First, find out what isn't true…

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.


It’s actually quite simple. If it isn’t the “acknowledged” Sovereign Territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel, then it’s a territory of Palestine
.
ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-GO

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.

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
Photos of early Palestine
Show thriving, well ordered rural communities.

(thanks The Angry Arabs)

From Michael: Chairman of the Permanent Mandates Commission in 1937:
For the Mandates Commission, Palestine had never ceased to constitute a separate entity. It was one of those territories which, under the terms of the Covenant, might be regarded as “provisionally independent”. The country was administered under an A mandate by the United Kingdom, subject to certain conditions and particularly to the condition appearing in Article 5: “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be . . . in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power”. [...] Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.” DocumentLink http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/FD05535118AEF0DE052565ED0065DDF7

BTW read
Peres’ ‘making deserts bloom’ at the UN 2010

MORE – Palestine. A country, a state? Mandate period treaty documents between Palestine and Great Britain, Ireland, Iraq, Syria, TransJordan, Turkey, Egypt seem to confirm that it was.

50 Comments »

  1. […] MORE – Palestine. A country, a state? Mandate period treaty documents between Palestine and Great Britain, Ireland, Iraq, Syria, TransJordan, Turkey, Egypt seem to confirm that it was. Source: talknic […]

    Pingback by Palestine pre-1948, before Zionism/Israel | Palestine Falastin فلسطين — August 17, 2014 @ 9:59 pm

  2. I’m curious on what you mean by “Even under it’s own Law of Entry 1948 and still current, Israeli citizens are prohibited from entering a hostile entity.” Could you elaborate?

    And if possible, on the part where you say “GC’s, Laws of War, UN Charter and numerous UNSC resolutions.” also?

    THANKS

    Comment by Anonymous — March 27, 2012 @ 4:37 am


  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina

    Earliest numismatic evidence for the name Syria Palæstina comes from the period of emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.

    Herodotus wrote in c.450 BC in The Histories of a ‘district of Syria, called Palaistinê” (whence Palaestina, whence Palestine).[2][3][4] One important reference refers to the practice of male circumcision associated with the Hebrew people: “the Colchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians, are the only nations who have practised circumcision from the earliest times. The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine themselves confess that they learnt the custom of the Egyptians… Now these are the only nations who use circumcision”[5] In c.340 BC, Aristotle wrote in Meteorology about Palestine in a reference to the Dead Sea: “Again if, as is fabled, there is a lake in Palestine, such that if you bind a man or beast and throw it in it floats and does not sink, this would bear out what we have said. They say that this lake is so bitter and salt that no fish live in it and that if you soak clothes in it and shake them it cleans them.”[6] And in c.40 AD, Roman-Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria wrote of the Jews in Palestine: “Moreover Palestine and Syria too are not barren of exemplary wisdom and virtue, which countries no slight portion of that most populous nation of the Jews inhabits. There is a portion of those people called Essenes”[7]

    Sorry, but there was no “Palestinian” people until 1967.
    Anyway, you are welcome to prove me wrong.

    Comment by Lightbringer — June 13, 2011 @ 1:15 pm


    • “there was no “Palestinian” people until 1967..”

      Er no. That’s about when they decided they’d call their state ‘Palestine’, should it ever come about. Similar to the Jewish Agency only deciding to call the Jewish state ‘Israel’ in May1948.

      “Anyway, you are welcome to prove me wrong”

      If you insist.

      LoN Mandate Article 7 “The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.”

      BTW Palestine was a Class A Provisional State under the mandate. Israel didn’t exist as any kind of state, ever. It was once a kingdom.

      Wikipedia? Sheeeeesh. Here we can use primary sources.

      Comment by talknic — June 13, 2011 @ 7:49 pm


    • Circumcision is an important hygiene practice anywhere that water is short – and in particular where there is a lot of air-borne grit. Carelessness can lead to gangrene. Hence, while I’m no expert, it seems reasonable to suppose that the practice goes back 10,000 years or more.

      Tomb artwork from the Sixth Dynasty (2345–2181 BCE) shows men with circumcised penises, and one relief from this period shows the rite being performed on a standing adult male. The Egyptian hieroglyph for “penis” depicts either a circumcised or an erect organ. The examination of Egyptian mummies has found some with foreskins and others who were circumcised. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

      However, Wikipedia is dreadful for anything to do with the Israel and Islam and it’s not difficult to see why. Almost everyone who has tried to write articles honestly has been banned, the latest shocking example being Nableezy, and he was one of the very few left. Why was he banned? Because he thought that Israeli neighbourhoods that were actually settlements outside the borders of Israel needed to say they were in “East Jerusalem” and he had the support of the (rather few) people who’d come forwards to discuss it. The biased editor AGK banned him anyway.

      Comment by William Smart — June 16, 2011 @ 6:39 pm


      • Hi WIlliam,

        The arid region theory is plausible. However. it doesn’t account for the Chinese who always seem to get left out of the debate for some reason and who have vast arid regions where circumcision is simply not practiced

        It is also possible that there was an STD or fungal infection in a primitive tribe which made itself apparent in the male foreskin as a weeping sore or worse. Primitive belief that the cause was the foreskin. ‘SNIP’. The actual cause, like the restriction on eating shellfish, which very likely came about through someone dying from eating shellfish caught in contaminated waters, long forgotten (likely never even known), replaced by myth.

        Could also have been some whacked out politician on a mountain needed A) an excuse for having cut his willy while tripping and self…. shall we say…. flagellating…. then B) developed his excuse into a nice piece of propaganda to unite his fragmenting tribe by saying G-/od commanded it.

        Whatever the reason, it’s cultish, barbaric, un-necessary except for deformations which might present hardship and alas for those who say it prevents the spread of Aids, uncircumcised males can still catch aids. Benefit is more likely to come from the lecture on STDs grown men receive when they go in for the snip.

        Comment by talknic — June 20, 2011 @ 7:13 am


        • Good thinking, all those points make sense. (Well, except maybe the Chinese one, their clothing or other habits may be different).

          The Wikipedia article on circumcision makes much less sense than you’ve done. Probably because they want it as nonsense as a trap for people who don’t think right. In order they be barred before they can try to put sense elsewhere into articles.

          Comment by William Smart — June 20, 2011 @ 3:23 pm


          • To put it politely …. The content of especially WikI/Pedia is dictated by the consensus of the majority of folk ‘caretaking’ their pet subject.. Twisting policy to suit their needs becomes their forte.

            Comment by talknic — June 20, 2011 @ 4:58 pm


  4. Hi Talknic

    An essay by Alan Hart at http://www.alanhart.net/israel%E2%80%99s-right-or-not-to-exist-the-facts-and-truth/ you might find interesting.

    Hart claims that the insistent Israel demand that Palestinians recognise their “Right to exist” is so desperately important because Israel has no other legitimacy whatsoever! (Of course, this may be an argument you’ve already used elsewhere? If not, might it deserve a new thread?).

    Alan Hart -> … According to history as written by the winner, Zionism, Israel was given its birth certificate and thus legitimacy by the UN Partition Resolution of 29 November 1947. This is propaganda nonsense.

    * In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.

    * Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a proposal – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become policy, unless approved by the Security Council.

    * The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the U.S. knew that, if approved, it could only be implemented by force given the extent of Arab and other Muslim opposition to it; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

    * So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine – after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away, effectively surrendering to Zionist terrorism – was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the U.S. was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence – actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.

    Hart continues -> The truth of the time was that the Zionist state, which came into being mainly as a consequence of pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist UNLESS … Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.

    Hart continues with a second argument that looks watertight to me: “The truth of the time was that the Zionist state, which came into being mainly as a consequence of pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist UNLESS … Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.”

    What do you think, make sense?

    Comment by William Smart — February 13, 2011 @ 1:44 pm


    • In my personal opinion, any desperation on Israel’s part is prompted by Deuteronomy 20:15. The moment Palestine becomes a State, the land grabbing must stop, “according to the prophets of Israel”

      —-

      Hart ………

      The Israeli demand that Palestinians recognize their “Right to exist” is just another roadblock by Israel, attempting to delay Palestinian Statehood. Like the tedious debate over the word ‘the’ in UNSC Res 242. A delaying tactic. As long as the legal football is in the air.

      The majority of states had already recognized Israel ( “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″) by the time it was admitted into the UN. When a convention is ratified by the Majority of the International Community of Nations/States, it passes into Customary International law. Likewise, when the majority recognize a Declaration of Independence, Sovereign Independence becomes irrevocable.

      The Israeli demand is A) Un-necessary to it’s actual existence. B) There is no legal basis for the demand. Numerous UN Member states do not recognize each other, they are never the less, legitimate states. (:-) they must be, to be UN Members :-)

      ” The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the U.S. knew that, if approved, it could only be implemented by force given the extent of Arab and other Muslim opposition to it; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

      Mmm … The UN/Law/UNSC could not demand or force either entity to either accept a resolution on Sovereign Independence nor can/could it demand recognition of the other or any other entity. Recognition is the right of entities, to or not to.

      The formation and recognition of states is not a UN or UNSC function. This is shown in the sequence of events leading to acceptance into the UN.

      1st a state is declared. It is then recognized by the International Community of Nations/States. (They are NOT the UN. Shown by the fact that recognition is also given by entities who are not UN Members).

      The recognized state then applies for UN Membership. It can then be recommended, or not, by the UNSC for acceptance into the UN.

      Until such time as an entity is accepted into the UN, the UNSC cannot directly censure it in a resolution (the football club cannot censure non-members, it can only tell Members how they are obligated to act towards non-Members). This is shown in the lack of direct reference to Israel in UNSC Resolutions UNTIL after Israel was accepted as a member state (despite Israel having obliged itself as of “one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time”., to uphold the principles of the UN Charter as stated in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel )

      Although UNGA Res 181 was in contrast to the UN Charter in respect to self determination, it was a non-binding suggestion, neither legal or illegal, made in order to END hostilities, written according to and reminding the parties of, the Laws governing the Declarations of Sovereign Independence.

      The parties could accept it or not and although it apportioned territory unfairly, the principles of the resolution required the states to respect and afford their minorities equality under democratic State Government. ‘real estate’ was to stay in the hands of the owners of the ‘real estate’ regardless of whose territory the ‘real estate’ was in. There was not meant to be dispossession. Residents were to become citizens of different states, but not forgo any ‘real estate or rights. In that respect it was just.

      They are the condition Israel accepted, without reservation. There is no persistent objection.

      The responsibility was actually in the hands of those who afforded Israel recognition, (the majority of the International Community of Nations/States), to also recognize the notions of self determination inherent in the UN Charter and Customary International Law. They did not.

      Unless their legal stance was that of persistent objection, i.e., non-recognition on legal basis from the outset, as did the Arab States or unless their recognition was officially withdrawn, (as did Iran), it is the responsibility of the International Community who did recognize Israel, to hold Israel to task, according to their official recognitions according to the exact dates they were made.

      For example: Britain registered persistent objection by not recognizing as Israeli the territories Israel had acquired by war by the time British recognition was afforded. They waited until they had a very clear picture of Israel’s understanding of the actual legal status of it’s Sovereign territories before recognition. 27 April 1950. This was after Israel’s statements to the UNSC May 22nd 1948 and 15th June 1949 and acceptance into the UN and Israel’s first claim to territory outside it’s borders on 31st August 1949

      The British considered those territories controlled by war outside of Israel, as occupied.

      Not all states were as meticulous in the wording of their recognitions as the British, however they all recognized Israel on the basis of the statement released by the Israeli Government announcing the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″

      In respect to the formation of states, the UNSC can only A) recommend already existing states for acceptance into the UN AFTER they have become states and apply to become UN Members. B) provide a UNSC Peace Keeping force IN the State being declared. (see East Timor)

      The implications of such a force IN Israel would have made it impossible for Israel to justify having forces OUTSIDE of Israel.

      But look at the Hasbara. It goes like this “No one came to help Israel in the War of Independence. The UNSC did nothing!!”

      Of course the UNSC did nothing, and Israel didn’t actually ask them to. It would have immediately curtailed their actions. Israeli/Jewish military forces were beyond it’s declared boundaries already and the Arab States Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine had already been accepted by the UNSC, without condemnation. The Arab Regional Powers had meticulously taken up the options allowed them in the UN Charter Chapt XI in order to protect the territories they represented.

      They were all A) Independent Sovereign States. B) Except for Jordan, they were UN Member States. C) Jordan, though not a UN Member state, was a Regional Power, to this end D) Iraqi forces were deployed in Palestinian territories, under Jordanian command. A legitimate alliance under the UN Charter. E) The Arab States lodged a legitimate Declaration of War, informing the UNSC as required, of the legal basis under which they were undertaking military action. As far as I can ascertain, it was the last legitimate Declaration of War ever lodged with the UNSC.

      Look at the sequence of events and Israeli statements, BEFORE Israel first illegally attempted to acquire territory taken by war, on 31st August 1949

      On May 15th 1948 The extent of Israeli Sovereignty was announced by the Israeli Government as “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,”

      On May 22nd 1948 the Israeli Government confirmed the extent of it’s sovereignty as “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,” in statements to the UNSC.

      By May 11th 1949 Israel had already been recognized by the majority of the International Community of Nations according to the Israeli Government statements of May 15th & May 22nd 1948 “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,” .

      On 11 May 1949 Israel was accepted into the UN as a UN Member State as recognized, “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,”

      On June 15th 1949 the Israeli Government again confirmed the extent of it’s sovereignty as “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,” in statements to the UNSC

      On 31st August 1949 the Israeli Government made it’s first illegal claim to territory beyond the extent of it’s Declared, acknowledged and recognized frontiers “.. approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,”

      Working backwards … If Israel had attempted to claim territory acquired by war BEFORE becoming a UN Member state, it would never have been allowed into the UN at all. (Had Israel NOT acknowledged the extent of its declared territories, it would not have been recognized as an Independent Sovereign State). Israel’s legal advisers knew exactly what they were doing in order to position Israel for acceptance into the UN, knowing it could not be censured for it’s activities before it became a UN Member state, even though it was obliged by the Declaration to adhere to the principals of the UN Charter.

      “So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine – after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away, effectively surrendering to Zionist terrorism”

      Look to East Timor. Indonesia had to end occupation before East Timor could effectively declare independence. Britain had to eventually end occupation in order that either party could effectively declare Independent Sovereignty should they wish. This would also have been true even if partition had not been an issue and Palestine was declared as the State as outlined in the Mandate. Admittedly they should have suppressed the civil war that raged in Palestine prior to May 15th 1948.

      ” …while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence – actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.”

      No change was actually made by the General Assembly. Israel was recognized under the resolution that stood, by the statement issued by the Israeli Government relating to the Declaration, by the majority of the International Community of Nations/States.

      “Hart continues -> The truth of the time was that the Zionist state, which came into being mainly as a consequence of pre-planned ethnic cleansing”.

      However, the legal status of hostilities before May 15th 1948, was Civil War. There was no other legal entity. All parties involved in the Civil War were Palestinian. It was only after Declaration that territories were illegally acquired by an entity.

      “…had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist UNLESS … Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved………Hart continues with a second argument that looks watertight to me: “The truth of the time was that the Zionist state, which came into being mainly as a consequence of pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist UNLESS … Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.””

      You, Hart, I and Balfour agree about the injustice of not consulting the citizens of Palestine as to the self determination of the citizens of the territory, Arab, Jew, Muslim, Bedouin, Christan.

      However the responsibility was not in UNGA Res 181 or the UN / UNSC, but with the majority of states that afforded recognition, for not recognizing that right to self determination.

      The voice of the majority of the International Community is expressed through the UN/UNSC. The only thing preventing a just solution now that Israel does exist, is the precious US veto vote in the UNSC.

      Meanwhile Israel will keep every legal argument, every UN or UNSC resolution in discussion for as long as it possibly can, knowing that until a resolution is passed and/or as long as it is legally disputed in the UN/UNSC or ICJ, it can continue, unabated. The ball is in the air

      Cheers.

      Comment by talknic — February 13, 2011 @ 3:02 pm


      • I’m astounded there’s all this talk about UNGA 181 legitimising Israel when it only suggested a partition, a decision vitiated by the UNSC refusing to take it up. And the actual decision of the UNSC was an order there be no political changes, so there could be no Israeli independence! (even if members of the UNSC then recognised Israel).

        Still not quite sure what this additional “recognition” means – unless it’s acceptance of Israel as an apartheid state.

        Alan Hart wrote two (three?) enormous tomes “Zionism is the enemy of the Jews” and I’m inclined to think he’s right when he says that, without the agreement of the Palestinians, Israel has no legitimacy. Presumably, the UN has since over-ruled the non-existence of agreed borders with UNSC 242 (granting Israel the Green Line). Now it’s the apartheid that’s at stake, and that’s what the Palestinians are being told they must recognise, nobody else can do so.

        Comment by William Smart — February 16, 2011 @ 7:44 pm


        • Hi William

          My point is not that UNGA Res 181 legitimized Israel.

          In answer to the Israeli claim to being legitimate…. If that is their claim, UNGA Res 181 set out the conditions the Jewish People’s Council accepted, declared by (enshrining UNGA Res 181 in the declaration) and were recognized by, by the International Community of Nations/States, BEFORE Israel made any claims to territory outside of their declared and recognized borders.

          The responsibility for failing to recognize the right to self determination finally fell to the states recognizing.

          … the responsibility was not in UNGA Res 181 or the UN / UNSC, but with the majority of states that afforded recognition, for not recognizing that right to self determination.

          It was the majority of the International Community of Nations who carried the motion to ignore the right to self determination. They are not the UN. (Recognition is given by countries who are not UN Members)

          The demand for recognition by Israel has A) no legal basis B) Israel, in the eyes of the majority of the International Community of Nations/States already exists. It’s irrelevant to demand recognition by the Palestinians C) Numerous UN Member states do not recognize each other, yet they must be legitimate states to be in the UN.

          “Presumably, the UN has since over-ruled the non-existence of agreed borders with UNSC 242 (granting Israel the Green Line). “

          They haven’t.

          They did though recommend Israel be accepted into the UN. Therefore must have considered Israel to be a legitimate state.

          ——-

          NOW… According to the UNSC and UN Israel exists. However Israel only exists within the borders it declared. It has never legally annexed any territories.

          Comment by talknic — February 17, 2011 @ 12:12 am


      • Hi,

        “Working backwards … If Israel had attempted to claim territory acquired by war BEFORE becoming a UN Member state, it would never have been allowed into the UN at all. (Had Israel NOT acknowledged the extent of its declared territories, it would not have been recognized as an Independent Sovereign State).”

        How do you explain Israel’s failed first application to obtain a seat at the UN on May, 15th 1948? This was before they had troops outside their designated borders. What would have changed had the UN accepted Israel’s membership with regards to its borders and subsequent territory acquired through war?

        Regards,

        Laurent

        Comment by Laurent — October 18, 2011 @ 10:08 pm


        • Hello Laurent

          Israel was engaged in mass ethnic cleansing far beyond its borders by 15th May 1948. Have a look at the location of Deir Yassin.

          Though don’t bother to try and find it on the ground, no memorial of any kind is permitted, and any form of remembrance is likely to bring severe retribution from the state.

          Best Regards, William

          Comment by William Smart — October 19, 2011 @ 9:46 am


        • Hi Laurent,

          There is no short answer… Background:
          In 1920, Palestine was granted status as a Provisional State under the League of Nations Covenant: Article 22. Part I. (4th paragraph). This was prior to the LoN Mandate for Palestine 1922. It’s status as a Provisional State was confirmed by the Mandate, first sentence.

          The Mandate given Britain was to form an Independent Sovereign State or states. Under the Mandate Article 25, TransJordan was eventually declared independent in 1946 and was not a part of partition in 1947. Only the folk who lived in the region that became TransJordan had an automatic right to be citizens of TransJordan. the Palestinians, including at that time Jewish Palestinians, living outside of that area did not. Jordan is not Palestine. It is independent of any other entity, including what remained of Palestine.

          What remained of Palestine, post 1946, was still called Palestine and Britain was still tasked with forming a state of it, wherein Jewish folk could establish their homeland as Palestinian citizens “Article 7 The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine. “ Contrary to popular belief, the British opposed the notion of partition because it was legally bound to the Mandate. Britain had no Mandate for partition.

          A new chapter began when Israel became an Independent Sovereign State. Declared May 14th 1948, to come into effect AFTER the British occupation of Palestine, the Mandate, expired. A) Palestine was not British. They only had a mandate to administer and guide it to statehood. B) Israel was declared Independent AFTER the Mandate expired. I.e., Israel was declared independent of Palestine. Not Britain.

          From this point on, there is a lot of confusion surrounding what is called Palestine. By declaring, Israel not only defined itself but, by default, also defined what was not Israel. The Provisional Israeli Government acknowledged this on the 22nd May 1948 in a statement to the UNSC** On declaration, two entities came into existence. The area that became Israel, was renamed, Israel and the area that remained of Palestine after Israel became a state independent of Palestine was, and still is, called Palestine. Prior to Israeli Independence, the UNSC resolutions said Palestine. As whatever remains has never been renamed, in the UNSC resolution post Israeli Independence, the region that isn’t Israel, is called Palestine. Israel and Palestine are separate entities and; the UNSC resolutions call for peace “in Palestine” . Not once do they call for peace ‘in Israel’.

          Also, in the UNSC resolutions between May 15th 1948 and May the 11th 1949, Israel is not named. For the simple reason that the UNSC cannot pass resolutions directly against non-members it can only tell Members how they must treat non-members according to the rules of the club. After Israel became a Member State May 11th 1948, it IS named in UNSC resolutions. In many UNSC resolutions, you will see Israel and other states named and then the resolution will call for peace “in Palestine” or the “question of Palestine”.

          —-

          Now to your assertions and questions: “How do you explain Israel’s failed first application to obtain a seat at the UN on May, 15th 1948? This was before they had troops outside their designated borders.”

          Last first – Under Plan Dalet, Jewish forces were already outside of the allocated territories for the Jewish State before May 4th/15th 1948.

          UNSC on Israel’s 1st application – The letter of UNSC explanation

          Between the first and second application: On the 22nd May 1948, the Provisional Government of Israel issued the statement to the UNSC. UNSC S/766**, clearly stating difference between itself and Palestine, based on the frontiers of UNGA Res 181. By this statement Israel acknowledged that IT HAD BORDERS between Israel and Palestine.

          It is also stated: “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.” At the time ‘international regulations’, Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III state; “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..” and;
          On 12 Aug 1948 in an Israeli Government Proclamation Jerusalem Declared Israel-Occupied City- by Israeli Government Proclamation 12 Aug 1948.

          We can see by the Provisional Israeli Government’s own statements, that by the time of Israel’s 2nd application for UN Membership, it was already occupying territory outside of the territory of the State of Israel.

          UNSC on Israel’s 2nd application – 1st part of the meeting …. 2nd part of the meeting Note the references to the breaking of truce agreements and the numerous references to borders per UNGA res 181 Nov 29 1947. At the end of the meeting, no resolution was adopted.

          It’s worth noting at this point, that prior to signing the Armistice Agreement with Egypt there was no real evidence Israel was “able and willing” to be ‘a peace loving State’. Israel was outside of it’s borders, occupying parts of a non-self governing territoryProtected under Chapt XI of the UN Charter. The Egypt/Israeli Armistice Agreement 24th Feb 1949, was taken as evidence that Israel was ‘willing’ to adhere to the UN Charter and be a “peace loving State”. Israel was accepted as a UN Member State, May 11th 1949.

          On May 12th 1949 the Lausanne protocol was signed. The map of the borders, per UNGA res 181 Nov 29 1947 was annexed to it. The protocol states “It is understood that any necessary adjustments of these boundaries could be proposed. One must remember Israel and it’s sovereign extent had already been recognized BEFORE the UNSC could recommend it as a Member State. So “any necessary adjustments of these boundaries” was to Israel’s already existing and already recognized boundaries.

          “What would have changed had the UN accepted Israel’s membership with regards to its borders and subsequent territory acquired through war?”

          All UN/UNSC documents must be read with extreme care, that’s how they were written. No ‘other words’ & exact punctuation. They mean only what they say.

          Your question is speculative based on something the UNSC would never have approved. It is “inadmissible to ‘acquire’ territory by war” (UN Charter Article 2. 4.). Territory can only be ‘acquired’ through legal annexation. Legal annexation requires a referendum of the actual valid citizens of the territory to be annexed. It has been Customary International Law since at least the mid 1800′s when the US legally annexed Texas, via a referendum of the MEXICAN citizens of Texas. Pre-the League of Nations, pre-the UN & pre-Israeli statehood.

          Sovereign countries can ‘restore’ territory by war. The Schwebel/Lauterpacht opinion is misused and in itself, typical of the Hasbara. When read carefully, one can see it begins explaining the ‘acquisition’ of territory by war. However, it ends by talking about ‘restoring sovereignty’ by war. Israel had not had any Sovereign territory taken by anyone (ref again to UNSC S/766). The Schwebel/Lauterpacht statement was made after the good Judges had left office. It was NOT a judgement, but an opinion. (Had it been made in office, Lauterpacht would have been laughed OUT of office. It is duplicitous nonsense in respect to what it supposedly set out to explain). With all statements attributed to judges Stone, Schwebel, Lauterpacht, if not made in office, they are only opinions and not judgements.

          It does however tell us that Syria has the right, failing UNSC Chapt VI resolutions (they have failed), to restore the Golan by war. As did Egypt the Sinai. Careful reading of the Egypt/Israel Peace Agreement shows Israel was required to first withdraw BEFORE peaceful relation resumed. Not ‘land for peace’, but peace for withdrawal.

          Israel falsely claims it has no borders with Palestine. It bases it’s claim on borders not being mentioned in the Declaration of May 14th/15th 1948. It’s a piece of nonsense. All it means is the borders were not mentioned, not that they didn’t exist. Using it as an excuse, actually points to a blatant attempt to deceive.

          Declarations of Independent Sovereignty never contain borders for the simple reason that borders can change over time, the declaration would have to be changed every time borders change. Borders or frontiers are determined and delineated before declaration, in the case of Israel, by UNGA Res 181. Or in other instances by what states are willing to cede and by the borders of already existing other states neighbouring the new Independent state.

          Furthermore: in order to be recognized, other Nations must know the sovereign extent of the state they’re recognizing. UNSC res 242 gives the clearest example by calling for “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” There’s nothing about negotiating borders in UNSC Res 242.

          Based on the above, Israel’s request of the 31st Aug 1949, after becoming a UN Member, was turned down. Every UNSC resolution passed on the matter is based on the above. Israel has yet to legally annex any territory. It’s borders are today, actually those of UNGA res 181. That is the reason Israel is desperate to negotiate with the Palestinians today, because left to the law, Israel is in one big black legal hole. It must strike a deal, an agreement, circumventing the law, with the Palestinians, because the Palestinians actually have the law on their side, in EVERY respect. Israel does not. All Israel has is the US veto vote preventing Chapt VII action being taken against it. The laws remain, the UN Charter remains and Israel’s breaches of the law and the UN Charter remain.

          Long, but I hope it helps.

          Comment by talknic — October 20, 2011 @ 6:27 pm


    • Hi William Smart,

      after the US abandoned UNGAR 181 and put up the idea of a temporary trusteeship the Sec Council decided on April, 17, SecRes 46:

      “1. Calls upon all persons and organizations in Palestine, and especially upon the Arab Higher Committee and the Jewish Agency, to take immediately, without prejudice to their rights, claims, or positions, and as a contribution to the well-being and permanent interests of Palestine, the following measures:

      [...]

      (d) Refrain, pending further consideration of the future Government of Palestine by the General Assembly, from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of either community;”

      http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/9612b691fc54f280852560ba006da8c8?OpenDocument

      The proclamation of Israel was a clear violation of this Security Council Resolution.

      Comment by Michael — February 16, 2011 @ 5:04 pm


  5. Hi Talknic,

    “reply” function doesn’t work.

    > Unfortunately Palestine was not and has never been an ‘Independent’ State.

    Yes, but it was a state.

    Btw. take a look at this international treaties:
    Before the mandate between Great Britain and Palestine and the wording “contracting countries”:

    http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/20/20/00038953.pdf

    The wording “contracting states” in this treaty:

    http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/17/1/00032024.pdf

    The fact that this treaty was concluded with France and excluding the states mandated by France:

    http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/18/39/00035950.pdf

    International Commerce and Expidition Agreement with Egypt:

    http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/16/8/00030366.pdf

    http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/14/40/00027962.pdf

    More Parcel Post agreements with:
    USA: http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/4/20/00006966.pdf
    (notice the french expression “(POUR LE COMPTE DE LA PALESTINE) = “on behalf of Palestine”

    Switzerland: http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/16/26/00031255.pdf
    Italy: http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/17/36/00033781.pdf
    Greece: http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/18/37/00035833.pdf

    > Under the Mandate, it was under British occupation (via the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine).

    It was not occupied, but only under tutelage, guardianship. The function of a Class A Mandate was to help a state becoming independent. That’s not the function of an occupation (or an international or colonial protectorate.). An occupier is acting in his own interest, a mandatory is acting on behalf of the mandated state/territory. And it does this as a mandatory on behalf of the League of Nation. I compare a mandatory to someone who is acting on behalf of a state to manage a heritage for minors until they become of legal age.

    > Were Palestine an Independent Sovereign State, what became Israel would have been a matter of secession.

    Class A Mandates were provisionally recognized as ‘independent nations’ according to article 22 of the convenanant (League of Nation). “nation” here substitutes with “states” (e.g. “League of NATIONS”) as it is also indicated in the later nullified Treaty of Sèvres, Article 94:
    “The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22 Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognised as *independent States* subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.”

    http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Section_I,_Articles_1_-_260

    It doesn’t make any difference, if a state is “independent”/”souvereign” or it’s sovereignty is exercised by a mandatory. Even if Palstine were occupied (and not “souvereign”) it would have been a secession, because the premise for secession is statehood, not indenpendancy or it’s abeyance.

    (Compare, the heritage belongs to the “minors”, even if they can control it yet.)

    > Secession would have required a referendum of the citizens of Palestine within the territory wishing to secede.

    Not only a referendum was proposed futilely by the 2. Sub-committee. The General Assembly also denied other of it’s proposals, for example to ask the International Court of Justice for an advisory opionion on this matter and also if the GA itself had the authority to decide on this matter. (Needless to say that the voting on Resolution 181 was postponed several times until the USA finally managed to “persuade” Haiti, Liberia, and the Philippines to change their opinion in order to obtain the necessary 2/3 majority. The Liberia’s Ambassador to the United States complained that the USA was threatining several countries with aids cuts.)

    > BTW have converted your prior reference to text

    Thank you, that is very helpful.

    P.S. Hope you understand my English – i’s very difficult for me to handle this complex matter.

    Comment by Michael — February 3, 2011 @ 12:42 pm


    • Hi Michael.

      The number of links in a post was limited by the spammeister. Now increased to 10. Apart from the ‘normal’ spam, there is a flood of spam coinciding with every new post, but very few who’re willing to attempt to challenge. (I’m beginning to think that there aren’t all that many erudite advocates for a Greater Israel)

      If you try to keep links at 9 per post. I can merge your posts if I see they’re meant to be that way.

      Can’t do anything about the nesting (reply button) disappearing after a certain number of comments

      ————

      I have no argument with the notion that Palestine was a state.

      I’ve used ‘non-state entity’ for the simple reason that the Hasbara holds the notion that Palestine was not a state. If that’s the way they want it, OK. As long as Israel occupies and has not legally annexed territory outside the extent of it’s Declared Sovereignty, whether Palestine is ‘state’ or a ‘non-state entity’, the obligations of ALL UN Members are the same under the UN Charter.

      Could just say the entity of Palestine. UN Members have the same obligations. How an entity ought be treated by those who voluntarily occupy doesn’t alter under the law.

      Interesting though, that the Israeli Declaration says Israel “..will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel;” and the Hasbara notion that Palestine was/isn’t a state. Seems to be operating under the theocratic notion contained in Deuteronomy 20 :15 (perhaps also reflected in the wording Israel approved of in UNSC Res 242)

      “It was not occupied, but only under tutelage, guardianship. The function of a Class A Mandate was to help a state becoming independent. That’s not the function of an occupation (or an international or colonial protectorate.). An occupier is acting in his own interest, a mandatory is acting on behalf of the mandated state/territory.

      If you read the Laws of War Art. 55. “The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.”

      Also reflected in the GC’s. In the UNSC resolutions between 1945 – 1948 By the British recognition of Israel in respect to the territories Israel controlled outside of the declared extent of Israeli Sovereignty

      You’re correct in that the function of the Mandate was to help Palestine become independent, (as in Chapter XI of the UN Charter today, same as LoN Charter then). The ‘League of Nations Mandate for Palestine’ was ‘assigned’ to the British, with the power to hand over responsibility for the territories East of the Jordan River to another Power (Mandate – Article 25)

      As we can see in the Laws of War, GC’s, the notion of ‘occupation’ should not be seen as a negative for the occupied, even in territories seen as hostile by the Occupying Power.

      The basic concept behind UN Charter Chapter XI/GC’s/Laws of War in respect to occupation AND the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war AND Right of Return, are that: not all the citizens of a region will have voted for, or perhaps even been able to vote for, the regime in power when war was waged.

      The Palestinians did not vote for the regimes in control of the Arab States in 1948. Even in a democracy, not all the people will have voted for the regime in power. It would be collective punishment to confiscate or acquire the territory in which they lived, without a referendum.

      ———

      Some interesting points here.
      1) 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.

      2) The laws during this period were not passed by a democratic Government.

      3) The notion that the only democratic state in the region was attacked on May 15th 1948, is a fallacy.

      4) The citizens of Israel had not voted for the regime in power when the pre-Declaration pre-emptive Plan Dalet escalating the civil war in Palestine, became a war between the State of Israel and the Palestinians at “one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”

      5) It is arguable that even now, Israel is not a democracy.

      6) No Israeli Government has been elected according to the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. Under a constitution.

      ———————-

      “It doesn’t make any difference, if a state is “independent”/”souvereign” or it’s sovereignty is exercised by a mandatory.

      1) ‘Sovereignty’ can only be effectively declared when there is no other entity in control.

      2) The essence of the word ‘independence’ is to be free of all other control. “..be provisionally recognised as independent States subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.” At which time they become independent, though they might decide not to declare sovereignty. A declaration of sovereignty is entirely unilateral.

      Both notions are at work in TransJordan, the French were required to relinquish administrative control and withdraw BEFORE effective Sovereign Independence could be declared. Again in Indonesia being required relinquish control and withdraw from East Timor BEFORE Sovereign Independence was effectively declared. Although East Timor was seen as secession from a Sovereignty.

      Most importantly in presenting argument re the I/P conflict, the notification of the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel,“to come into effect at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” Which shows us that the Israeli Government, from the very outset, was aware of the Customary International Law regarding Independence/Sovereign Independence and of course an end to Occupation before a declaration of Independence can become effective.

      “Even if Palstine were occupied (and not “souvereign”) it would have been a secession, because the premise for secession is statehood, not indenpendancy or it’s abeyance.”

      Point agreed re ‘the premise for secession is statehood, not interdependency or it’s abeyance’. However, secession requires a referendum and as you have said, it didn’t happen. It would not have been successful even if it had been agreed to There were simply not enough Jewish folk in one territorial area. They would have been out voted by the non-Jewish population and very likely many indigenous Jewish folk.

      ’tis a complex subject :-) Your research is quite thorough. I have written a page containing the passages you have cited which do clearly indicate it as such. http://wp.me/pDB7k-Qh

      However….The Postal Treaties, although mentioning ‘country’, do not really confirm the notion of Palestine being a state.

      —-

      An interesting read at http://www.acjna.org/acjna/articles_detail.aspx?id=558

      Your English is fine BTW

      Where are you, nationality?

      Comment by talknic — February 4, 2011 @ 4:09 am


      • Hi Talknic,

        > The number of links in a post was limited by the spammeister. [...]

        Ok.

        > As we can see in the Laws of War, GC’s, the notion of ‘occupation’ should not be seen as a negative for the occupied, even in territories seen as hostile by the Occupying Power.

        The term “occupied” ist not correct to describe a mandate which is completely different.

        > 1) 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.

        Israel actually had no “internal” legitimation at all. There never was a referendum before the proclamation.

        > 1) ‘Sovereignty’ can only be effectively declared when there is no other entity in control.

        Yes, but it doesn’t question statehood, only independancy.

        > However….The Postal Treaties, although mentioning ‘country’, do not really confirm the notion of Palestine being a state.

        “country” here means the same, beacuse the other high contracting party Great Britain was also labeled as “country”. The term “nation” also means the same, see “League of Nations”.

        Comment by Michael — February 16, 2011 @ 4:50 pm


        • Oh, I forgot, you can merge it with the other posting:

          > Your research is quite thorough.

          That’s not my research, but John Quigley’s, from his book: “The Statehood of Palestine”.
          I only looked up the internet, if there is any source online.

          Comment by Michael — February 16, 2011 @ 7:15 pm


          • Looking it up on the internet, putting it into a readable and copyable format, (even debating stuff here), is research.

            Most people don’t bother and propagandists depend on them not to bother.

            :-)

            Comment by talknic — February 17, 2011 @ 1:04 am


        • Hi Michael,

          “The term “occupied” ist not correct to describe a mandate which is completely different”

          The actual Mandate was ‘ The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine ‘ Within the Mandate, the British were in military control at the time and tasked with administration, security and bringing Palestine to statehood. This amounts to occupation. In context with the League of Nations Charter and later the UN Charter (Chapter XI and Chapter XII) it is supposed to be a positive for the occupied. The opposite of what Israel has done as the Occupying Power.

          “Israel actually had no “internal” legitimation at all. There never was a referendum before the proclamation.”

          The majority of the International Community of Nations/States chose instead, through the UN, to pass UNGA Res 181. On declaration, they also chose to recognize and finally forgo the notion of self determination by a referendum.

          ” .. it doesn’t question statehood, only independancy”

          Agreed…

          ” “country” here means the same, beacuse the other high contracting party Great Britain was also labeled as “country”

          OK .. agreed shall re-edit to include those instances.

          “The term “nation” also means the same, see “League of Nations”

          As Palestine was not a LoN Member, is it valid or wise to include? Better to present the absolutely unpickable, indisputable.

          Comment by talknic — February 17, 2011 @ 12:59 am


  6. Hi Talknic,

    another quote for you. Treaty of lausanne:

    “XII. Protocol Relating to Certain Concessions Granted in the Ottoman Empire

    Article 9

    In territories detached from Turkey under the Treaty of Peace signed this day,

    * the State which acquires the territory is fully subrogated as regards the rights and obligations of Turkey towards the nationals of the other Contracting Powers, *

    and companies in which the capital of the nationals of the said Powers is preponderant, who are beneficiaries under concessionary contracts entered into before the 29th October, 1914, with the Ottoman Government or any local Ottoman authority.”

    http://www.mfa.gov.tr/xii_-protocol-relating-to-certain-concessions-granted-in-the-ottoman-empire.en.mfa

    In the Case “The Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions” the The Permanent Court of International Justice (today the International Court of Justice) decided that:

    “[71] The provision, therefore, contained in Article 9 of Protocol XII, to the effect that

    * Palestine is subrogated as regards the rights and obligations of Turkey towards the nationals of contracting Powers other than Turkey, *

    who are beneficiaries under the concessionary contracts entered into with the Ottoman authorities before October 29th, 1914, is applicable to M. Mavrommatis’ concessions.

    http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1925.03.26_mavrommatis.htm

    The Court saw Palestine as a (successor) state.

    Comment by Michael — February 2, 2011 @ 7:43 pm


    • Hi Michael,

      Yes, I combed through the treaty a long time ago. Unfortunately Palestine was not and has never been an ‘Independent’ State. Under the Mandate, it was under British occupation (via the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine). Therein lies the crunch. Can’t be independent and occupied.

      Were Palestine an Independent Sovereign State, what became Israel would have been a matter of secession. Secession would have required a referendum of the citizens of Palestine within the territory wishing to secede. This was Customary International Law by at least the late 1800′s (see the annexation of Mexican territories by the US). Such a scenario would not have resulted in a separate state. No doubt the Zionist Federation were well aware of the legalities by the way they kept the pot on the boil. Same today.

      One can use the documents you’ve cited to show the injustices of what has transpired, but few people will actually go to the trouble reading even the UN Charter in it’s entirety or UNGA Res 181 or the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel, let alone wade through and try to absorb the various treaties in any depth.

      Israeli propaganda depends on people NOT reading carefully or not reading the relevant documents at all. Most of the propagandistas I’ve met in discussion have either not read or do not care, so they choose to simply ignore anything contrary to their needs.

      ———

      How one crafts a simple, factual, convincing argument to enable a reader to more fully understand the rights of the Palestinians in this present day and/or to counter the Hasbara Israel uses to justify it’s expansionist policies, is another matter.

      There is a need to simplify. Bring it down to…. OK Israel exists, it must adhere to it’s voluntary obligations as expressed in it’s own words. To that end, this blog is a bit of an exercise.

      —————

      BTW have converted your prior reference to text

      Comment by talknic — February 3, 2011 @ 2:17 am


  7. Hi Talknic,

    there’s no reply button, so I have to make a new comment.

    “It’s Hasbara TwaddleSpeil. There is no legal precedent for a right to exist. None, Nil, Nada.Either one exists or one doesn’t exist. You cannot have a right to ANYTHING if you don’t exist. If one exists, only then does one have rights such as the right to self determination.”

    I meant, I don’t understand by which legal right a “Jewish Agency” could proclaim a State within a State against the will of the majority of it’s inhibitants. (Inlcuding the Bedouins the Jews were also a slight minority within this resolution borders and even not all of the Jews wanted partition.) The right to self determination has nothing to do with ethnicity or religion, but only with being a habituary resident of a territory.

    Comment by Michael — January 21, 2011 @ 1:09 pm


    • Hi Michael,

      Exactly the argument of the Arab states as pointed out in their Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine

      Note especially “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.” This was in keeping with the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

      Although I agree it has been incredibly unjust, it is impossible to turn the clock back. The Palestinians in my view have been more than willing and generous in sacrificing land for peace. It is in the end their self determination. They have seen fit to re-declare. I’ll go along with that aspiration.

      That’s not to say I won’t continue to counter the bullsh*te spouted by the Zionutters

      Comment by talknic — January 21, 2011 @ 4:38 pm


      • Hi Talknic,

        I was surprised, when I read the “Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine” the first time, because the view on international right was so rational. The title of this document (“invasion”) of course is given by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, because in other places its simply called “Statement by the Arab League upon the Declaration of the State of Israel”, see:

        http://www.mideastweb.org/arableague1948.htm

        http://www.ipcri.org/files/Arableaguestatement48.html

        The idea of a unitary “democratic secular state” in Palestine inhibited by all then residing there plus arab refugees was repeated by the Fatah in 1969.

        And you are right. It’s not possibly to turn the clock back. But on the other hand zionism achieved to ‘restore’ something which was gone for two thousand years. ;)

        What to do with all the refugees? They surely don’t fit into what’s left of Palestine. And Israel doesn’t even allow the refugees back to the Westbank or Gaza, which were expelled in 1967.

        “That’s not to say I won’t continue to counter the bullsh*te spouted by the Zionutters”

        True. One cannot find a solution to the problem if the real cause of the problem ist distorted by hasbara lies. It took me years to find out that mandated Palestine was a State and that one can quote the chairman of the Permanent Mandates Commission on this matter. By the way, Haaretz won’t publish my comments on this. ;)

        Comment by Michael — January 22, 2011 @ 1:46 pm


        • Hi Michael,

          “I was surprised, when I read the “Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine” the first time, because the view on international right was so rational. The title of this document (“invasion”) of course is given by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, because in other places its simply called “Statement by the Arab League upon the Declaration of the State of Israel”

          Yes, it bowled me over too when first I read it and yes I’d noticed the differences. The reason for using the version from the JVL…

          A) I prefer to give Jewish sources wherever possible and the Hasbara says Five Arab States ‘invaded’ Israel (or attacked Israel). None of the versions say ‘on the ‘attack’ of …

          So from the JVL IN THE WORDS OF the Israeli Government we have ‘Invasion’ of (not Israel) but Palestine

          B) IN THE WORDS OF the Israeli Government it was submitted to the UNSC …yet there is no UNSC condemnation of it.

          “..zionism achieved to ‘restore’ something which was gone for two thousand years. ;)”

          Only partially. The historic homeland is exactly that ‘historic’. IN THE WORDS OF the Provisional Israeli Government the Jewish People’s Council only declared sovereign independence “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″

          “What to do with all the refugees? They surely don’t fit into what’s left of Palestine. And Israel doesn’t even allow the refugees back to the Westbank or Gaza, which were expelled in 1967.

          Yes, it’s a mess. There would be room for everyone tho, if Israel withdrew to it’s actual boundaries. It could easily absorb the few thousand olde folk who have actual RoR to what is actually Israel.

          All the Palestinians ask is for their actual rights. They have never officially claimed all lineal descendants return to what became Israel (according to it’s actual boundaries) They cite UNGA Res 194. In a UN resolution the UNHCR definition of refugee is used and it does not include lineal descendants, a person must have lived in the region of return.

          Furthermore, the country of return has the final veto as to whether a claim is valid, so Israel has no valid excuse.

          Comment by talknic — January 22, 2011 @ 3:00 pm


          • Hi Talknic,

            “A) I prefer to give Jewish sources wherever possible [...]”

            Me too. Isn’t that shameful? That’s a hasbarat achivement. They libel other sources as “Pallywood” like the Nazis libeled a part of the German press as “Judenpresse” (Jews-press).

            “So from the JVL IN THE WORDS OF the Israeli Government we have ‘Invasion’ of (not Israel) but Palestine”

            I see.

            “B) IN THE WORDS OF the Israeli Government it was submitted to the UNSC …yet there is no UNSC condemnation of it.”

            Good point.

            “Yes, it’s a mess. There would be room for everyone tho, if Israel withdrew to it’s actual boundaries. It could easily absorb the few thousand olde folk who have actual RoR to what is actually Israel.”

            Do you think so? Bernadotte stated in his report that the Arab state of Resolution 181 wouldn’t be viable on it’s own (less then one million Arabs by that time). Resolution 181 was not a simple two state solution, but an economic union.

            “All the Palestinians ask is for their actual rights. They have never officially claimed all lineal descendants return to what became Israel (according to it’s actual boundaries) They cite UNGA Res 194. In a UN resolution the UNHCR definition of refugee is used and it does not include lineal descendants, a person must have lived in the region of return.”

            I thought that the UNRWA definition applies in this unique case, not the UNHCR:
            “Who is a Palestine refugee?

            The operational definition of a Palestine refugee is any person whose “normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.”

            Palestine refugees are persons who fulfil the above definition and descendants of fathers fulfilling the definition.

            http://www.unrwa.org/etemplate.php?id=87

            And there is also the principle of family reunification.

            Comment by Michael — January 23, 2011 @ 1:42 pm


            • Hi

              “Yes, it’s a mess. There would be room for everyone tho, if Israel withdrew to it’s actual boundaries. It could easily absorb the few thousand olde folk who have actual RoR to what is actually Israel.”

              “Do you think so? Bernadotte stated in his report that the Arab state of Resolution 181 wouldn’t be viable on it’s own (less then one million Arabs by that time). Resolution 181 was not a simple two state solution, but an economic union.”

              If that was his statement, it is in two parts 1) the Arab state of Resolution 181 wouldn’t be viable on it’s own…thus 2) Resolution 181 was not a simple two state solution, but an economic union.

              There would/will of course need to be forms of inter state cooperation/trade. Agreements over water being one of the major components. UNGA Res 181 was as close as it was ever going to get to an equitable two state solution. That the situation has been allowed to evolve to the point we see now, is quite a disgusting reflection on a) successive Israeli Governments and b) on the world powers.

              “I thought that the UNRWA definition applies in this unique case, not the UNHCR:”

              You need to read the UNRWA Mandate, the UNHCR Statute and the 1950 Convention, they’re related.

              Under the UNRWA Mandate the term ‘Palestine’ refugee is a need-based definition the clue is in the name, Relief and Works. The UNRWA definition is not for the purposes of repatriation or compensation as envisaged in UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 194 (III) of December 1948. UNRWA’s working definition, is only for expediency in ascertaining who may qualify for Relief and Works, while they are refugees.

              It’s numbers are not those who qualify for RoR to Israel’s actual sovereign territories. UNRWA’s limited mandate

              (Q2) “Is UNRWA involved in the Middle East peace negotiations and in the discussions on a solution to the refugee issue?”
              (A2) “No. UNRWA is a humanitarian UN agency and its mandate from the UN General Assembly defines its role as one of providing services to the refugees. As such, the Agency is not involved in the political discussions on the future of the refugees.

              The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1950 states:
              ” D. This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance.”

              ‘Protection’ or ‘assistance’. It does not say they are no longer refugees. It does not say they are not covered by the other aspects of the UNHCR statute. The 1950 document goes on to say: “When such protection or assistance has ceased for any reason, without the position of such persons being definitively settled in accordance with the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, these persons shall ipso facto be entitled to the benefits of this Convention.”

              There are folk from:

              1) what became Israel, within it’s actual borders. No RoR for lineal descendants. Very few left, all over 62yrs of age (minimum)

              2) folk who’re from within Palestinian territories Israel illegally claims, who’d probably have RoR for lineal descendants because it is actually Palestinian territory and actually up to Palestine to decide. At the moment Israel is in control

              3) Then there are folk who were born OUTSIDE of the area that became Israel and OUTSIDE of Palestine, who have not taken up citizenship elsewhere and do not have a state. Meaning, they have no citizenship. Palestine will have to decide how to handle that situation.

              It’s complex. The zionutters don’t want to know. They won’t even try to understand. Their G-d excuse is simply the pathetic ramblings of people not willing to take responsibility for their own actions

              Comment by talknic — January 23, 2011 @ 3:57 pm


              • Hi Talknic,

                I have another quote for you, an Israeli judge:

                On the nationality question the Judge said : ” It seems to me, with all respect, that the point of view according to which there are no Israel nationals, is not compatible with public international law. The prevailing view is that, in the case of transfer of a portion of the territory of a State to another State, every individual and inhabitant of the ceding State becomes automatically a national of the receiving State [...] If that is the case, is it possible to say that the inhabitants of part of a State which is transformed into an independent State are not ipso facto transformed into the nationals of that State? So long as no law has been enacted providing otherwise, my view is that every individual who, on the date of the establishment of the State of Israel was resident in the territory which today constitutes the State of Israel, is also a national of Israel. Any other view must lead to the absurd result of a State without nationals – a phenomenon the existence of which has not yet been observed.”

                http://books.google.de/books?id=uiIWmoTwZ9EC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111ge#v=onepage&q&f=false

                Hope you like it.

                Comment by Michael — January 31, 2011 @ 7:40 pm


                • Hi Michael,

                  It’s interesting. Though it needs citing from the beginning of Case No 27 all the way through to the bottom of page 115. (I need to get a program that scans screen snap shots to text)

                  It certainly puts an end to the stupid notion that the Mandate is still in force.

                  There’s little doubt in my mind, that until Israel gets a constitution, it will continue to disregard International Law and make up law after law as it goes along. Anything it doesn’t like, it will pass another law, deem it retrospective and barge on like an obese kid let run free in a lolly shop.

                  ———-

                  Revision/addition

                  Text (conversion from JPG from http://beta.rii.ricoh.com/betalabs/content/document-conversion )

                  Case No. 27

                  State Succession Effect upon Nationality?The Law of Israel.

                  The question of the effect of the termination of the Palestine
                  Mandate upon the nationality status of former Palestine
                  citizens who became resident in Israel, gave rise to a conflict of
                  judicial opinion in Israel. While, by virtue of Israel legislation,
                  there was a possibility of reading the Palestine Citizenship
                  Orders-in-Council, 1924 to 1939, as if they had become Orders
                  relating to Israel citizenship, there was no specific statutory
                  provision regulating Israel nationality until the enactment of
                  the Nationality Law, 1952.
                  {a) In Re Goods of Shiphris, decided by one Judge of the
                  Tel Aviv District Court on August 13, 1950, it was held, in an
                  undefended probate action, that such persons were stateless.
                  [Report: Pesakim Mehoziim, vol. 3 (1950-1951), p. 222.3
                  (6) However, in A.B. v. M.B., decided by another Judge
                  of the same Court on April 6, 1951?a defended matrimonial
                  case the same question arose. Referring to the Shiphris
                  case, the Court pointed out that it was an order rendered in an
                  undefended action, so that the Judge was free to disregard it
                  despite its persuasive authority. On the nationality question
                  the Judge said: ” It seems to me, with all respect, that the
                  point of view according to which there are no Israel nationals,
                  is not compatible with public international law. The prevailing
                  view is that, in the case of transfer of a portion of the territory
                  of a State to another State, every individual and inhabitant
                  of the ceding State becomes automatically a national of the
                  receiving State (see Oppenheim, International Law, vol. 1,
                  \ 219, and particularly notes 3 and 4 on page 503 of the 7th
                  edition). The same opinion is expressed by Schwarzenberger,
                  International Law, 2nd edition, vol. i, page 166. Lauterpacht
                  also states the same rule in a case of subjugation, loc. cit., page
                  522, particularly footnote 6. If that is the case, is it possible
                  to say that the inhabitants of part of a State which is trans-
                  formed into an independent State are not ipso facto transformed
                  into the nationals of that State ? So long as no law has been
                  enacted providing otherwise, my view is that every individual
                  who, on the date of the establishment of the State of Israel
                  was resident in the territory which today constitutes the State
                  of Israel, is also a national of Israel. Any other view must
                  lead to the absurd result of a State without nationals. A
                  phenomenon the existence of which has not yet been observed.”

                  [Report: Pesakim Mehoziim, vol. 3 (1950-1951), p. 263, at
                  p. 272.]
                  (c) In Oseri v. Oseri, decided by the Tel Aviv District Court
                  on August 7, 1952, the Court made the following remarks :
                  ” Let us assume that the litigants were Palestinian citizens,
                  have they become Israel nationals by virtue of the Law and
                  Administration Ordinance, enacted after the establishment of
                  the State ? The nationality of the inhabitants of Palestine
                  derived from the Nationality Law of the country, that is to say,
                  the Palestine Citizenship Order-in-Council of 1925. The Israel
                  Nationality Law was enacted only a few months ago and some
                  time after this case had been instituted. If we can bring the
                  Palestine Citizenship Order-in-Council within the scope of the
                  law which was in force in Palestine on 14 May 1948. then, under
                  section 11 of the Law and Administration Ordinance, 1948, it
                  might be possible to regard the parties as Israel nationals who
                  are not foreigners. . . .
                  ” Nationality involves the grant of a certain status to the
                  citizen, and it creates a bond of loyalty between the State
                  and the citizen. The loyalty which had been created by the
                  Palestine Citizenship Order-in-Council was towards the Man-
                  datory Authorities, as appears indeed from the form of oath
                  required of a naturalized citizen by that law. The Mandatory
                  Authority has now disappeared and it is difficult to reach a
                  deduction that that very law which established a bond of
                  loyalty between the Mandatory Government and its inhabitants
                  can now create a new nationality and a new bond of loyalty,
                  between the State of Israel and its inhabitants. Such a bond
                  cannot automatically devolve.
                  ” The former law was enacted following the Treaty of
                  Lausanne after the First World War, and following the Mandate
                  over Palestine. Both these have ceased to form the basis for
                  the existence of the State and of its laws. A new international
                  basis has been created for the existence of the State, and all
                  those provisions of the former Citizenship Order-in-Council
                  which are due to the Mandate or the Treaty of Lausanne are
                  devoid of substance in the State of Israel. Therefore, the
                  Order-in-Council in its entirety is not satisfactory and is in-
                  appropriate to the situation following the establishment of
                  Israel and the changes which that event has brought. Following
                  are examples of the inapplicability of the Order-in-Council to
                  the new conditions: Article i confers Palestinian citizenship
                  on Turkish nationals permanently resident in Palestine on
                  August i, 1925. Articles 2 and 4 deal with the nationality
                  status of certain other classes of Turkish nationals. The Order-
                  in-Council confers citizenship on every person born in
                  Palestine. Many of the absentee Palestinian Arabs were born
                  in Palestine and many of them enjoyed Palestinian citizenship.
                  It will not cross any person’s mind to say that persons such as
                  these are citizens of the State of Israel, or that they are under
                  any obligation to be loyal to the State today. Reasons such as
                  these persuaded the Knesset to repeal the Palestine Citizenship
                  Order-in-Council, in section 18 of the Nationality Law, 1952,
                  with effect from the date of the establishment of the State.
                  Consequently the defendant remained stateless until after this
                  case was instituted. My conclusion, therefore, is that, in the
                  period between the establishment of the State and the entry
                  into force of the Nationality Law, the inhabitants of Israel
                  were not Israel nationals within the legal meaning of the term
                  national.” [Report: Pesakim Mehozitm, vol. 8 (1953), p. 76.]
                  (d) The Supreme Court has also expressed its view as being
                  that Palestinian citizenship ” no longer exists, and has not
                  existed, either in the territory of the State of Israel or in the
                  parts of Palestine occupied by the Arab States, or anywhere
                  else in the world, after the establishment of the State of Israel
                  in part of Palestine, and the annexation of the remainder of
                  Palestine to other States.” Hussein v. Governor 0/ Acre Prison,
                  decided on November 6, 1952. [Report: Piskei-Din, vol. 6
                  (1952), p. 897.-]
                  ‘ On Israel nationality tec Rcaenne, ” La Loi isiailiennc sur la nationality
                  S711-19JJ et la loi du retour. 3710-1050 “. in Journal du Droit International
                  (Sari.), volt. Sid (,?4). p. a.
                  Administration Ordinance. 1948, which provides that the law
                  which was in force in Palestine on May 14, 1948. will remain
                  in force . . . subject to changes necessitated by the establish-
                  ment of the State and its Authorities, we reached the inescap-
                  able conclusion that the discretion which the Custodian had,
                  during the period of the Mandate, to transfer property, has
                  become an obligation for the Custodian in the State of Israel,
                  at all events so far as concerns Jews resident in Israel.
                  ” The purposes for the appointment of the Custodian as
                  specified in section 9 of the Ordinance are two :
                  ” (1) to prevent the transfer of money to the enemy ;
                  ” (2) to protect the property against arrangements to be
                  made on the restoration of peace. There is no state of war
                  today between Israel and those countries which were enemy
                  States for the purposes of the Trading with the Enemy Ordin-
                  ance. There is no need for special provisions to prevent transfer
                  of money to those States, and quite obviously there is no need
                  for such measures vis-a-vis Jews resident in Israel, whatever
                  their origin. There remains the second objective. As to this,
                  it is inconceivable that the Government of Israel will use the
                  property of these Jews as a pledge for compensation due to it
                  from any other State, or that such property will be the object
                  of arrangements to be made with other States. I cannot,
                  therefore, accept the view of the second respondent that he is
                  entitled to consider and to decide whether to return such
                  property to a Jew resident in Israel. As has been stated, this
                  discretion has become a duty, a duty to return such property
                  to the persons entitled to it. The second respondent, there-
                  fore, was in error in thinking that he was entitled to deal with
                  property entrusted to him as if it were his own. The return
                  of the property is not an act of grace, but a duty. This, in my
                  opinion, is the conclusion which develops from the situation
                  that has been created with the establishment of the State of
                  Israel.

                  ” In order to remove all doubt I wish to stress that what
                  has been said above applies only to cases of the type before
                  us, and does not detract from the full validity of the Trading
                  with the Enemy Ordinance in other circumstances when it is
                  necessary to take account of other factors which are irrelevant
                  here. And even more important, what has been said above
                  does not affect the application of the Ordinance to persons
                  who are not enemies in the technical sense.”
                  [Report: Piskei Din, vol. 4 (1950}, p. 164.]
                  State Succession?Miscellaneous? Agreements between Seced-
                  ing New State and Old State.
                  See Case No 49 (Apomw el Al. v. The State of the Netherlands
                  {Amboinese Soldiers’ Case)),

                  Comment by talknic — January 31, 2011 @ 9:13 pm


  8. Hi Talknic,

    You write:
    > To be correct, there was and still is no ‘state’ of Palestine, nor for that matter a ‘state’ or country or even a region called Israel until 1948. There was however a region called Palestine.

    That is not correct! Palestine was one of the allied successor states to the Ottoman empire as all A mandates were. Read the quote of the chairman carefully who argues that the citizienship law of 1925 (as demanded by the mandate text) proved it’s statehood. But it was a state still under guardianship and only “provisionally” recognized as “independant”. But that doesn’t deny the fact of it’s statehood. Even Iraq was still under mandate when it was recognized as independant as a result of a treaty between The State of Iraq and it’s Mandatory Britain. And the same Mandatory of Palestine signed on it’s behalf INTERNATIONAL treaties with other countries. So Palestine as a state had the “capacity” to sign international treaties (because it was a state) and the mandatory had the “power” to exercise this capacity. That doesn’t deny statehood. Same with protectorates.

    Israel till 1952 had no citizenship (law). An Israeli judge posed this question:
    “The prevailing view is that in the case of transfer of a portion of the territory of the state [!] to another State, every individual and inhabitants of the ceding State [!] becomes automatically a national of the receiving State … If this is the case, is it possible to say that the inhabitants of part of a State [!] which is transformed into an independent State are not ipso facto transformed into the nationals of that State?”

    (Google for this phrase and find the book “International Law Reports by Elihu Lauterpacht,Christopher J. Greenwood)

    We can even find legal arguments that this State of Palestine never ceased to exist. For example Israel in 1948 stated:
    “11. The law which existed in Palestine [sic!] on the 5th Iyar, 5708 (14th May, 1948) shall remain in force [!], insofar as there is nothing therein repugnant to this Ordinance or to the other laws which may be enacted by or on behalf of the Provisional Council of State, and subject to such modifications as may result from the establishment of the State and its authorities.”

    And the Palestinians in 1988 only RE-proclaimed [!] this State of Palestine. More to follow…

    Comment by Michael — December 25, 2010 @ 11:05 am


    • Hi Michael,

      I have corrected the post accordingly, to read ‘Independent Sovereign State’.

      Whether or not there was a ‘state’ is not the gist of this particular post. It’s simply to show genuinely interested folk that Palestine, according to documents in the Jewish National and University Library, Knesset etc, most certainly existed, so too Palestinian Jews. Denial of Palestine’s existence is a denial of a significant part of Palestinian Jewish history. Not that zionistas seem to care.

      “Palestine was one of the allied successor states to the Ottoman empire as all A mandates were”

      I’ve seen a reference to Palestine being a Sovereignty amongst the LoN documents. I failed to make note of it for some reason. To that end, there is an article already drafted based on it and some of the material you’ve shown. First I must find again.

      The Mandatory of Palestine signing agreements on Palestine’s behalf, indicates it was not fully independent. A protectorate by definition is also not independent. In the proclamation of the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel, it tells us the Israeli Provisional Council was aware the Declaration was not effective until occupation ended, at “..one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time”

      Point being of course, is that Israel must end occupation in the same manner the British occupation under the Mandate ended in order that any declaration of independent sovereign statehood be effective when made. Indonesia was also required to withdraw in order that East Timor be independent at the time of declaration.

      Elihu Lauterpacht is also quoted by Stephen Schwebel in respect to the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war. Zionists simply ignore what he actually says.

      We can even find legal arguments that this State of Palestine never ceased to exist. For example Israel in 1948 stated:
      “11. The law which existed in Palestine [sic!] on the 5th Iyar, 5708 (14th May, 1948) shall remain in force [!], insofar as there is nothing therein repugnant to this Ordinance or to the other laws which may be enacted by or on behalf of the Provisional Council of State, and subject to such modifications as may result from the establishment of the State and its authorities.”

      Source http://www.knesset.gov.il/review/data/eng/law/kns0_govt-justice_eng.pdf wherein there are many references to ‘Palestine’ from the horses mouth.

      Zionutters will not change, even when shown evidence from Israel itself. Their stupid lies and attempts at justifying Israel’s continued usurping of the Palestinians are only a sounding board here. Demonstrating their arguments to be false allows rational folk to develop genuinely informed opinion.

      T

      Comment by talknic — December 25, 2010 @ 11:12 am


      • Hi Talknic,

        I find “no ‘Independent Sovereign State’” a little misleading, because people tend to read “no state”. I would rather prefer saying that there was “a state under guardianship and therefore still not independent” allthough it was “provoisionally recognized as ‘independent nation’”, see article 22 of the convenant of th e League of Nationas regarding A mandates.

        > “The Mandatory of Palestine signing agreements on Palestine’s behalf, indicates it was not fully independent. A protectorate by definition is also not independent.”

        Correct. A state, but not independent. When the mandate ended, it became independant, but it had no goverment. (A state can still be a state, even if it temporarily has no goverment.) And right in this moment the provosional zionist goverment proclaimed Israel as the successor state and claimed that it was doing this on behalf not only of the Jews of Palestine but world Jewry. This goverment had no internal legitimation and of course was not representing the other half of its inhibitants who were gentile and ethnically cleansed and denationalized by zionists, like the Nazis cleansed and denationalized Jews (before they went on to genocide). Israels proclamation was an act of hostile secession, a military coup d’etat.

        Comment by Michael — December 27, 2010 @ 1:52 pm


        • I’m aware of where you’re coming from, however, now, Palestine is not an Independent Sovereign State. It has a right to be an Independent Sovereign State, if it wishes.

          The Palestinians have a right to demand no less than their full rights. By the same token, under the law, the UN Charter and conventions Israelis have the same rights, were they occupied, were any of their territory occupied or illegally ‘acquired’ by war or by illegal annexation, illegally settled (None is). Jewish folk who might have been dispossessed from the Arab States have a RoR, compensation, IF they still have refugee status (i.e., if they have not taken up citizenship in countries other than that of return) and IF they didn’t simply migrate to the new homeland state, th’ promised land.

          Now Israel has hundreds of thousands of it’s citizens illegally living in about a third of the territory Israel claims, outside of it’s declared boundaries. Territory acquired by war.

          Most do so unwittingly Educated to believe they have a right to be living where they are. Enticed to live in “territories occupied”. Provided with infrastructure. They see nothing wrong, they’ve never been shown it might be. Unfortunately the same can be said of most of the Western World.

          As it is, Israel seems bent on continuing unabated. It would seem the only way to stop it will be through the UN/UNSC, which would require the withdrawal of the US veto vote in the UNSC. Should that be the case, the more folk who know WHY the UNSC is involved, the better, especially those unwittingly in Palestinian territory.

          Those who truly seek peace are faced with the perplexing question of how is it possible to stop the State of Israel from either kicking the sh*te out of the china shop if the UNSC demands it adhere to the law on threat of action under a Chapter VII resolution.

          Or

          If the State of Israel does adhere to the law, how will the civil war which will likely ensue be brought to order. Especially an Israeli civil war fought predominantly OUTSIDE of Israel. A situation no one in their right mind would want, but a situation threatened by illegal settlers today.

          An Israeli civil war outside of Israel brings a range of LEGAL options into play in respect to the UN/UNSC and the other Regional Powers.

          There is no easy answer.

          I think the clearest path towards an answer is in showing, with Israel’s own words in official documents, how the Israeli narrative since Declaration as an independent state with obligations to the UN Charter et al, simply does not add up.

          A chunk of further reading on the gist of your post http://i-p-o.org/palestine-sovereignty.htm

          Comment by talknic — December 27, 2010 @ 3:34 pm


          • Hi Talknic,

            > I’m aware of where you’re coming from, …

            What dou you mean?

            > … however, now, Palestine is not an Independent Sovereign State.
            > It has a right to be an Independent Sovereign State, if it wishes.

            I never said that Palestine was an “indepedent souvereign state”. I said that mandated Palestine was a state, but NOT independent and NOT FULLY souvereign, because it was a state under mandate, or “under guardianship” as the chairman of the permanent mandates comission put it. The souvereignity of this state laid in the hands of its inhibitants but was exercised through the mandatory acting on behalf of the League of Nations and with the obligation to promote independance.

            Of course all Palestinians (Jews, Arabs etc.) have a right to self determination. But to me the questions remains, if a subgroup of Palestinians had the right to proclaim a state within a state without the consent of the majority of it’s inhibitatants and simply by conquering the territory. The position of the Arab Higher Commitee was that Palestine became independant with the termination of the mandate and it considered the jewish minority as a “rebellious minority which has revolted against the souvereignity of the majority of the population of the country.”. Any attempt to create a state within the state to them was an “an act of rebellion”. The Jewish Agency itself said that Israel was “established within Palestine”. Both saw the proclamation of Israel as a creation of a state within a state. It was a secession by use of force.

            How do you read UNSEC 46 of 17 April 1948 regarding any proclamation of states in Palestine?
            “1. Calls upon all persons and organizations in Palestine, and especially upon the Arab Higher Committee and the Jewish Agency, [...]

            (d) Refrain, pending further consideration of the future Government of Palestine by the General Assembly, from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of either community;”

            And while the Jewish Agency was proclaiming the State of Israel a General Assembly meeting was held to put Palestine under a UN trusteeship, because UNGAR 181 had failed. Later Graf Folke Bernadotte was assigned to find a soolution and wrote in a report to the UN that he had told the provisional Goverment of Israel that he was not bound by Resolution 181 to find a solution. Then he was assassinated by zionists of one of the terrorist groups whose members later were to be honored with a ribbon.

            Comment by Michael — January 1, 2011 @ 9:23 am


            • Hi Michael…

              /// The angle// — What dou you mean? ///

              Pointing out the injustices, illegalities, hypocrisy and total disregard for the legal status of Palestine or in fact any argument the Arab States put forward even though that argument was almost the same as the Balfour Declaration. (last paragraph of Seventh)

              Fully agree with most of the points you have raised. Can it be be undone? Now, because of the illegal ‘facts in the ground’ there are millions will be effected by whatever happens. One can rightly inform people so they have a wider understanding of Arab displeasure. Nothing though will change a mind set on a Greater Israel.

              I believe for the sake of those unwittingly led into Israel’s ‘facts on the ground’ and the Palestinians.

              The path of least bloodshed is preferable. To this end poke holes in the Israeli narrative in as simple a manner as possible if only to prompt folk to see that it doesn’t quite square up and start questioning it themselves.

              I use ‘Independent Sovereign State’ specifically ..

              a) it is very exacting in terms of what Palestine is not yet but what it aspires to be and what it needs to be lest Israel walk over it completely.

              B) It is ‘not yet’ because a declaration of independence does not come into effect until the entity declaring is free of the control of any another entity. Some or all of the territories of the new Arab State have been under the control of Jewish forces from the moment Israel was declared. It has only been Israel preventing Palestinian independence.

              C) ‘Independent Sovereign Statehood’ was the basis of UNGA Res 181 for either party should they wish, to declare Independent Sovereignty. That was the deal on the table, Israel accepted it unconditionally and told the world it had.

              Whether you or I can see or agree with the injustices of how that came to be, Israel now exists as an Internationally recognized Independent Sovereign State obliged to the UN Charter. It’s illegal activities have endangered the Palestinians and Israeli civilians who are unwittingly in “territories occupied” thinking they have a right to be there, because of what successive Israeli Governments have and perhaps more importantly hasn’t told them.

              “How do you read UNSEC 46 of 17 April 1948 regarding any proclamation of states in Palestine?
              “1. Calls upon all persons and organizations in Palestine, and especially upon the Arab Higher Committee and the Jewish Agency, [...]

              (d) Refrain, pending further consideration of the future Government of Palestine by the General Assembly, from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of either community;”

              The purpose of the resolution is in the first ‘considering’, which was to broker a truce. It isn’t in relation to UNGA Res 181. Only after the British ended occupation did UNGA res 181 come into effect because it was only then that the entities could declare Independent Sovereign Statehood.

              And while the Jewish Agency was proclaiming the State of Israel a General Assembly meeting was held to put Palestine under a UN trusteeship, because UNGAR 181 had failed.

              It actually had until the 1 April 1948 to fail and as I said , did not come into effect until the Brits ended occupation. At this point I’ve not read a record of the UNGA meeting. I shan’t comment until I have.

              “Later Graf Folke Bernadotte was assigned to find a soolution and wrote in a report to the UN that he had told the provisional Goverment of Israel that he was not bound by Resolution 181 to find a solution.”

              Again, I’ve not read the report or the quoted account

              If you have links at your fingertips that would be great..

              Comment by talknic — January 1, 2011 @ 2:55 pm


              • Hi Talknic,

                I do not have much time at this moment. But here is a link to Bernadette’s Report:
                “9. The Provisional Government of Israel, in a letter dated 5 July 1948, objected to the deviations from the General Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947, and particularly to the suggestions concerning the regulation of immigration and the status of Jerusalem. They offered no counter-suggestions but urged a reconsideration of my “whole approach to the problem”. In a letter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Provisional Government of Israel, dated 6 July 1948, I commented as follows:

                “(3) In paragraph I of your letter it is stated that my suggestions {appear to ignore the resolution of the General Assembly of 29 November I947…’ I cannot accept this statement. As United Nations Mediator, it is true that I have not considered myself bound by the provisions of the 29 November resolution, since, had I done so, there would have been no meaning to my mediation. The failure to implement the resolution of 29 November 1947, and the open hostilities to which the Arab opposition to it led, resulted in convoking of the second special session of the General Assembly to ‘consider further the future government of Palestine’. This special Assembly, taking into account the new situation, adopted, on 14 May 1948, the resolution providing for a Mediator. It is equally true, however, that the basic objectives of the resolution of 29 November 1947 as regards a separate political and institutional existence for the Jewish and Arab communities of Palestine and for close economic ties between these communities, are maintained in my suggestions, although in a somewhat different framework. I may also assure you that in working up my suggestions I took fully into account the facts of the actual existence of the Jewish State in a defined area, the military situation and the present territorial situation as a result of the conflict thus far. But I could not ignore the fact that there is nothing really stable in Palestine so long as the prospect of early resumption of hostilities remains, and that the violent reaction of the Arab world to these very situations is also a vital factor in the equation, if one must focus on the possibility of peaceful adjustment.”

                http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/AB14D4AAFC4E1BB985256204004F55FA

                If you need other sources I will try to help.

                Comment by Michael — January 2, 2011 @ 8:17 am


                • Thx.

                  Note: There is a confusion about ‘Palestine’. After Israeli Declaration, what remained of pre-declaration Palestine, is still called Palestine. It can mean both pre and post the Israeli declaration. They are two quite different land masses.

                  ‘in Palestine’ or ‘Palestine’ in UN/UNSC resolutions post Israeli declaration, doesn’t include Israel. It is independent of Palestine and as corpus separatum had/has not been implemented, Jerusalem was/is still a part of Palestine. This was certainly the case on 14th May 1948.

                  Bernadotte refers to both instances of Palestine, pre and post Israeli declaration. What he is talking about in the sequence of events needs to be closely followed.

                  In respect to his comment ..“The failure to implement the resolution of 29 November 1947, and the open hostilities to which the Arab opposition to it led, resulted in convoking of the second special session of the General Assembly to ‘consider further the future government of Palestine” That would be the UN’s failure to implement corpus separatum. (A change of heart by the Arab states and the withdrawal of Israel forces from territories slated for the Arab State and corpus separatum at any time before 1st April, would have resulted in Res 181 being a success.

                  The purposes of convening the 2nd Special Session are in the table of contents V and VI. It refers to Jerusalem, which until corpus separatum was implemented, was/is still a part of Palestine. To ‘consider further the future government of Palestine’ at that point in time is a reference to implementing corpus separatum. In which case the ‘government of Palestine’ would be further divided. See the text of UNGA Res 187, adopted by the 2nd Special Session.

                  Interesting to note his opinion here. It no doubt helped get him killed

                  “(8) Jerusalem stands in the heart of what must be Arab territory in any partition of Palestine. To attempt to isolate this area politically and otherwise from surrounding territory presents enormous difficulties. The special condition of Jerusalem — its large Jewish population and its religious associations — needs special consideration, and the way for discussion of these questions was left open. Arab domination of legitimate Jewish and other non-Arab interests in Jerusalem was never intended or implied in the suggestions. Moreover, while I fully appreciate that the question of Jerusalem is of very great concern, for historical and other reasons, to the Jewish community of Palestine, Jerusalem was never intended to be a part of the Jewish State. In this sense, the position of the Jewish State is unaffected and the question of Jerusalem has no relationship to its status. The status of Jerusalem, therefore, is separate from the question of the constitution and boundaries of a Jewish State. My suggestions fully safeguard the historical and world-wide religious interests in Jerusalem.”

                  There are many ways of looking at the situation.

                  One is to point out the injustices, hypocrisy and legal argument pre-Israeli declaration. It is arguable that perhaps Israel doesn’t actually have a legal right to exist. However, what is the end aim? To revert? That people be better informed? If the latter, how would that information help in confronting the realities of today.

                  Another is as did Bernadotte, to accept that the State of Israel exists. As such it should adhere to it’s declaration, it’s OWN voluntary obligations to International Law, the UN Charter, by it’s OWN statements, Conventions it has ratified and of course it’s OWN borders.

                  To that end, using what Israel itself has said to poke holes in the Hasbara is the manner I have chosen to set folks minds in motion to question the whole Israeli narrative.

                  Comment by talknic — January 2, 2011 @ 9:16 am


                  • Hi Talknic.

                    Why do you think, that “Palestine” refers only to Westbank and Gaza? The State of Palestine didn’t stop to exist after Israel’s proclamation within the State of Palestine. It only had/has no effective goverment and doesn’t control the territory. Compare it with Poland’s history before and after WW I and WW II.

                    And I still haven’t found the answer to the question, why Israel should have a right to exist after all. Who gave Israel this right? The Goverment of Palestine? The People of Palestine (jewish or not)?

                    Comment by Michael — January 20, 2011 @ 1:40 pm


                    • Hi Michael

                      “Why do you think, that “Palestine” refers only to Westbank and Gaza? “

                      It doesn’t. No matter how much as the land grubbers would like it. They’d like it to be less than the West Bank & Gaza. Palestine is legally any territory in the region not officially and legally that of the other states in the region. Palestine is defined by default of the actual declared and Internationally recognized frontiers of the states that surround it, including Israel.

                      ” The State of Palestine didn’t stop to exist after Israel’s proclamation within the State of Palestine.”

                      True the entity of Palestine continued to exist, albeit somewhat smaller after Israeli Declaration. As for Palestine being a state, in a legally it was. However, in the interest of self determination, I accept the Palestinian view of now or in the very near future, re-declaring.

                      Also true the Jewish People’s Council A) made their Declaration ‘within’ the entity of Palestine, but on making it, B) TWO entities were created, one Israel and the other, what remained of Palestine, still called Palestine, of which Israel was no longer a part. Israel is not ‘in’ any other entity, it is a Sovereign Independent entity, it cannot be a part of or ‘in’ Palestine

                      ” It only had/has no effective goverment and doesn’t control the territory. Compare it with Poland’s history before and after WW I and WW II.”

                      Palestine had no administration from the moment the Mandate ended. This is however, irrelevant. What became Israel didn’t have a Government until after it became Israel. 1st a state is declared, then a State Government (which is provisional until such time as a State Government is elected). While a State Government does not exist, there cannot be proof of competence in order to declare and be recognized. The TwaddleSpeil perpetuated by the Hasbarbarians is full of gaping holes through which all logic escapes.

                      Furthermore, if an entity is not governed, it is protected under the UN Charter Chapt XI. Israel has a self imposed obligation to the principles of the UN Charter IN TOTAL, from the moment the Declaration came into effect “at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”. In 62 years Israel has never upheld the UN Charter Chapt XI

                      “And I still haven’t found the answer to the question, why Israel should have a right to exist after all. Who gave Israel this right? The Goverment of Palestine? The People of Palestine (jewish or not)?”

                      It’s Hasbara TwaddleSpeil. There is no legal precedent for a right to exist. None, Nil, Nada.Either one exists or one doesn’t exist. You cannot have a right to ANYTHING if you don’t exist. If one exists, only then does one have rights such as the right to self determination.

                      Comment by talknic — January 20, 2011 @ 4:38 pm


  9. Lol, this is a ridiculous post.

    The word “Palestine” (Land of the Philistines) was used back then to refer to the Philistine’s territory, encompassing mainly Gaza and the Israeli cities of Ashqelon and Ashdod. The whole region was named “Palestine” because the Romans picked such a name as a way to deny the presence of Hebrews/Israelites/Judahites when it fit them. The Persians (who ruled the land from 538 BC to around 330 BC, i.e. the conquest of Alexander the Great), on the other hand, called it Yehud Medinata, and the Romans themselves called it Iudea before they started having serious trouble with its Jewish inhabitants.

    And Palestinians do exist, and have existed since 1948 onwards (with some Arabs proposing the establishment of an Arab state in what is now Israel, Gaza and the West Bank in the 1920s and 1930s). But they did not exist as a nation in the 19th century, much less circa 0 AC, yet this of course doesn’t affect their right to self-determination.

    I’d like to end this post saying that it’s ironic that some people claim that Israeli Jews are European invaders considering that Philistines were of European origin (proto-Greek).

    Comment by asdf — November 24, 2010 @ 10:29 pm


    • Uh Oh… the nonsense flows

      “The word “Palestine” (Land of the Philistines) was used back then to refer to the Philistine’s territory, encompassing mainly Gaza and the Israeli cities of Ashqelon and Ashdod.”

      A) Israel didn’t exist ‘back then’

      B) Ashqelon is not within the extent of Israel’s declared sovereignty (Israel has never legally annexed ANY territory)

      C) Israeli Ashdod was only established in 1956. Perhaps you should consult an ISRAELI history book.

      “The whole region was named “Palestine” because the Romans picked such a name as a way to deny the presence of Hebrews/Israelites/Judahites when it fit them.

      Evidence that this is why the region was named Palestine by the Romans….. other than repetition?

      “The Persians (who ruled the land from 538 BC to around 330 BC…”

      Amazing…irrelevant to the subject..

      “And Palestinians do exist, and have existed since 1948 onwards”

      From at least the Roman era actually

      “But they did not exist as a nation in the 19th century, much less circa 0 AC…”

      So what. Israel didn’t exist as a nation either.

      Nothing you have said changes International Law, the UN Charter, the GC’s, the Declaration for the Establishment for the State of Israel, UNSC Resolutions, cease-fire/armistice/peace agreements or Israel’s obligations.

      Comment by talknic — November 25, 2010 @ 12:46 am


      • “Evidence that this is why the region was named Palestine by the Romans….. other than repetition?”

        Earliest numismatic evidence for the name Syria Palæstina comes from the period of emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.

        Herodotus wrote in c.450 BC in The Histories of a ‘district of Syria, called Palaistinê” (whence Palaestina, whence Palestine).[2][3][4] One important reference refers to the practice of male circumcision associated with the Hebrew people: “the Colchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians, are the only nations who have practised circumcision from the earliest times. The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine themselves confess that they learnt the custom of the Egyptians… Now these are the only nations who use circumcision”[5] In c.340 BC, Aristotle wrote in Meteorology about Palestine in a reference to the Dead Sea: “Again if, as is fabled, there is a lake in Palestine, such that if you bind a man or beast and throw it in it floats and does not sink, this would bear out what we have said. They say that this lake is so bitter and salt that no fish live in it and that if you soak clothes in it and shake them it cleans them.”[6] And in c.40 AD, Roman-Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria wrote of the Jews in Palestine: “Moreover Palestine and Syria too are not barren of exemplary wisdom and virtue, which countries no slight portion of that most populous nation of the Jews inhabits. There is a portion of those people called Essenes”[7]

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina

        Comment by Israelihtbringer — June 13, 2011 @ 1:13 pm


        • So what?

          The Romans, who controlled the region, called it Palestine. Whoever controls a region/country, can call it whatever they like and for whatever reason they like. It had nothing to do with the Palestinians, who were controlled by the Romans and they’re long gone.

          So, for at least 2,000 years or there abouts, all it’s inhabitants, not through any making of their own except for living there, were Palestinian citizens. I.e., Palestinians. Including Jewish folk.

          You can continue to deny logic with any manner of ‘proof’, but the fact remains that the greater part of Jewish history in the region, has been as Palestinians. No shame in that is there? Well? IS THERE?

          Of course not. Your stupidity only belies the ghastly bigotry necessary to deny Palestinians of what is rightfully theirs under International Law. The same International Law Israel obliged itself to uphold May 15th 1948 by becoming a separate state, thereby depriving Israelis (Jewish and non-Jewish) the right to live anywhere in Palestine. What a missed opportunity, it must really piss the likes of yourself off no end. LOL.

          Comment by talknic — June 13, 2011 @ 8:22 pm


    • @ asdf

      > The word “Palestine” [...] inhabitants.

      This is correct until the mandate. Palestine since the mandate was the name of an allied successor state to the ottoman empire.

      > And Palestinians [...] self-determination.

      “Palestinians” since 1925 was the name of the CITIZENSHIP of all people residing legally in the mandated State of Palestine. “Jews”, “Arabs”, “Druzes”, “Bedouins” … is just a “nationality within CITIZENSHIP”, even today in Israel. So Israel is not a “Jewish state” like Palestine has never been an “Arab state”.

      > I’d like to end this post saying that it’s ironic that some people claim that Israeli Jews are European invaders considering that Philistines were of European origin (proto-Greek).”

      Well, when did the Jews invade Canaan for the first time? The Palestinians are a not only descendents of the Philistines. It is even more likely that an arab Palestinian is a hewbrew (who converted to Islam) than an Ashkenasi Jew. That was even Ben Gurion’s opinion, who was a russian pseudo traveller who simply overstayed in Palestine when his tourist visa ran out.

      Comment by Michael — December 25, 2010 @ 10:28 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Shocking Blue Green Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers

%d bloggers like this: