured by war in 1948/50, the UNSC will be obliged to condemn Israel as a UN Member state. Israel has never been bale to afford to adhere to the Law and UN Charter and pay rightful reparations while attempting to resettle its citizens back in Israeli territory, it would be sent bankrupt!
The only legal avenue open to Israel is to force Palestine to cede those territories, other territories captured in ’67 and territories illegally acquired since, in an agreement.
Instead of Israel using the opportunity US UNSC veto vote affords to get out of it’s illegal facts on the ground quagmire, the Jewish state has chosen to build more illegal settlements. Used this way, the US UNSC veto vote has merely allowed the frog to stay in the pot.
Comment by talknic — July 30, 2014 @ 4:21 am
I agree with everything you say, except the second sentence. I made the point that since there had been a breakdown of law and order in Palestine, Israeli forces did have a right to enter Palestine to protect Jews from Arab attack, and such entry did not necessarily constitute ‘waging war on Palestine’. It was only when the Provisional Government decided to apply Israel law in captured territory that the war incontrovertibly became an aggressive war of expansion on Israel’s part. Arab forces had a similar right to enter Israel to protect Arab citizens, but since their actual battle plan is unknown (as far as I am aware) it is not possible to say that the intention of the war was NOT to ‘strangle the infant state at birth’. My view is, that since they claimed that at the expiry of the Mandate Palestine automatically became an independent state, and that the Zionists were a rebellious minority within that state, they most likely did intend to carry out that strangulation, if they could.
Comment by walktallhangloose — July 30, 2014 @ 9:51 am
Thanks for posting. I’m even grateful for all the comments and your logical responses.
Comment by olaf — July 28, 2014 @ 6:54 am
I hear so much negative remarks online about the Jews in Israel mistreat
Christians! Is this true and if it is, I also heard it’s a certain religious sect that is responsible!
Comment by Prairie Dog — January 19, 2014 @ 3:20 am
Non-Jews in general, be they Christian, Muslim, Druze, atheists or whatever have been dispossessed, subjected to all manner of vile and illegal treatment over the years. The Zionist colonizers don’t care, even other Jews who get in the way are expendable.
Comment by talknic — January 21, 2014 @ 1:02 am
For example????
Comment by Anonymous — April 9, 2015 @ 11:21 pm
For example any Jew who dares counter their bullsh*te is ostracized and/or labeled as “self hating” and/or antisemitic and/or denied entry to Israel , despite Israel being the Jewish state, despite their being undeniably Jewish.
17 Jews were slaughtered in the terrorist bombing of the King David Hotel. That warning was given doesn’t compute either way. A) The alleged warning would have allowed their British targets to escape. B) If a warning was indeed given, they waited some 22 minutes during which time no-one left the building, so they bombed it anyway, slaughtering their Jewish fellows who they must have known were working there.
The sinking of the Patria. Again the rhetoric doesn’t compute. A) It was not necessary to use a larger amount of explosives after the first failed. All that was required was for the device to work. B) One puts an explosive device beneath the waterline next to a ships hull to sink it, not disable it. A small explosive device by the rudder or in the engine room or any other of a number of places is all that’s necessary to disable a ship. C) the Haganah, investigating themselves, blamed a weak structure. Bullsh*t! Below the water line there are tons of water pressure working against an outwards explosion. Yet they managed to blow out a six square meter hole in the steel hull of an 11,885 GRT trans Atlantic ocean liner, from the inside, against the water pressure!
Comment by talknic — April 10, 2015 @ 7:32 pm
[…] something was amiss in the rhetoric I’d been led to believe. Even the Arab League Declaration contradicted what I’d been […]
Pingback by Israel was attacked by five Arab States in 1948. What actual Sovereign Israeli territory did they attack? – Debunking Israel — October 31, 2011 @ 3:46 am
I love you!
Comment by sabahsyria — October 28, 2011 @ 8:24 pm
Gawks…
Please feel free to use any content from my site
If you’d like to start a legal section on your site I’d be glad to help
Like y’r little graphics BTW
Comment by talknic — October 29, 2011 @ 4:31 am
Hey thanks a lot, I didn’t realize that the comments needed to be approved sorry about that, I think I fixed it. I loved your comments, are you a lawyer? What do you mean by a legal section? I posted this article if that was ok, I linked it back to here though so you’ll get the SEO.
Comment by sabahsyria — October 31, 2011 @ 7:21 am
Hi again. Long time getting to answer … apologies
Thanks for accreditation on your site.
Nope not a lawyer. Have studied the law though, especially on this issue.
A legal section…. There is the narrative of both sides to the issue, filled with emotion, hearsay, propaganda and there is the chronological legal documentation.
The legal documentation is as it says, verbatim, written meticulously. The narrative on the other hand, is mostly irrelevant twaddle, attempting to justify Israel not abiding by the law, protected only by the US veto vote in the UNSC.
knowledge of the basic legalities is essential to understanding the issue.
Comment by talknic — February 18, 2012 @ 3:41 pm
Israel used the UN only 181 as the legal basis for the Declaration of Independence inside the mandate border.
By the way, so have the UN 181 three solutions.
Geographical Palestine or the fictive entity state of Palestine?
Learn yourself.
Talknic, you read UN documents as the devil reads the Bible.
Comment by Terry — December 14, 2010 @ 3:40 am
“Israel used the UN only 181 as the legal basis for the Declaration of Independence inside the mandate border”
Uh? Care to re-write explaining what you mean.. The Jewish People’s Council accepted UNGA Res 181 and the boundaries it recommended, without reservations.
May 22 1948 The reply of the Provisional Government of Israel (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.
Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947?
“In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel…”
Whatever balloon you’re blowing, is full of hot air. Sorry to prick it.
“Geographical Palestine or the fictive entity state of Palestine?”
UNSC Res 1860…
“Talknic, you read UN documents as the devil reads the Bible”
They’re cited VERBATIM and what they ACTUALLY say is examined in detail. That is how they’re written. So save your idiotic comments. thx
Doggedly justifying and denial instead of learning is essential to propaganda for useful idiots. You’re doing a great job.
Comment by talknic — December 14, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
The British Mandate of Palestine was terminated May 15. 1948, so there can’t be an Arab part, especially since the Arabs and the Security Council rejected the partition plan. Any offer had to accept before May 15. 1948. The partition plan (UN 181) was never put into power.
There was no “Palestine” after May 15. 1948.
Comment by Terry — December 13, 2010 @ 11:11 pm
“The British Mandate of Palestine was terminated May 15. 1948, so there can’t be an Arab part”
Uh? Care to explain…
Israel was recognized by the boundaries recommended by in UNGA Res 181, which Israel accepted… without reservation! What was not declared as sovereign to Israel, was and still is not Israeli. Israel has never legally annexed any territory and it is inadmissible to ‘acquire’ territory by war, ANY war.
” especially since the Arabs and the Security Council rejected the partition plan”
Irrelevant. It was non binding. An entity cannot depend on another entity to become independent. Look up the word independent. UNGA Res 181 HAD TO BE no-binding. No one can force an entity to be independent. It goes against the very nature of independence.
Israel declared unilaterally. It defined itself by accepting UNGA res 181 without reservation. There was no article requiring a co-signature. It would have been against the principles of independence and self determination. Israel was recognized by the majority of the International Community of Nations, over riding any objections. Proof? Israel is recognized as an Independent Sovereign State, a Member of the UN, bound by the UN Charter in it’s entirety
” Any offer had to accept before May 15. 1948″
Odd. UNGA Res has a different date http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm.
“The partition plan (UN 181) was never put into power”
Israel Declared Independent Sovereignty under UNGA Res 181 and enshrined it in it’s declaration. Best get it removed.
“There was no “Palestine” after May 15. 1948.”
The UNSC disagrees. UNSC Res 1860 of 2009 for example. In fact HUNDREDS of UNSC Resolutions mention PALESTINE
Try something else… like LEARNING.
Comment by talknic — December 14, 2010 @ 12:44 am
I’m surprised of the amount of bullshit’s coming from you, Talknic.
Comment by Terry — December 13, 2010 @ 9:16 pm
I’m surprised you didn’t refute anything. Should be easy. No?
Go ahead.
Comment by talknic — December 13, 2010 @ 10:11 pm
One hint: Terra nulla
Comment by kan — December 13, 2010 @ 8:05 pm
A hint for what? That you’re blabbering incoherently?
If it was ‘terra nulla’ (terra nullius), who were the Zionist colonizers fighting from the 1920’s till the present? Themselves? AMAZING!!!
Jewish folk bought land from no-one? INCREDIBLE!!
The League of Nations and the UN had no idea there was no one there? WOW!!
The Jewish People’s Council didn’t know WTF they were talking about? UNBELIEVABLE
“WE APPEAL – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions”
LOL. You must be quite …. how can I put this politely……..%^&*ing STUPID!
Comment by talknic — December 13, 2010 @ 9:04 pm
Sorry,You’re full of twaddle…
you twisting documents to fit the so-called Palestinians.
Read the document more objectively.
“resolutions say it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war” After 12. aug. 1949 not before
Comment by kan — December 13, 2010 @ 7:46 pm
Strange the documents are cited VERBATIM. Perhaps you could explain your bizarre theory..
“resolutions say it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war” After 12. aug. 1949 not before”
Its from the UN Charter. Israel obliged itself to the UN Charter May 14th 1948. Read the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel.
Comment by talknic — December 13, 2010 @ 7:52 pm
The British mandate of Palestine (Palestine) was set up for the Jews should have a homeland. In 1947 the UN proposed dividing West-Palestine in an Arab state and a Jewish state to end the civil war. The Arabs rejected this offer. 14. May 1948 Jews declared an independent state and changed the name from Palestine to Israel. Until this day there has not been established any Arab state in the area of Western Palestine. East-Palestine is (Trans)Jordan
The proposed Arab state was divided between Israel Egypt and Transjordan. All the land Israel won in the Arab – Israeli War is recognized as an Israeli. All land Transjordan won in the war was recognized as Jordan’s UN res. 228 “Having heard the statements of the Representatives of Jordan and Israel Concerning the Israel military action undermine Which overtook place in the southern Hebron area Wed, November 13th, 1966,”
(…)
“Observing That this incident constituted a large-scale and care fully Planned military action on the territory of Jordan by the armed forces of Israel,”
Jordan is the union of Transjordan and West bank. All became Jordanian citizen.
The Arabs who live in these areas that should have been a part of the proposed Arab state and became Israel’s, is now Israeli citizens and are not interested in switching. The population and UN has recognized the Israeli takeover.
Comment by kan — December 13, 2010 @ 6:48 pm
“The British mandate of Palestine (Palestine) was set up for the Jews should have a homeland”
Read the mandate. It was to be called Palestine. Jewish folk were to be assisted in obtaining Palestinian citizenship.
” In 1947 the UN proposed dividing West-Palestine…”
Odd. Jordan was declared independent of the non-state entity of Palestine in 1946. By 1947, it was not a part of Palestine. Not a part of partition, already independent..
“The Arabs rejected this offer”
Yes. A) it was non-binding B) it contravened the UN Charter of self determination. C) Jewish forces were already in territory slated for the new Arab State. D) The Palestinians could not have declared independence even if they wanted to. Like the British occupation had to end in order for Israel’s declaration to come into effect, Israel must withdraw from Palestine BEFORE any declaration of Independence by the Palestinians will come into effect. Look up the word independence.
“14. May 1948 Jews declared an independent state and changed the name from Palestine to Israel.”
Israel called the extent of it’s sovereignty the State of Israel. What remained of Palestine is still called Palestine. It’s name has not changed in some 2,000 years, despite the fact that it has diminished in area.
“Until this day there has not been established any Arab state in the area of Western Palestine.”
Start with ‘West Palestine’ straw, end with…..er…straw.
There is no obligation on non-state entities to declare independence, it would go against the very notion of independence. Nor can they if any of their rightful territories are under the control of another entity. The Palestinians have never actually had an opportunity to miss. Some or all of it’s territories have always been under the control of another entity. For 62 years Israel has prevented a Palestinian state being effectively declared, by being in control of Palestinian territories.
“East-Palestine is (Trans)Jordan”
See above and stop posting bullsh*t
“The proposed Arab state was divided between Israel Egypt and Transjordan.”
Odd. Israel agreed that Gaza and what became the West Bank would be OCCUPIED by Egypt and TransJordan. Read the Armistice AGREEMENTS.
” All the land Israel won in the Arab – Israeli War is recognized as an Israeli.”
Recognized by who? Why do the UNSC resolutions say it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war? The British didn’t recognize it. The UN REFUSED to recognize it.
” All land Transjordan won in the war was recognized as Jordan’s UN res. 228″
Strange. UNSC Res 228 says nothing about it. It was not permanently annexed to Jordan. Jordan occupied and annexed as a temporary trustee per the UN Charter Chapter XI. You might also read the Israeli/ Jordanian Peace Agreement. Israel is solely responsible for the West Bank as the Occupying Power.
“The Arabs who live in these areas that should have been a part of the proposed Arab state and became Israel’s”
LOL you’re very funny.. On what date was it LEGALLY annexed to Israel? Under which agreement. Who signed the agreement on behalf of the territory being annexed?
“The population and UN has recognized the Israeli takeover”
The UN? Under which resolution..it isn’t UNSC Res 228 BTW.
You’re full of twaddle…
Comment by talknic — December 13, 2010 @ 6:53 pm
That’s why all the talk about the 1967 borders (1949 armetice line), that are not the Jure border, but more a de facto border.
Comment by kan — December 13, 2010 @ 7:20 pm
“That’s why all the talk about the 1967 borders (1949 armetice line), that are not the Jure border, but more a de facto border.”
de jure = legal. If it ain’t a de jure border, it ain’t a legal border. Israel’s actual borders have not changed since the day they were declared. Israel has never legally annexed ANY territory. It is inadmissible to ‘acquire’ territory by war. ANY war.
Go peddle your stupid bullsh*t somewhere else. Maybe a pre-school. They’ll believe you. (If you’re lucky)
Comment by talknic — December 13, 2010 @ 7:41 pm
Palestine is Israel
Comment by kan — December 13, 2010 @ 6:15 pm
That’s odd kan. Israel was declared independent of the non-state entity of Palestine May 14th 1948. Care to explain your bizarre theory?
Comment by talknic — December 13, 2010 @ 6:51 pm
Correction: Palestine (working title) became Israel. Today Jordan is Palestine.
Comment by kan — December 13, 2010 @ 7:38 pm
Bull.
Comment by talknic — December 13, 2010 @ 7:43 pm
And in 135 CE the Roman emperor Hadrian changed the name Judea to syria palestina (Greek for philistine), in order to try to wipe out the Jewish presence in Judea after the embarrassing ass kicking the Romans were receiving in the bar kokhba revolt, that the Romans finally won. And Israel was changed to Judea when the kingdom of Israel split during the 9th century BCE. And before the ancient Israelites moved into Israel, the area was known as Canaan. And today, it’s Israel again.
Never was there an officially declared state of palestine. Never were the people living there ever called palestinians except when the Jews were called palestinians by the British when the British were running things. The arabs living in Israel/palestine during the British rule were referred to as syrians. It wasn’t until yassar arafat the terrorist thought up the palestinian arabs in 1948 to start his lying propaganda war against Israel that anyone heard of a people known as palestinians. Other wise the majority of the arabs who became refugees were illegal immigrants who stole into Israel from the surrounding arab countries during the British rule. The land was bought legally from absent turkish landlords by Jews as testified by the mufti of Jerusalem and in 1948.
Doesn’t matter whether you and your haters recognize it or not, the UN does and many countries do, so deal with it punk. Am Yisrael Chai!
Comment by Anonymous — February 12, 2012 @ 8:55 pm
CORRECTION – It wasn’t until yassar arafat the terrorist thought up the palestinian arabs in 1948. It wasn’t 1948, it was 967 that arafat thought up the palestinian people as it is witnessed by Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist that acknowledged the lie:
“Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”
“We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians – they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag”.
“When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out”.
Comment by Amaris — February 12, 2012 @ 9:05 pm
LOL another one spouting bullsh*te
“Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”
Simple, by AGREEMENT between Israel and Jordan the West Bank was no longer under Jordanian control, nor was it sovereign to Israel. The official citizens of the territory reverted to being Palestinian, as they were for the 2,000 years or so from the Roman era til 1950.
Comment by talknic — February 18, 2012 @ 1:26 pm
That is incorrect. Sorry to be late to the party but i have to address this. First off the Jordanian occupation(in it was an occupation) was never recognized either by the un,british or the Arab league. Palestinians never existed, it was not a designation of citizenship,ethnic back ground or nationality. Which is why they’re currently considered stateless entities.
Comment by Talkb.s — July 12, 2014 @ 9:36 pm
“First off the Jordanian occupation(in it was an occupation) was never recognized either by the un,british or the Arab league”
Uh huh. Problem with your bullsh*t is the fact that Israel co-signed the Armistice Agreement! An Armistice Agreement is a contract between the warring parties. AN Armistice Agreement doesn’t need the recognition of any other parties.
“Palestinians never existed, it was not a designation of citizenship,ethnic back ground or nationality. Which is why they’re currently considered stateless entities.”
Strange all legitimate citizens of Palestine, even Jewish folk, had “Palestinian” citizenship under Article 7 of the LoN Mandate FOR Palestine. You can see this reflected in the passports of the time, where it says National status “Palestinian”
” Which is why they’re currently considered stateless entities.”
Nonsense. Only dispossessed refugees who had a right to Israeli citizenship in 1948 are stateless because Israel refuses to recognize their right to return.
For the remainder there is the State of Palestine as recognized by the majority of the world. Unfortunately “Israel, the Occupying Power” refuses to allow Palestinian refugees even to Palestinian territory.
Come back when you have something other than ziopoop pal!
Comment by talknic — July 13, 2014 @ 1:49 am
LOL. ‘punk’ Wow you must be so tough….
You’ve brought nothing of substance to the discussion, just the usual, ignorant, nonsense justifications for illegally acquiring Palestinian territory.
The lack of upper casing for certain proper nouns/names gives you away as just another vile little hate filled bigot. You must be very proud. Take much practice to be so meticulous?
Your waffle on the existence of Palestine and Palestinians is refuted by the Balfour Declaration, the LON Mandate for Palestine and by the Israeli Government web site. The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel FIRST LINE “On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over Palestine expired, “, (I guess you’ve never read it) and numerous maps in the the Jewish National and University Library, show you’re just another idiot for a Greater Israel
Conflating the ‘territory’ of states with ‘real estate’ is also a cute bit of Hasbara bullsh*te. Japanese companies and individuals own land (real estate) in Australia. It ISN’T however Japanese territory. Some ‘Real Estate’ was bought by Jewish folk and by Jewish Institutions pre-1948. However, ‘Real Estate’ is not ‘territory’. The tiny amount of Real Estate bought pre- May 15th 1948 is dwarfed by the ‘territory’ we were granted, completely gratis, for the Jewish Homeland state, for which Israel paid not one penny. Nothing. Nil.
BTW this alleged hatred. Care to point it out….thx…
Comment by talknic — February 18, 2012 @ 1:14 pm
Strange…. Jordan was declared independent of Palestine in 1946, BEFORE the 1947 partition plan accepted by the Jewish People’s Council in 1948 ( without reservation BTW), when Israel was also declared independent of Palestine. What remains of Palestine today is still Palestine, as it has been since the Roman era. It’s never been officially renamed.
BTW Only the folk who lived in the area that became Jordan in 1946 had automatic right to Jordanian citizenship. Those folk in what remained of Palestine between 1946 and 1948, didn’t become Jordanian citizens. They, Jews and non-Jews alike, were all Palestinian citizens until Israel was declared.
Only a part of Palestine became Israel. It was recognized as it asked to be recognized “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947”. No more, no less. It’s in the article. You did look? Yes? Probably too much to ask. You’re too busy pushing your pathetic little Hasbarrow
Nothing outside those frontiers has ever been legally annexed to Israel or officially recognized as Israeli territory. 30% of what Israel claims as it’s own, ain’t. Hundreds of thousands of Israeli’s actually live in Palestine, outside of the Sovereign territory of the State of Israel.
Comment by talknic — February 18, 2012 @ 2:50 pm
God… the level of stupid in one random blog. Ok please.. please reference where this magical Palestinian citizenship derives from? Btw israel annexed the golan heights when it declared israeli law applying to it. So yes israel has annexed territory outside of the actual mandate which btw israel did not declare it’s borders on. In no you qoute things but then completely ignore what they state. The british mandate “expired” at that moment any territory recognized as apart of the british mandate ceased to exist. What remains now is israel and jordan. God the fallacies that come about from a lack of brain processing.
Comment by Talkb.s — July 12, 2014 @ 9:47 pm
“God… the level of stupid in one random blog. “
Yet you fail to disprove anything! AMAZING! Bravo!
” please reference where this magical Palestinian citizenship derives from?”
1922 – 1948 under the LoN Mandate for Palestine Article 7
1948 – present under Palestinian law
“Btw israel annexed the golan heights when it declared israeli law applying to it”
UNSC Res 497 tells us you’re spouting bullsh*t ! and the bill to annexation the Golan was defeated in the Knesset March 11th 1981! Why are you so mindlessly ignorant?
“So yes israel has annexed territory outside of the actual mandate” By agreement with who? Date? Signatories? Unilateral annexation is not legal under International Law
“btw israel did not declare it’s borders on. In no you qoute things but then completely ignore what they state.”
Your idiotic denial ain’t my problem pal May 15, 1948
Next time bring something other than your fat factless wailgob to the table …..thx
Comment by talknic — July 13, 2014 @ 2:10 am
Hi Talknic
Thank you for your response. I’m still stuck on the issue of the territories Israel acquired during the 48 war that you say have never been legally annexed. I’ve been reading a lot about the conflict for the last six years or so and I’ve never come across someone who claims this. Therefore I meet your claim with a healthy portion of scepticism which of course doesn’t mean that I know you are wrong. Now I’m not an expert in law at all and I just recently bumped into your blog and it’s hard for me to just believe the words of someone of whom I know not more than a simple nickname. You put forward all kinds of documents that may prove your point but I’m in no position to know if there are others that prove the opposite. You know yourself that there’s an awful lot of stuff written about the conflict by experts or wannabes. Therefore I want to ask you politely if you can point to other (real-life) people or institutions who support the claims you make about that (missing) annexation. Of course I do wonder very much who is behind that nickname but I guess you chose to be anonymous for good reasons. Have you ever considered to unmask yourself or at least give away some information about your person?
In the meantime I just stumbled onto a quote in wikipedia about the borders of Israel:
“The internationally recognized border between Egypt and Israel was eventually demarcated as part of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. The border between Israel and Jordan (except for Jordan’s border with the post-1967 West Bank) was demarcated as part of the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty.”
Are they internationally recognized or not?
Did those peace-treaties in any way contribute to the legality of Israel’s full territory (incl. what they conquered in 48)?
Thanx in advance for your response
Nilus
Comment by Nilus — November 27, 2010 @ 5:04 pm
Hi Nilus,
Good questions…
One should always keep in mind that Israel was declared independent of Palestine May 14th 1948. It is crucial to understanding the UN/UNSC Resolutions, ceasefire/armistice/peace agreements. As of the 14th May 1948, when a UNSC Resolution says Palestine, they mean what remained of non-state entity of Palestine post May 14th 1948.
Support – The actual UN/UNSC documents. – verbatim
UNSC resolutions, ceasefire, armistice and peace agreements are crafted in minute detail. In respect to the I/P conflict and the specific non-state territories, they say ‘peace in Palestine’ and/or ‘the question of Palestine’. In UNSC documents covering the wider conflict between states and their sovereign territories, it says ‘peace in the Middle East’.
If the non-state territories were legally annexed to Israeli sovereignty, the resolutions would naturally say ‘in Israel’ where it applied to those specific territories. They don’t. They say ‘in Palestine’.
Legal annexation without International documentation is simply unheard of. If such an agreement and/or documentation existed, Israel would wave it about incessantly in order to conclusively prove it’s claims. It doesn’t because it’s rather hard to wave something that simply doesn’t exist.
Waved about instead, are ‘explanations’ in the way of opinions, ranging from it was already Sovereign to Israel, Israel has no defined borders, the armistice changed the borders, to all manner of legalese waffle….but no documentation of any legal annexation under International Law.
Was it sovereign to Israel? The Israeli Provisional Government’s announcement of Declaration to the International Community of Nations 14th May 1948 and Hansard 27 April 1950 The British recognition, both show it was NOT;
Israel’s proposal of Aug 1949, shows it was NOT;
To the North, with Lebanon Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949 “Article V 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine.” shows it was NOT;
Ditto all the other ceasefire & armistice agreements.
—————-
I used to write sans pseudonym, mainly letters to newspapers, nothing as extensive as this. It resulted in graffiti on my walls, over the top spam, postal mail warning not to sit near a specific window, which was later broken….quite a worry. I’m of no importance, the information is. (so are my home and sitting near a window :-)
———–
Incorrect (Wiki is slowly being Ziofied) – Egypt’s border was recognized as demarcated per the former mandated territory of Palestine. In fact it is reiterated in the treaty itself .. Peace Treaty Articles I & II
The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel i(s) the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.”
The peace treaty is only about the borders between Israel and Egypt. It is not about the borders between Egypt and the non-state entity of Palestine or the borders between Israel and the non-state entity of Palestine. That would require separate peace agreements with the non-state entity or eventual state of Palestine.
More Ziofication. It was not ‘demarcated’. It was “delimited” and it only refers to the border between Israel and Jordan, not the border between Israel and Palestine. Again, this would require a peace agreement with the non-state entity or eventual state of Palestine.
Jordan’s borders were also recognized as demarcated per the former mandated territory of Palestine
ARTICLE 3 – INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY
1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.
Only sovereign territories are recognized. Only declared and/or legally annexed territories are sovereign.
The status of territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967, like those coming under the control of Israel by 1949/50, have not legally changed.
Israel’s attempts to annex without agreement, have been condemned by UNSC Res 1860 Recalling all of its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003) and 1850 (2008) —- UNSC Resolution 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 UNSC Resolution 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969 UNSC Resolution 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, UNSC Resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, UNSC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, UNSC Resolution 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980.
Hope this helps.
Comment by talknic — November 28, 2010 @ 10:27 am
If the non-state territories were legally annexed to Israeli sovereignty, the resolutions would naturally say ‘in Israel’ where it applied to those specific territories. They don’t. They say ‘in Palestine’.” Jesus they say in palestine due to the fact they were referring to not only israel but the entire territory in which the conflict was taking place. Referring to conflict only in Israel would make no since because at the time the west bank and Gaza including parts of east Jerusalem would have been under the Arab leagues military forces also outside of israel. Anyway if you’re trying to make a claim that israel was not invaded which i believe in your deluded a ha moment you’re attempting then look closer to what occurred in the 48 war the arab league pushed further into the state of israel then just the west bank/gaza which at the time were not apart of israel.
Comment by Talk.nic=dumbass — July 12, 2014 @ 9:56 pm
“If the non-state territories were legally annexed to Israeli sovereignty”
They weren’t The annexation of East Jerusalem was declared illegal by 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 ….
“the resolutions would naturally say ‘in Israel’ where it applied to those specific territories. They don’t. They say ‘in Palestine’.
Correct. They don’t. They say “in Palestine”
“Jesus they say in palestine due to the fact they were referring to not only israel but the entire territory in which the conflict was taking place”
Strange … The Israeli Govt recognized two distinct areas May 22nd 1948 in its statement to the UNSC. It acknowledged territories “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”
” Anyway if you’re trying to make a claim that israel was not invaded”
The Israeli Government says the Arab States invaded “Palestine”and;
there are exactly no UNSC resolutions condemning any Arab state for invading Israel!
Furthermore if as you say Israel didn’t declare any borders, how would anyone know what part of Israel was being invaded? That is why International Law says “ARTICLE 1 The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: …. b ) a defined territory” and that is why the Israeli Government proclaimed Israel ” as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″
Like all idiots for Israeli expansionism, you’re full of bullsh*t!
Comment by talknic — July 13, 2014 @ 2:25 am
Dear talknic
I must say, compliments for the hard work that has gone into this site. There’s really quite a few very interesting and challenging revelations to find here, some of which sound almost impossible to be true at the first glance.
Reading for example that no sovereign Israeli territory was attacked by the Arab states in ’48 leaves me with some question-marks. I completely get the point in the case of Ashdod Egypt didn’t go into sovereign Israeli territory. Because of the Weizman/Abdallah-agreement the Iraqis and Jordanians anyway didn’t do much. But for the Egyptians to reach Hebron and Bethlehem they must have somehow crossed sovereign Israeli territory before no? And didn’t the Syrians and the ALA in the north (Tzfat, Hahula, Kinneret) also penetrate and attack sovereign Israeli territory?
Another question I have concerns the territories Israel acquired during the 1948 war, that you say were never legally annexed. Didn’t the PLO in the Oslo process somehow sign away at these territories and through this make Israeli sovereignty over these areas lawful?
Keep up the good work!
Comment by Nilus — November 25, 2010 @ 10:01 pm
Hi Nilus,
Thanks for the questions…Before we proceed, some important points.
Contrary to the Hasbara, the Arab powers appear to have stuck rigidly to the UN Charter and prior to it, the League of Nations Charter. This is apparent by their early argument on behalf of ALL the citizens of Mandate Palestine, promoting self determination, per the LoN and UN Charters. Although the state they envisaged would have been an Islamic state, it complied with the criteria for Independent Democratic Sovereign Statehood. Their official argument has been based on the law and Charters, not religion.
By 1948, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Iraq were UN Member States. Israel was not, nor was Jordan.
All were bound by the Laws of War, which had at that time been ratified by the majority of the International Community of Nations, making them customary International Law. None were bound by the GC’s til 1950.
The UN Member States were bound by the UN Charter, as was Israel, having declared it would adhere to the UN Charter. Jordan was not bound by the UN Charter.
Israel was no longer a part of Palestine. Only what remained of the non-state entity of Palestine, was Palestine
The Arab Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine was accepted without condemnation by the UNSC. (as a point of interest, it appears to have been the last legal Declaration of War by any nation)
On careful reading, the Declaration does not contain any threats to Israeli Sovereignty. It outlines the legal basis for the invasion of the non-state entity of Palestine. (It also reflects the LoN Mandate for Palestine in many respects)
Iraqi forces engaged on behalf of Jordan. This also appears to be in order to comply with the UN Charter. Jordan was a regional Power bet not a UN Member. Iraq was a UN Member & a Regional Power.
The UN Member Arab States also demanded Jordan annex what became the West Bank, as a temporary trustee only… Session: 12-I Date: May 1950 … according to the UN Charter. (Jordan could have permanently annexed the West Bank, legally, at the request of the Palestinians)
To your questions:
Yes. Permissible under the Laws of War once war has been waged. What was a civil war prior to declaration, became an undeclared war, waged by a state, on a non-state entity “.. at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time”, Jewish forces were already outside the extent of Israel’s declared sovereignty.
Let’s use this as a reference map…..http://www.zionism-israel.com/maps/USA_MAP_1948_Arab_attack.jpg
Once a war has been started, enemies have a right to attack ANY armed personnel and/or military or paramilitary installation, even in their enemy’s own territories. Note the dates on the map.
They also have a right to take their enemy’s territory for strategic purposes for the duration of hostilities.
No matter how territory comes into an entity’s hands, it must be legally annexed. See the US annexation of Texas, well put HERE.
There is no record of Israel having ever legally annexed ANY territory in accordance with International Law.
Does this help clarify?
Comment by talknic — November 26, 2010 @ 5:50 am
Hello talknic, A couple of questions. The map shows Syrian and Lebanese attacks on Israel territory in May and June. What was the purpose of these attacks, how far did they penetrate, and were they consistent with the stated aims of establishing law and order in Palestine? The same questions also about the attacks on kibutzim in the Negev, and bombing raids on Tel Aviv, reported in the Wikipedia article ‘1948 Arab Israeli War’.
Also a misleading sentence.’The UN Member Arab States also demanded Jordan annex what became the West Bank, as a temporary trustee only’. Jordan had annexed it unilaterally, and the Arab League objected to this, and insisted on the temporary trusteeship.
Comment by Walk Tall Hang Loose — November 16, 2012 @ 7:56 pm
A) The map is by zionism-israel.com …. a pro Zionist propaganda site. By Wikipedia’s own editorial policies the map should not be used zionism-israel.com cannot be considered a reliable source. However, it seems Wikipedia’s policies are regularly dis-regarded by consensus whenever Israeli propagandists choose. I’ve been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia for trying to uphold Wikipedia editorial policies against consensus by obvious Zionist propagandists active at Wikipedia.
B)Wikipedia is not based on truth. Wikipedia editorial policies allow predominantly second hand opinion which, to avoid copyright issues, is re-written a third time by Wikipedia editors. When it comes to the I/P issue it cannot be trusted as a factual source, it is a mess.
C) ” attacks on Israel territory in May and June” A state of civil war existed in Palestine from around Nov 1947. It was exacerbated and escalated by the launching of Plan Dalet in the weeks preceding Israel’s declaration. The moment the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel came into effect at one minute past midnight Palestine time on May 15th 1948 and Jewish forces remained outside of the territory of the State of Israel, the civil war immediately became a war waged by the State of Israel on whatever remained of the non-self-governing territory of Palestine.
As such, the other Regional Powers had a DUTY under the UN Charter Chapt XI and a right having stated their purpose to the UNSC under Chapt VII, to protect non-self-governing territories from Jewish forces in territories the Israeli Government claimed (on May 22nd 1948) were ” outside the State of Israel” . There are no UNSC resolutions condemning any Arab State for invading Israel.
As in the previous post .. once war was been initiated, the Laws of War apply. Warring parties can attack armed personnel including any armed resistance. They can also attempt to gain strategic position in each others territory and launch armaments and attacks on military objectives in each others territory. Israeli military headquarters were in Tel Aviv. A valid military target. Armed resistance in Kibbutzim are also belligerents, as are armed settlers today.
D) Once hostilities are over, territory gained for strategic position during war, must be either withdrawn from (see the Egypt /Israel Peace Treaty) or legally annexed, by request or a referendum of the legitimate citizens of the territory to be annexed.
Re Jordanian annexation.. It was not unilateral. A Palestinian delegation requested annexation by TransJordan. Unlike the Golan which is sovereign to Syria and condemned by the UNSC, Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank was not condemned by the UNSC because it was A) bilateral (by request of the folk whose territory was being annexed) and; B) at the insistence of the other Arab States, only as a trustee per the UN Charter Chapt XI.
The Jordan/Israel peace treaty and handover of control to Israel and the PLO/PA clarified Jordan’s non-sovereign position over the West Bank. Unlike Israel’s illegal claims, it was never claimed by Jordan as sovereign Jordanian territory.
Comment by talknic — November 17, 2012 @ 7:30 am
Thanks for the response. It is clear that the article was written from a Zionist perspective. What I am trying to understand is this. The Jewish side in this conflict would no doubt say that their forces were outside the borders of Israel because they needed to defend Jewish communities from Arab attack, for example in Jerusalem. This may well be true. But we say they had another agenda, the expansion of Israel, and we know this because that is what they managed to achieve. The Arab side said they were entering Palestine to restore order. But the Declaration says that the intervention would end when an independent Palestine had been achieved. The context strongly suggests they are not talking about the Partition Plan! So it is possible that they had a not-so-hidden agenda of re-uniting Palestine by force – i.e destroying Israel as the Zionists would see it. It is impossible to say for sure, since they lost the war. What I am wondering is whether their actual battle plan throws any light on this? And is there a good independent history of the war?
D. Thanks for mentioning the Palestinian request to Jordan: what is the documentary evidence for this?
Comment by Walk Tall Hang Loose — November 17, 2012 @ 4:46 pm
“The Jewish side in this conflict would no doubt say that their forces were outside the borders of Israel because they needed to defend Jewish communities from Arab attack, for example in Jerusalem”
No doubt, but like all arrogantly stupid Hasbara, it wouldn’t pass scrutiny. If Israeli forces had a right to defend Jewish communities outside of Israel from Arab attack, so too did the Arabs have an equal right to defend Arab communities from Jewish attacks not only in the areas allotted for an Arab State and in the area set aside for corpus separatum (which had/s not yet been separated from what remained of Palestine), but also in Israel. Israel had no more rights under the Law than anyone else.
War is messy and the above is why the Laws of War later reinforced by GC IV, demand the protection of all civilians no matter who is in military control of territory. On the outbreak of war, civilians must be protected on both sides, by both sides. When civilians take up arms, they become belligerents and valid military targets.
The Arabs’ stated intention to the UNSC was an invasion of Palestine, not Israel. The Arab States adhered to the Law, have never been required to withdraw from any Israeli territory. Israel did not adhere to the law, has invaded other folks territory and as we can see from the Israel/Egypt Peace Treaty, is required to withdraw from other folks territory before peaceful relations can be resumed.
BTW the actions of Jewish forces preceding and after declaration went far beyond simply protecting Jewish communities.
” But the Declaration says that the intervention would end when an independent Palestine had been achieved. The context strongly suggests they are not talking about the Partition Plan! “
There is some confusion as to what is Palestine ….The area accepted by the Jewish Agency for the Jewish State was renamed the “State of Israel” on declaration of its independence from Palestine. (It was never British territory, Israel didn’t secede from Britain). What remained of Palestine was not renamed when Israel was declared. An independent state such as Israel cannot be a part of or in a non-self-governing territory such as Palestine. Two separate entities existed from the moment the Declaration of Israel came into effect. The Israeli Government acknowledged this state of affairs May 22nd 1948
From the Arab States declaration
Not ‘was’ but “has become”. By default of A) the end of the Mandate and B) Israel being declared independent of Palestine.
“So it is possible that they had a not-so-hidden agenda of re-uniting Palestine by force – i.e destroying Israel as the Zionists would see it. It is impossible to say for sure”
Look at it logically, if that’s what they wanted to do they’d’ve planned for it well in advance. They didn’t. There was no central war plan by the Arab States.
“…since they lost the war”
The Arab States actually held most of the territory they invaded to protect. How is this a loss?
Palestinian request to Jordan
Comment by talknic — November 18, 2012 @ 7:10 am
So your interpretation of the Arab Declaration is that, in paragraphs 1-9, they use the word Palestine to refer to the whole of Mandatory Palestine; but that in paragraph 10, where they mention the end of the Mandate, the use of the word Palestine switches to mean that part of Palestine outside Israel; that they have implicitly recognized the lawful sovereignty of Israel over its declared territory (presumably on the basis of its recognition by the USA, which I think is the only state to have recognized by May 15th); and that the State of Palestine mentioned in paragraph 10-seventh is to be an independent state, alongside Israel, which they will help establish; and that thereafter the goal of uniting Israel and Palestine is to be pursued by peaceful means.
Yes, I think I agree with you that this must be the correct interpretation: but I wish they had made it clearer.
I am still puzzled by: “the independence of Palestine, which has so far been suppressed by the British Mandate, has become an accomplished fact for the lawful inhabitants of Palestine”. Who are the unlawful inhabitants of Palestine?
‘There was no central war plan by the Arab States.’ How do you know?
Comment by Walk Tall Hang Loose — November 18, 2012 @ 4:37 pm
paragraphs 1-9 “1. Palestine was part of … ” .. thru to 9, are historical.
What remained of the non-self-governing territory of Palestine after Israel declared was not renamed. What else would one call it other than Palestine? The Israeli Govt May 22nd 1948 differentiated between the “State of Israel” and “Palestine”
From the moment Israel became a UN Member State UNSC resolutions name Israel and Palestine, calling for peace in “Palestine”, not Israel.
“… that they have implicitly recognized the lawful sovereignty of Israel over its declared territory… “
Not exactly. The Arab states recognized the existing rule of law. As voiced much later in UNSC Res 242, states were and still are required 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”, but there is no legal obligation on states to recognize each other.
We can see this in the UN where numerous UN Member States do not recognize each other, they are never the less States and UN Members and must respect the rule of law. To recognize or not is a unilateral decision by individual states. It is not by vote amongst the International Community of Nations or by vote at the UN. When a majority of States have recognized a state, it may then be recommended or not for UN Membership by the UNSC, after which an UNGA vote is taken to admit the state as a UN Member… or not.
“that the State of Palestine mentioned in paragraph 10-seventh is to be an independent state, alongside Israel”
Whatever state emerged, it’s irrelevant which other states are alongside as long as there is “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area …etc …” Recognition of Israel is not obligatory
“puzzled by: “the independence of Palestine, which has so far been suppressed by the British Mandate, has become an accomplished fact for the lawful inhabitants of Palestine”. Who are the unlawful inhabitants of Palestine? “
Unlawful inhabitants would have been non-citizens of the territory of Palestine, illegal immigrants et al. Same as anywhere.
The Arab States had 6 months to prepare for and co-ordinate an attempt at destroying the new Jewish state if that’s what they wanted. However, apart from a few cross border skirmishes, they stopped at the borders described in UNGA Res 181.
Comment by talknic — November 21, 2012 @ 7:29 am
hello there,
you are a very brave person. I am surprised you were not shut down and your site was not mirrored to a propaganda site. Even her in my country, Canada which is considered an impartial state to the conflict, you can be prosecuted and maybe shipped out of Canada to the country of origin under the asepsis of “hate speech and anti-Semitism”.
I am not by any means encouraging the exodus of Jews out of Palestine or committing aggression against any one. The fact of history is there were never at any point of history a state of Israel, the Jewish people always lived within and under a rule of some occupier of some sort. Even biblically you can prove that.
However, as time passes, it’s getting more difficult to establish even a thought about a modern day Palestinian state. The Arab league is a completely useless organisation and so are all the so called the leaders of Arab states. They are much occupied with building wealth, expanding the seizure of power and oppressing their own people under the watch of western states who have close ties and common interests with these leaders.
I don’t really know if this conflict will ever be resolved. In the near future “10 – 20 years”, I see the Zionist state taking over the rest of the land “Gaza and the west bank” and maybe expand deep into Syria and revive the dream of reclaiming the Sinai territory.
However it’s comforting to see and hear fair opinion and just comments without prejudice. People all over the world especially politicians, don’t want to touch this hot button even with a 10 foot long pole. And let’s face it as my grandfather use to say “boy, the truth is an ugly woman, until you get to know her closely. Only than you will you will her true beauty.
What I want to say next is, the very name ISRAEL is very suggestive and sounds one sided. I have never had one of Israel’s supporters answer this question for me, Is Judaism a religion or a race. If it’s a religion any one can be a Jew. If it’s a race, the Arabs “and by extension the Palestinians” are the children of the same father Abraham.
The only solution I see as an alternative to this mess is, one state for all namely Palestine “as it was always called before 1948 even in the bible”, freedom and rights for all inhabitants with full RoR to all exiles.
I wish you keep on with your research, you’re doing humanity a great service.
Comment by mohamed — March 26, 2010 @ 2:00 pm
Hi Mohamed,
I’m not concerned about being shut down, there’s no Antisemitism or hatred here. Nor am I particularly brave :-)….just try to present factual information and argument based on factual information, so folk can develop a well informed opinion.
Yes, the situation is messy and not helped by all the bullsh*te being propagated by the supporters of Israel’s expansionist policies.
——
Judaism? Is the religion. One can follow the basic tenets of Judaism and not even believe in a ‘G-/od’, because the basic tenets are just common sense. Same for most religions. One can disregard the rituals and paraphernalia, the buildings, the mantras and still be a person of faith.
I have ‘faith’ the basic tenets will serve me well in life and in conscience. Thus far, they have. It’s a matter of perspective.
The buildings? The essential item in a consecrated Synagogue is the Torah. Take the Torah out of the building and it’s just a building. Same for a church. In Islam folk’re encouraged to learn the Koran, absorb it, it can’t be taken away. It doesn’t have to exist to exist and is indestructible. Even if one adopts another religion or disses religion altogether, it’s still there.
Being Jewish? Born to a Jewish mother and you’re Jewish. One can’t change one’s mother. So if you’re born Jewish, you’re always Jewish, no matter what religion or Nationality. She might be a German Jew or a Japanese Jew or even an Inuit Jew, a convert by marriage.
Where it becomes muddy is when people argue for the illegal acquisition of other folk’s territory. Their motive ISN’T honesty or religion, it’s justification. So they’ll bend and twist and lie and lie and fabricate. Anything to try to convince you. They’re not convincing anyone but themselves. Their fallacies fail on close inspection. They have weaknesses and contradictions because they’re man made.
The truth isn’t ‘made’ by anyone. It simply exists.
I believe the colonization of Palestine is coming to an end, it can’t continue. It’s madness. The US is a UNSC Member State, all it has to do is withdraw the Veto Vote in the UNSC. It has been the only thing allowing Israel to get away with it’s illegal behaviour. One can only hope the insane people running it will not start a regional war.
What the outcome will be is anyone’s guess. One state, two, three? As long as people can live in peace!!
Take care
Comment by talknic — March 28, 2010 @ 2:50 pm
Hi Mohammed,
I came across your old comment and could not help commenting in reply.
To reply to your question Judaism is neither a religion nor a race-but a way of life.True that Jews inherit their religion from their mother,but truer still is the fact that you can adopt the religion by conversion and call yourself Jewish;or even call yourself Jewish without an official conversion.Since there is no single central authority or controlling entity you can declare yourself Jewish, although it is not binding on other Jews to accept you as one of them without a conversion process(that too is rather murky since there is no assurance that the authority that performs your conversion would be universally accepted.)
I call Judaism a way of life because a)there is no bar on any one becoming Jewish regardless of his origins and b) the rituals and traditions associated with the religion often traverses the personal sphere and the compendium of laws on which the Jews base their lives places more emphasis on human interaction as part of a society than on the interaction between the adherent and the deity.
As far as the conjecture of Arabs and by extension being Palestinians having rights to the land due to the sharing the same father figure with the Jews goes-the logic is pretty simplistic.
For one there is a question of legitimacy which we hear all too much these days.The elder son was born to a concubine and if my information is correct -even in Islam- inheritance rights for children born out of wedlock takes a backseat to that of children born out of marriage.
Comment by Dan — October 13, 2010 @ 7:24 pm
Dan
Israel defined itself on May 14th 1948 by the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel “… as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947…” Israel has never legally annexed ANY territories and it is inadmissible to ‘acquire’ territories by war or force.
Territory outside of Israel’s actual sovereign boundaries …. is quite simply NOT Israeli.
Anything prior to May 14th 1948 and who or what constitutes a Jew, Arab or Palestinian is interesting but irrelevant to the situation from the moment Israel was declared and acknowledged by the majority of the International Community of Nations, over riding the Arab States legal objections.
Comment by talknic — October 13, 2010 @ 9:28 pm
(..)and it is inadmissible to ‘acquire’ territories by war or force.”
Only after august 12. 1949 All land won in defensive-war before aug. 12. is for keep.
Comment by kan — December 13, 2010 @ 6:52 pm
” Only after august 12. 1949 All land won in defensive-war before aug. 12. is for keep”
Uh huh. So show me in law where this is written. Meanwhile, the US acquired Texas from Mexico by legal annexation….a century before 1949,. Customary International Law existed long before 1949.
Comment by talknic — February 18, 2012 @ 12:35 pm
That’s fine. :-)
Comment by Anonymous — January 27, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
Hi anonymous (name???)
I’ve purposefully avoided the Finkelsteins, Dershowitz’s and Pappes, preferring to stick with basic source documents. Mention them in some circles and you have to spend time trying justify using them. Likewise with authors of the opposite ilk.
To that end I’ve only briefly read some of their work, always falling back on double checking whatever I could from primary sources. If there isn’t an easily accessed primary source document, I don’t use it.
What I find intriguing, is who owns the publishing rights on some of the books that contain pertinent information, which is not freely available on the internet. For example ‘A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity’. Washington, D.C., Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, 1981. Published by the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown. The Israeli Government cites Lord Caradon in respect to Res 242. Unfortunately what they treat us to, is not all of what he had to say on the matter. What was said at the ellipses…?
It also intrigues me why the the documentation on Camp David is so scant.
Unfortunately the …. ellipses tend to strike on both sides of the fence, even Ilan Pappe’s.
Your citation “Until the British left [May 15, 1948] no Jewish settlement, however remote, was entered or seized by the
Arabs, while the Haganah … captured many Arab positions and liberated Tiberia, and Haifa, Jaffa, and
Safad … So on the day of the destiny, that part of Palestine where Haganah could operate was almost
clear of Arabs”
A fuller citation “We told the Arabs there that they might stay, if they gave up their arms and fought no more. They chose to go, encouraged by the British, who took them away in trucks to Syria. The same thing happened elsewhere. So on the day of the destiny, that part of Palestine where Haganah could operate was almost clear of Arabs”
Folk will argue that the were encouraged to flee by the Arabs and helped by the British, so it isn’t the Jewish Agency or Israel’s fault. However, how and why folk fled the violence is not the issue, the conventions do not discriminate when it comes to civilians. Fact is, Israel has not allowed them to return as per the Conventions.
Comment by talknic — January 27, 2010 @ 10:58 am
BTW, CJ, I thought you might be interested in the following quote.
The following quote was quoted by Ilan Pappe in his book “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” at the End notes #6 of the preface section at page 262-263.
I haven’t checked the primary source which Ilan Pappe cites, that is, Ben-Gurion’s book called “Rebirth and Destiny of Israel” on Page 530.
Anyway, In Ben-Gurion’s book called “Rebirth and Destiny of Israel”, Ben-Gurion writes on his own word:
“Until the British left [May 15, 1948] no Jewish settlement, however remote, was entered or seized by the
Arabs, while the Haganah … captured many Arab positions and liberated Tiberia, and Haifa, Jaffa, and
Safad … So on the day of the destiny, that part of Palestine where Haganah could operate was almost
clear of Arabs”
Comment by Anonymous — January 27, 2010 @ 6:21 am
you know CJ, you are probably one of the most honest individual I have met.
I really appreciate your honesty to search for the truth.
Prof. Ilan Pappe discusses some of the common myths most Israelis believe in. Here is the link:
http://www.labournet.net/world/0209/pappe1.html
you seem very knowledgeable individual but if you haven’t read the book called “Beyond Chutzpah” by Norman Finkelstein then It is highly recommended. In this book Finkelstein refutes Alan Dershowitz’s book, “The Case for Israel”. So, you will probably get a lot of propaganda there. But, I have a feeling that you probably went through that book.
I really admire your effort. Keep it up!
Comment by Anonymous — January 27, 2010 @ 4:46 am
Hi RP,
Thanks for the book recommendation. ..Always open to suggestions. Either argument comes under scrutiny.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24141684/The-Case-for-Palestine-John-Quigley Scroll to Chapter 9
Seems he’s reached a similar conclusion. Slightly different means.
I shan’t cite the book though, I try to adhere to basic legal documents, easily accessible on line & irrefutable, concentrating on the exact words of documents written in an exacting manner.
Can’t help but notice how the question of which actual Israeli Sovereign territories were attacked, goes un-answered on the fora/discussions/CiF. So too asking for a UNSC resolution condemning the Arab Leagues Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine. I’m hated for it.
I always make sure to carry a handkerchief in a face to face discussion. The most seasoned Hasbarbarians start spluttering. Veins pop up and eyes bug out as apoplexy takes over. I’m concerned one day they’ll bring on a hear attack. Although posing a few questions to FM Lieberman’s face would be a treat.
Take care.
Comment by talknic — December 21, 2009 @ 3:46 am
Excellent post. Don’t know if you’ve read it or not, but John Quigley has an excellent analysis of the legalities surrounding the I/P conflict titled ‘The Case For Palestine – An International Law Perspective’. It also touches on the nature of the surrounding Arab nations ‘inavsion’ of Israel in 1948.
Comment by RepublicanStones — December 20, 2009 @ 9:34 am