First, find out what isn't true…

May 28, 2012

The Hasbara. World’s worst propaganda – United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 was not binding and is irrelevant because the Arabs rejected it


ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-Yx

How many times have you heard “the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 was not binding and is irrelevant because the Arabs rejected it”

Friday, 5 March 1948 Rabbi Silver stated to the UNSC

“Nevertheless, reluctantly but loyally, we accepted the decision which appeared fair and reasonable to the United Nations”

“We feel under the obligation to make our position unmistakably clear. As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision of the United Nations. We regard it as binding, and we are resolved to move forward in the spirit of that decision. “

Friday, 19 March 1948 Rabbi Silver replacing Mr. Shertok at the Council table as representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine stated

“We are under the obligation at this time to repeat what we stated at a [262nd meeting] meeting of the Security Council last week: The decision of the General Assembly remains valid for the Jewish people. We have accepted it and we are prepared to abide by it. If the United Nations Palestine Commission is unable to carry out the mandates which were assigned to it by the General Assembly, the Jewish people of Palestine will move forward in the spirit of that resolution and will do everything which is dictated by considerations of national survival and by considerations of justice and historic rights.”

“The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State.”

And again:
Security Council S/PV.271 19 March 1948 The representative of the Jewish Agency, Rabbi Silver:

The statement that the plan proposed by the General Assembly is an integral plan which cannot succeed unless each of its parts can be carried out, is incorrect. This conception was never part of the plan. Indeed, it is contrary to the statement made by the representative of the United States during the second session of the General Assembly. The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State. Mr. Herschel Johnson, representing the United States delegation, speaking in a sub-committee of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question on 28 October 1947, stated, in discussing this very matter in connexion with economic union: “The element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only.”

UNGA res 181 is enshrined in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel

Someone is lying … You decide

About these ads

7 Comments »

  1. On the question of whether the State of Israel has declared its borders, which we were discussing elsewhere, I do not think the matter is as clear-cut as you suggest. It is too strong to say that 181 is ‘enshrined’ in Israel’s declaration:

    “On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable”.

    It acknowledges the existence of the the resolution, and says it makes irrevocable the right of the Jewish people to establish a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel, but says nothing about other aspects of the resolution.

    And Rabbi Silver’s remarks on 19 March do seem to leave considerable wiggle room: “If the United Nations Palestine Commission is unable to carry out the mandates which were assigned to it by the General Assembly, the Jewish people of Palestine will move forward in the spirit of that resolution and will do everything which is dictated by considerations of national survival and by considerations of justice and historic rights.”

    “Moving forward in the spirit of that resolution” and doing “everything which is dictated by considerations of national survival etc.”, are not the same thing as accepting the resolution in all its details, such as borders. To me, it reads as if they are taking from 181 the right of the Jewish State to exist, but if the Arabs don’t also accept 181, the Jewish state feels free to do what it likes in its own interests.

    Comment by Walk Tall Hang Loose — October 2, 2012 @ 12:46 pm

    • Postscript: I have now found your entry of December 16, 2010 which quotes the letter to the USA of May 15th 1948, and the letter to the Security Council of May 28th, both of which clearly state that the borders of Israel are those in the partition plan in UNGAR 181. Many congratulations to you for your extensive research that has brought these facts to light.

      Comment by Walk Tall Hang Loose — October 2, 2012 @ 3:59 pm

      • The Hasbara is totally Right !!!!!!
        Arabs Rejected the “Unbalanced” Partition Plan

        The UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) uses the term “unbalanced” in describing the reason for Arab rejectionism of Resolution 181, [4] which does not exactly fit reality. Seventy-seven percent of the landmass of the original Mandate for the Jews was excised in 1922 to create a fourth Arab state – Trans-Jordan (today Jordan).

        In a statement by Dr. Abba Hillel Silver, the representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), he had that to say about fairness, balance, and justice: [5]

        “According to David Lloyd George, then British Prime Minister, the Balfour Declaration implied that the whole of Palestine, including Transjordan, should ultimately become a Jewish state. Transjordan had, nevertheless, been severed from Palestine in 1922 and had subsequently been set up as an Arab kingdom. Now a second Arab state was to be carved out of the remainder of Palestine, with the result that the Jewish National Home would represent less than one eighth of the territory originally set aside for it. Such a sacrifice should not be asked of the Jewish people.” [6]

        Referring to the Arab States established as independent countries since the First World War, he said:

        “17,000,000 Arabs now occupied an area of 1,290,000 square miles, including all the principal Arab and Moslem centers, while Palestine, after the loss of Transjordan, was only 10,000 square miles; yet the majority plan proposed to reduce it by one half. UNSCOP proposed to eliminate Western Galilee from the Jewish State; that was an injustice and a grievous handicap to the development of the Jewish State.” [italics by author].


      • I see. So, five months AFTER the Arabs rejected the plan, the Jewish Agency official didn’t make the statement to the UNSC? Or, five months AFTER the Arabs rejected the plan, the Jewish Agency LIED to the UNSC?

        What Dr. Abba Hillel Silver had that to say about fairness, balance, and justice comments about the Arab States established as independent countries since the First World War are irrelevant to the topic being discussed here. Which is “the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 was not binding and is irrelevant because the Arabs rejected it”

        Like the Hasbara, you’re deflection is bullsh*t.

        BTW Please attribute your citations. Plagiarism is a crime

      • Comment by israebest — June 18, 2013 @ 4:47 am

  • Hi,

    “it reads as if they are taking from 181 the right of the Jewish State to exist, but if the Arabs don’t also accept 181, the Jewish state feels free to do what it likes in its own interests”

    In respect to the Arab states not accepting the resolution: The recommendation was for either party to declare “independence”. Independence is unilateral by its very nature. One cannot demand an entity must declare independence, nor can there be a co-signature to independence. That would be ‘dependent’ on the other party.

    The Jewish Agency understood this basic principal. Rabbi Silver, officially representing the Jewish Agency at the UNSC Friday, 19 March 1948

    “The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State.”

    Again Rabbi Silver, officially representing the Jewish Agency at the UNSC 19 March 1948

    “The element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only.”

    All contracts are only recommendations until they are accepted. The final act of acceptance was to for the Jewish People’s Council to declare, which it did in accordance with the recommendations.

    All that was required was for the Mandate to end so the territory for the Jewish State and the territory for the Arab State were both free from occupation. Only then could either party declare independence, if they wished.

    However, by May 14/15th 1948 there were already Jewish troops in control of territory slated for the Arab State, making it impossible to declare an independent Arab State even if they had wanted to.

    The Israeli Government acknowledged the extent of Israel’s borders on May 22nd 1948 in a statement to the UNSC and acknowledged it had territory “outside the state of Israel” under “military control”. Occupation.

    As to what Israel feels free to do: In respect to Palestinian territory, Israel is adhering to Deuteronomy 20:15 … as long as Palestine is not an Independent State, Israel will follow the path outlined by the Israeli Government on the 31st August 1949 to Conciliation Commission.

    Twice now, in front of the world at the UN, the official Palestinian spokesman has offered Israel all the Palestinian territories Israel acquired by war by 1949. Foregoing their rights under the law. Israel has only demanded more of the Palestinians and; disrespected the sovereignty of its neighbouring states, exactly as it stated 31st August 1949. Israel’s Peace Treaty with Egypt only came about only after Egypt had its sovereign territories restored. Territory that belonged to a neighbouring ‘state’, per Deuteronomy 20:15

    There is only one thing protecting Israel from the force of the Law. The US veto vote in the UNSC. Faced with the law, Israel would be bankrupt for decades as it tried to pay reparations going back 64 years to both the Palestinians and Syria since 1967. It’s why the US demands there be a negotiated settlement. Israel MUST negotiate a deal with the Palestinians in order to cut a new ‘contract’ and circumvent the consequences of the Law.

    Comment by talknic — October 2, 2012 @ 7:10 pm


  • 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. Blog at WordPress.com.

    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 29 other followers

    %d bloggers like this: