| ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-WA
The Hasbara – World’s worst propaganda – There was no occupation before 1967? The following is not an unfounded accusation. It’s not from a propaganda site. They’re the official words of the Provisional Israeli Government of May 1948, as recorded by the UNSC. You decide.
“international regulations” at the time say;
And again on 12 Aug 1948
None of these areas have never been legally annexed to Israel. Occupation can actually be dated from May 22nd 1948. |
 BIG detailed Google Earth overlay Includes the UNGA text. Load the kmz file into Google Earth then use the properties in the left hand column to vary the transparency HELP |
May 10, 2012
February 8, 2011
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.
ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-Qh
League of Nations Mandate for Palestine:
The Council of the League of Nations “Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; “
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/The%20Mandate%20for%20Palestine
League of Nations Convenant: Article 22. Part I. (4th paragraph)
“Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#art22
League of Nations 30 November 1937 C.495.M.336.1937.VI. Geneva, November 30th, 1937
Chapter X. – Conclusion
” It means that the Arabs must acquiesce in the exclusion from their sovereignty of a piece of territory, long occupied and once ruled by them.”
——
Additional research from Michael
Prior to the Mandate – Great Britain, Ireland and Palestine:
“Article 2. The Money Order Service between the contracting countries shall be performed exclusively by the agency of Offices of Exchange.
Article 7. Duplicate Orders shall be issued only by the Postal Administration of the country of payment and in conformity with the regulations established or to be established in that country.
Article 8. When it is desired that an error in the name of the payee shall be corrected, or that the amount of a Money Order shall be repaid to the remitter, application must be made by the remitter to the Chief Office of the country in which the Order was issued.
Article 9. Repayment of an Order shall not, in any case, be made until it has been ascertained, through the Chief Office of the country where such Order is payable, that the Order has not been paid and that the said Office authorizes the repayment.
Article 10. Orders shall remain payable in each country for twelve months after the expiration of the month of issue ; and the amounts of all Money Orders not paid within that period shall revert to and remain the property of the Administration of the country of issue.”
http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/20/20/00038953.pdf
Iraq, Syria, TransJordan, Turkey and Palestine:
“Article I. The High Contracting Parties undertake to créât and maintain an ” International Office
for Information regarding Locusts “. Its seat shall be at Damascus, and its expenses shall be defrayed by the Contracting Parties in equal shares.
Article II. The Office shall operate under the authority and control of a Committee composed of delegates of the Contracting States.
Article III. The expenses of setting up the office and the annual expenses of running it shall be supported by the Contracting States according to the conditions laid down by the Organic Statute mentioned in Article II.
Article IV. The contributions of each of the Contracting States shall be paid in through the intermediary of the High Commissariat of the French Republic in the States of Syria to the Bank of Syria and Lebanon at Damascus, whence the money shall be withdrawn, as need arises, on the order of the Director of the Office. Each of the Contracting States shall make its first annual payment within three months from the date when this Agreement is approved by their respective Governments.”
http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/17/1/00032024.pdf
International Commerce Agreement with Egypt and Palestine:
“The Egyptian Government therefore agrees, on the basis of complete reciprocity, to grant most-favoured-nation treatment to products of the soil and of industry originating in Palestine and imported into Egyptian territory for consumption, re-exportation or transit.”
http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/16/8/00030366.pdf
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.
.
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 Some very nice pics (thanks The Angry Arabs) From Michael: Chairman of the Permanent Mandates Commission in 1937: |
November 2, 2010
What will happen if the Palestinians Declare Sovereign Independence by the ’67 armistice lines?
| A declaration of Sovereign Independence according to the Armistice lines of ’67 by the Palestinians makes for a really interesting situation…
FACT : Palestine’s name has not changed since Roman era. Under the Ottoman rule, the region was called Palestine. Under the Mandate, the region was called Palestine. Jordan was declared Independent of Palestine in 1946. What remained was still called Palestine. Israel was declared Independent of Palestine in 1948. . What remained was still called Palestine. FACT : Palestine today is comprised by default, of the territories outside of and bound by the actual Internationally recognized extent of Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian, Egyptian & Israeli sovereignty. The actual legal status of Palestine has not changed since Israel was declared independent of Palestine on May 14th 1948 FACT : Jerusalem was never instituted as a corpus separatum by the UN. It was not a part of Israel’s declared sovereignty. Jerusalem’s status has never legally changed from being a part of Palestine for over 2,000 years. Far longer than the entire existence of the Jewish Kingdom. FACT : The territories Israel illegally acquired by war by 1950 and never legally annexed, are still legally a part of Palestine.. (about 33% of the territory Israel claims as it’s own). Israel has never legally annexed any territories. It is inadmissible to ‘acquire’ territory by war. Territory can only be ‘acquired’ by legal annexation FACT : No actual borders were changed in ’67. Armistice lines are not borders unless they follow the borders existing before the armistice or unless “territories occupied” are legally annexed during the period of the armistice. FACT : A Declaration of Sovereign Independence only comes into effect when the territories declared are completely free of occupation. (example ..“The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time” After the British occupation/Mandate ended.) In order to come into effect, Israel would have to withdraw from all of the territories declared by Palestine. FACT : A Palestinian declaration according to the ’67 armistice lines, will not change the extent of Israel’s actual Internationally recognized declared sovereignty. By declaring Sovereign Independence according to the ’67 armistice lines, territories not declared as sovereign by the Palestinians and not declared as sovereign or legally annexed to Israel, will remain a part of Palestine until their status is legally changed. Israel will finally have to either legally annex them, (legal annexation requires an agreement) OR occupy them. As the Occupying Power, Israel would then be duty bound to PROTECT THEM until they in turn have the ability to become independent. However, as an Independent Sovereign State, Palestine would also be Regional Power. As such it would also have the same right to legally annex or occupy the same territories. Conundrum : If the Palestinians declare themselves independent by the boundaries of the ’67 armistice and call their state Palestine, what will the remaining, tiny, entity be called? If it erupts in civil war. Which Regional Power would take over. It could ask to be annexed by one of the Regional Powers as a trustee, as the Palestinians requested of TransJordan in 1950. But which Regional Power would it trust? One who has for 62 years usurped the Palestinians, denying them RoR, razing their homes, villages, farms? Or the party who would sacrifice some 50% of it’s rightful territories, in order that there be peace, helping Israel extract itself from the illegal, facts on the ground, black hole it has dug for itself and it’s illegally settling citizens? If neither Israel or Palestine annex, hundreds of thousands of people living in the remaining, tiny, entity, many of whom are currently Israeli citizens, will be stateless AND possibly without a name. If Israel does annex, it must be by agreement (with the remaining, tiny entity) and it would show the world that these territories were not actually a part of Israel at all. I.e., it has been bullsh*tting for 62 years. (Not that Israel ever seems to care about being shown as deceitful, as long as it has land). Palestine would have just as much right as Israel to annex, by agreement (with the remaining, tiny entity). Would Israel go ballistic? Kick the sh*te out of ye olde china shoppe? Ask yourself….. Who will stop them? The US, mightiest nation on earth, can’t even stop the illegal settlements! |
Israel vs Palestine. Occupation is a position of TRUST. There is an OBLIGATION and a DUTY to PROTECT the occupied, their property and their territory.
then it’s the territory of what remains of Palestine since Jordan and Israel declared their Sovereign Independence from Palestine in 1946 & 1948.
Jerusalem Declared Israel Occupied City by Israeli Government Proclamation12 Aug 1948 The Occupying Power cannot legally annex without agreement with the civilian population of the territory being annexed. Israel’s illegal annexation of east Jerusalem was condemned by the UNSC.
Today Israel still occupies Palestinian territories, according to UNSC Res 1860 Jan 2009
CHAPTER XI: DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES
Article 73“Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end etc etc “
——
First, read the UN Charter, care fully. It is actually a fine document with noble aspirations. Perfect? No. Nothing is perfect. However nothing, by it’s very nature, simply doesn’t exist.
What does exist is a set of rules for when parties cannot, do not or refuse to resolve their conflicts. Many of the rules exist because of the fate of the millions who suffered the horrors brought on by the Nazis. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees exists because of the dispossession and deaths of European Jews and countless millions of other innocent people.
The rules have been accepted by all Members, without reservation. One cannot opt out of ANY of the UN Charter.
Under the UN Charter there is an obligation and a duty for the UN/UNSC and Regional Powers to intervene when a UN Member state acts illegally outside the extent of it’s sovereignty. They’re the rules Israel unconditionally accepted in order to become a United Nations Member.
Under the UN Charter (Chapt XI) non-self governed entities are to be afforded protection by Member States. Occupation is a position of TRUST. There is an obligation and a duty to protect the occupied, their property and their territory. There is an obligation to assist the occupied in achieving statehood with all their rights, in all of their rightfull territories.
Israel is doing exactly the opposite while the world stands by, terrified of being called Antisemitic if they dare criticize, even though justifiable criticism is founded in the very laws Israel swore to uphold. Influenced by the Hasbara provided by the squeakiest door in the building. Fearfull of what the little Red Heifer in the Middle East might do to the china shop if held to account.
Israel’s founders at the time of declaration were well aware of the legal implications of declaring sovereignty. Well aware of the UN Charter, Laws of War & Geneva Conventions, before committing to them. Israel’s legal advisers were not naive. They were aware of every word, every punctuation mark, every exacting detail. They know full well that as long as a resolution or the writing of a resolution is being disputed, no action can be taken. None more obvious than the delaying tactic of arguing over the word ‘the’ in UNSC Res 242.
Unless the Zionist Federation were idiots, and we know they weren’t, when Plan Dalet was launched they must have known Israel could not be held to account by the UN until it joined the UN. The UN cannot censure non-members. However, the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel, says “it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. “
A search of the UNSC resolutions on the conflict from 14th May 1948 till admission to the UN reveals no direct demand or censure on Israel. After admittance May 11, 1949, we see the UN directly censuring Israel.
Israel’s narrative now is “The UN is biased against Israel, why doesn’t the UN censure the Palestinians, Hamas?”. Well, unless idiots are running the country, it’s BLOODY OBVIOUS!!
October 15, 2010
YouTube removes videos showing Israeli atrocities. Silwan Palestine “territories occupied” – ILLEGAL Israeli settler veers to wrong side of the road and drives into Palestinian children, allegedly to save himself AFTER his car had been stoned.
Logic. If it isn’t the “acknowledged” Sovereign Territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel, it’s what remains of Palestine.
ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-Du
The video has been removed from YouTube along with this notification
Search for gratuitous+violence+definition
There are hundreds of copies of the video available across the internet, at least thirty on YouTube.
It is odd that one analyzing the event without prejudice is removed, while those trying to justify a illegal settler, Elad head, David Be’eri , driving on the wrong side of the road, are not removed.
——-
Silwan is in occupied Palestine – An ILLEGAL Israeli settler veers to wrong side of the road and drives into Palestinian children,
allegedly to save himself AFTER his car had been stoned. Would you accept the word of an illegal settler who’s career is intentionally breaking International Law?
The GC’s are there to protect all civilians. The occupied have a right to armed resistance against the occupier’s military. Only an IDIOT would purposefully move his family into “territories occupied” in order to advance the notion of a Greater Israel knowingly breaking International Law.
Youths who have spent their entire lives under occupation, born to parents who have spent their entire lives under occupation, are very likely to pay scant regard for the Laws of War, not that the Laws of War actually cover them throwing rocks at illegal settlers.
It is quite un-believable anyone serving on any Committee on the Rights of the Child would advocate that children be shot. Yet Israeli MK Ben Ari of the Israeli Committee on the Rights of the Child said “Even a child, if he is endangering someone’s life, should be shot at,”
There is something seriously wrong when a person on a Committee on the Rights of the Child, advocates the shooting of children who have lived their entire lives under occupation. How can Israeli MK Ben Ari have a position on such a committee? His callousness is quite sickening.
Images from the removed video
September 18, 2010
January 2, 2010
The recognition of Israel. De jure? De facto? The Jewish State?
then it’s a territory of Palestine…
ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-lA
There is no legal basis in the demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel or Israel as the Jewish State. No other country in the world gave recognition to Israel as the “Jewish State” . They recognized Israel as the “State of Israel” as per the Declaration for the Establishment of “the State of Israel”
de jure and de facto recognition are recognitions of the legal status of States and/or Governments. Governments administer the State. Governments can change.
It is not within the mandate of the UN to recognize states. Already recognized states are admitted to the UN after they have been recommended by the UNSC, they must have been recognized as states before they can be recommended by the UNSC. More states have recognized Palestinian statehood today than the number recognizing Israel when it was admitted to the UN.
Recognition of statehood is not mandatory. ” ..in the view of the United States, International Law does not require a state to recognize another state; it is a matter for the judgment of each state whether an entity merits recognition as a state. In reaching this judgment, the United States has traditionally looked for the establishment of certain facts. The United States has also taken into account whether the entity in question has attracted the recognition of the International community of states.” There are numerous UN Member states who do not recognize other UN Member States.
What is required of states is the respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. This is reflected in UNSC res 242
Territories:
Sovereign Territories belong to Independent Sovereign States, regardless of which Government is in power. A sovereign has complete control over all it’s territories and what happens within them, regardless of which Government is in power.
Non-Sovereign States, States and non-state entities also have territories. They are not there just for the taking.
A state entity might have full control of it’s territories and still not declare itself an independent sovereignty.
A state might also only partially control it’s territories, in which case, it cannot declare independent sovereignty.
( See why Palestine has never declared itself an independent sovereignty)
The difference between state and non-state is: a state has declared itself to be a state. There is no obligation for any entity to declare either statehood or independent sovereignty. It is a matter of self determination. Unilateral by nature. Independence means not being under the control of any other entity, person or power.
‘real estate’ is not ‘territory’. Real estate is bought and sold by private individuals, businesses, corporations, institutions. ‘Territory’ is the stuff of States and entities. ‘Real estate’ is irrelevant to the status of the ownership of the ‘territories’ of states/non-states/sovereign-states, entities. A person who rents or even a landless bum, living under a bridge, is an equal part of a state or entity. Territories of an entity belong to all the citizens of the entity.
We must also distinguish between the type of Government of an entity (permanent) and political parties elected to lead a Government,(temporary).
Recognition:
For there to be International recognition of an independent sovereign State, the boundaries of the sovereign state must be defined in order to know exactly the extent of the territory being claimed as sovereign. Israel’s boundaries were defined when the Jewish People’s Council accepted and declared sovereignty over the boundaries recommended in UNGA res 181, in order to be recognized as a Sovereign State. The Israeli Government confirmed it’s declared boundaries in statements to the UNSC on May 22nd 1948 and June 15th 1949
UNGA res 181:
The resolution set out conditions under which either party could declare independent sovereignty, if they wished. No one can demand an entity declare independence. It did not require the two parties to co-sign. This would have been against the notions of self determination. On the 14th of May 1948 the Provisional Government of Israel proclaimed the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel to the International Community of Nations.
Although UNGA Res 181 was a non-binding resolution, it reminded parties of conditions regarding the declaring of a Sovereign Independent that are binding. A Declaration of Sovereignty IS binding. It is a statement to the International Community of Nations, signifying the intention of the party declaring. Israel implemented it’s part of UNGA resolution 181. UNGA Res 181 is STILL enshrined in the Declaration of a Jewish State.
The UN did not implement the corpus separatum, Jerusalem remained a part of Palestine
The Arab League refused to recognize UNGA Res 181 on legal grounds. Not because of hatred towards Jews.
The Palestinians COULD NOT declare, because Jewish forces, under Plan Dalet, were already in control of territories slated for the new Arab State by the time the British Mandate ended.
Link to this section
//Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel… ” I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.//
Based on this information, the majority of the International Community of States recognized Israel, over riding the Arab League’s objections. (International democracy at work, Israel exists as a Sovereign State, independent of the remainder of Palestine)
Recognition – de facto or de jure?: (de facto – facts on the ground) – (de jure – in law).
A State must exist before a State Government can be instituted. The territories must be defined in order for other Nations to know the extent of the Sovereignty being declared and the declaring entity must have full control over those territories. (Independence)
The territories of the Sovereign State of Israel were recognized by the USA and Russia within days, as de jure by default, through the de facto recognition given to the A) authority of the Provisional Government over those territories declared. B) later the US, through the de jure recognition of the Government of Israel set up under the authority of the Provisional Government to govern, within the declared sovereign territories.
The British did likewise but included a caveat, not recognizing any territories acquired by war by 1949 as sovereign to Israel. I.e., de jure recognition within the declared sovereign territories.
Link to this section
Three examples of this recognition :
The US granted the Provisional Government de facto recognition to administer the Sovereign Territories of the State of Israel, based on the information supplied by the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel, (by the boundaries in UNGA res 181), until such time as a permanent institutions of Government were set up. It then granted de jure recognition. This was marked when the first political party was elected to Government.
The USSR granted de jure recognition of the de facto (provisional) Government’s authority to administer the Sovereign Territories of the State of Israel and to set up a Government. To the best of my knowledge, the USSR has never actually given de jure recognition. Although having given de jure recognition to the ‘authority’ of the Provisional Government, it would naturally follow by default.
Link to this section
The British waited until a political party was elected to the Government. The British then granted de jure recognition, with conditions. The territories Israel had acquired by war, outside of it’s declared Sovereign Boundaries, were considered to be ‘occupied’. I.e., NOT Israeli Sovereign territory.
His Majesty’s Government have also decided to accord de jure recognition to the State of Israel, subject to explanations on two points corresponding to those described above in regard to the case of Jordan. These points are as follows. First, that His Majesty’s Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it. Secondly, that His Majesty’s Government cannot regard the present boundaries between Israel, and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon as constituting the definitive frontiers of Israel, as these boundaries were laid 1139 down in the Armistice Agreements concluded severally between Israel and each of these States, and are subject to any modifications which may be agreed upon under the terms of those Agreements, or of any final settlements which may replace them.
Israel has never legally annexed any territory. Unilateral annexation is not legal. It must be under a treaty or agreement. “territories occupied” and never withdrawn from or legally annexed, are still ‘occupied’.
December 26, 2009
Fostering ignorance, hatred and planting the seeds of fear in a festering war for more land. A Greater Israel at all costs, even the basic tenets of Judaism.
then it’s a territory of the non-state entity of Palestine…
Shortlink http://wp.me/pDB7k-m1
Bearing goodwill isn’t a burden
A common argument we hear against the Palestinians and one recently reiterated by the Israeli Foreign Minister Snr Lieberman is like many others, excuse my French, bullshit!
From Haaretz // Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has ordered diplomats to use an old photograph of a former Palestinian religious leader meeting Adolf Hitler to counter world criticism of a Jewish building plan for East Jerusalem. Asked why Lieberman issued the order, a spokesman said: “because it’s important for the world to know the facts” and would not elaborate.//
What ‘facts’? Simple, unbiased, non-partisan, maths, tells us there are no facts associated with today’s Palestinians. First some history on Snr al-Husseini.
Haj Amin al-Husseini was sentenced to ten years in prison by the British for inciting riots in 1920, he was given amnesty by the high commissioner of Palestine, one Herbert Samuel, who then appointed him as Mufti of Jerusalem, 1921. Samuel was also responsible for creating the Supreme Muslim Council, which al-Husseini was appointed to lead in the following year. Ironically Herbert Samuel was Jewish.
The Palestinians of the time had no say in his appointment as Mufti of Jerusalem. His appointment was opposed by the Muslim High Council, regarding him as a thug. The Palestinians had no say in his appointment to the Supreme Muslim Council. They had no say in his appointment to the Arab Higher Committee. He murdered Jews and Arabs who would not comply.
The Mufti opposed increased Jewish immigration to Palestine and was responsible for the 1929 / 1936 riots against Jewish settlement. The British declared the Arab Higher Committee illegal, al-Husseini lost his Presidency of the Supreme Muslim Council and even his membership on the Waqf committee and went into exile in Syria. He never returned to Palestine.
In 1941, when he met Hitler he was no longer the Mufti of Jerusalem and no longer an official representative of the Palestinian people. The volunteer Muslim forces he controlled were not Palestinian. They didn’t operate in Palestine. // In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti (*?) as a war criminal for his role in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped from French detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews from Cairo and later Beirut. He died in 1974// (* he was not actually the Mufti at that time) …. by the time he returned to the M East Hitler was dead, any support tied to Hitler’s promises, was non-existent. He was refused entry into Jerusalem by King Abdullah, King Tallal and King Hussein of Jordan. He died in exile in 1974.
Now let’s look at some simple maths. The Palestinians of today have a life expectancy of 73 yrs. In 1941 it was likely lower. The date of Foreign Minister Lieberman’s order 22nd July 2009.
68 years has passed between 1941 and 2009. Subtract 68 from life expectancy (today) 73 = 5yrs old in 1941. In 1948, 12 yrs old. In 1936, 0-1yrs old. In 1929 / 1920 not even born. Simple maths tells us that today’s Palestinians had NOTHING to do with the riots of 1920, the Mufti of Jerusalem, the riots of 1929 1936, the Holocaust or Hitler or WW2 or for that matter, the 1948/9 war. They were only children!
Yet the Foreign Minister of Israel, Snr Leiberman, encourages people to make an association between the Palestinians of today and events that occurred while they were only small children. Events they could not have possibly had any influence on what so ever.
No Palestinians AT ALL voted for the appointment of the Mufti of Jerusalem in 1921. The Palestinians did not vote him into any position of power. No Palestinians of today were involved in the riots of the 1920′s – 1929 – 1936. No Palestinians of today supported al-Husseini or Hitler in 1941. No Palestinians of today, or 1941 for that matter, fought in Croatia or Hungary. It is doubtful that many, if any, Palestinians of today fought in the war of 1948. The majority of Palestine refugees were and still are innocent civilians.
So what ‘facts’ was Lieberman’s spokesman talking about? Answer – none! None of it is relevant to today’s Palestinians.
Simple maths is not biased, not Arab propaganda. The Foreign Minister of Israel is either completely shite at maths, which I doubt, or a liar. Those who repeat the propaganda are either blindly ignorant, incapable of simple maths or liars themselves. Bearing false witness is against the basic tenets of Judaism.
December 24, 2009
J-Street an alternative to AIPAC? On UNGA/UNHRC/UNSC resolutions, people who should know are as ignorant as their counterparts.
Shortlink http://wp.me/pDB7k-lU
With dismay I read that Hannah Rosenthal, head of the U.S. administration’s Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, a person who once served on J street’s board of directors, on the board of directors of left-wing group Americans for Peace Now. Who held senior positions in the Department of Health and Human Services during the Clinton administration, has no idea of how the UN operates.
Ha’aretz 24/12/2009 //“….having the UN single out Israel for 170 resolutions over the last five years – when everybody knows that Sudan is committing genocide and they have only five resolutions. When Israel is the only agenda item on the human rights council – I think it’s legitimate to look at this singling out, holding Israel to a different standard than the rest of the world. I think that crosses the line to anti-Semitism.” //
Sudan’s crimes, as horrific as they are, are committed upon Sudanese, in Sudan. The resolutions against Israel, UNGA/UNSC/UNHRC are for it’s actions outside of Israel’s Internationally recognized boundaries, actions that effect people who are NOT citizens of Israel in territory that is NOT Israeli.
The majority of UNGA/UNSC/UNHRC resolutions against Israel are reminders of previous resolutions, International Law, the Conventions, UNSC resolutions and the UN Charter. If you don’t pay the bill, you get a reminder.
For example, on Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem UNSC Resolutions 267 / 271 / 298 / 465 / 476 are reminders of UNSC Resolution 252 which is in itself a reminder of International Law. Had Israel upheld International Law, there’d be no UNSC resolutions against Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem.
So who is at fault? The UNSC, UNHRC or UNGA for reminding Israel of it’s UN obligations? Obligations Israel has FAILED to uphold.
It’s jaw dropping that a person of such position and experience can be ignorant of the UN Charter AND idiotic enough to repeat the “what about Sudan” propaganda mantra. Two wrongs never make a right and to be ignorant of the UN Charter is almost criminal neglect of her positions. That she tries to blame the UN, when it has been Israel ignoring it’s obligations, is even more of a jaw dropper!
If this is the level of understanding of how the UN operates in the alternative to AIPAC and in the U.S. administration’s Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, there is something terribly, terribly wrong!
//Rosenthal strongly believes that new and different voices need to be heard regarding Israel in the American Jewish community.
“We need to have as many people coming together to try and put an end to this crisis, the matzav [situation] can not continue – it’s unacceptable and that’s why I always paid my membership to AIPAC, but I have always paid my membership to Americans for Peace Now – because they all need to be supported and they all need to be at the table.” //
Ms Rosenthal seems to have forgotten one key element. They need to be EDUCATED!
December 14, 2009
Israel agree to two states? Israel’s intentions were voiced to the Conciliation Commission on August 31st 1949. It’s actions since, show no change of plan.
then it’s a territory of the non-state entity of Palestine…
ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-l5</a>
…1948 …discussing the Declaration…
Ben-Gurion did not want to limit themselves from the outset: “We accepted the UN Resolution, but the Arabs did not. They are preparing to make war on us. If we defeat them and capture western Galilee or territory on both sides of the road to Jerusalem, these areas will become part of the state. Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs don’t accept?”However, the Jewish Agency’s final official acceptance of UNGA res 181 is enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel.
The resolution contained no clause requiring the Arab States to agree or co-sign, nor could it. It was an offer for “either” party to declare Sovereign Independence over a set of boundaries, if they wished, it was not and could not be demanded or obligatory as it would go against the meaning of ‘independent’ and; the declaration of one could not be ‘dependent’ on the other.
UNGA res 181 F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS
When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. (Article 4 Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations)
In order to be accepted into the UN through a recommendation by the UNSC, Israel had to declare its independence “as envisaged in” the UN plan enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel.
The International Community of Nations granted recognition as asked by the Provisional Government of Israel, over riding the Arab States legal objections.
Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel… ” I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”
ShortLink to here
In the following letter of the 31st August 1949 to Conciliation Commission Israel reveals :
A) It’s intention to possess all the non-state (Palestinian) territories in the region.
B) It’s admission the non-state territories it had acquired by war by 1949 were not it’s own
C) It’s admission that no part of Syria (the Golan) was Israeli.
D) No intention of there being any form of self determination for the Palestinians
E) Via the final paragraph, if it didn’t get it’s way, the recognized Sovereign integrity of the Arab states would not be respected.31 August 1949
Addressed to the Chairman of the Conciliation Commission by Mr. Reuven. Shiloah
Head of the Delegation of Israel and containing
Replies to the Commission’s Questionnaire of 15 August 1949I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of the Conciliation Commission’s memorandum of August 15 and to convey to you the answers of the Delegation of Israel to the questions submitted therein,
1. The Delegation of Israel is prepared to sign a declaration along the general lines suggested in Chapter I of the Commission’ s memorandum, subject to precision on the following specific points:(a) The Government of Israel considers that the solution of the refugee problem is to be sought primarily in the resettlement of the refugees in Arab territories, but it is prepared for its part, as already indicated to the Commission, to make it’s own contribution by agreeing to a measure of resettlement in Israel.
(b) While the Government of Israel cannot bind itself in advance to the implementation of such solutions as the survey group may propose, it will undertake to facilitate the task of this group and to give full consideration to any proposals the group may put forward
2. The Delegation of Israel wishes to offer certain further comments on Chapter I of the Commission’s memorandum, in order to make its attitude perfectly clear:
(a) The Delegation of Israel has taken note of the proviso that it is understood that the repatriated refugees will become ipso facto citizens of Israel and that no discrimination will be practised against them both with regard to the civil and political rights which they will exercise and to the obligation imposed upon them by the law of the land. The Delegation is astonished however,that there is no mention of any similar understanding with regard to the refugees to be resettled elsewhere.
(b) The Delegation of Israel desires to stress it’s understanding that any repatriation in Israel as indicated by the Commission,
would take place subject to financial assistance furnished by the International community and that such assistance would be
extended to include the. resettlement of Jewish refugees from the Arab-controlled areas of Palestine
(c The Delegation of Israel has already presented to the Commission a provisional estimate of the number of refugees which the Government of Israel would be ready to accept. It is desired, in this connection, to point out that the Government of Israel’s willingness to facilitate the task of the survey group rests within the framework of the contribution which it has declared itself ready to make to the solution of the refugee problem.
(d) The Delegation of Israel desires to take this opportunity of reiterating its earlier statement to the Commission that the Government of Israel can agree to the repatriation of refugees to Israel only as part of an overall settlement of the refugee problem and of the Palestine conflict.
Link this bit
3. With regard to the territorial adjustments of which the Commission treats in Chapter II of it’s memorandum, the Delegation of Israel considers that in addition to the territory indicated on the working document annexed to the Protocol of May 12, all other areas falling within the control and jurisdiction of Israel under the terms of the armistice agreements concluded by Israel with Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom and Syria should be formally recognized as Israeli territory. The adjustment of the frontiers so created will be subject to negotiation and agreement between Israel and the Arab Government in each case concerned.4, In this connection the Delegation of Israel desires to offer a number of observations:
(a) The territorial adjustments proposed above has the following effects:
(i) No territory forming part of Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom or Syria is added to Israel by this adjustment
(ii) No territory ever awarded to Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom or Syria by any international instrument or held by them under any agreement is added to Israel by this adjustment.
(iii) No territory in which Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom or Syria exercises authority or jurisdiction under the armistice agreements concluded pursuant to the Security Councils resolution of November 16, 1948 and endorsed by the Security Council’s resolution of August 11, 1949 is added to Israel by this adjustment. If the territorial adjustment proposed were not effected, territory awarded to Israel under an international instrument or held by it under the terms of an agreement (viz:
territory in which Israel exercises authority and jurisdiction under, the armistice agreements concluded pursuant to the Security Council’s resolution of November 16, I948 and endorsed by the Security Council’s resolution of August 11, 1949) would be added to one or more Arab States.
The Delegation of Israel holds, therefore, that only the territorial adjustment proposed above falls equally in its effects on the rights and position of each negotiating party, makes no encroachment upon existing sovereignties, and preserves the juridical status and actual, stability achieved by the existing agreements. This method of achieving a territorial settlement is furthermore, in precise accord with the resolution adopted by the General Assembly on December 11, 1948 calling upon the Governments concerned to extend the scope of the negotiations provided for in the Security Council’s resolution of November 16, 1948 and to seek agreement by negotiations conducted either with the Conciliation Commission or directly, with a view to the final settlement of all questions outstanding between them.5, I venture to point out that paragraph 3 above is to be read in the light of the observations offered in paragraph 4, and to request that in any use which the Commission may make of this statement of the Israeli Delegations position, shall not be cited without the addition of paragraph 3.
I am
Yours faithfully,
Reuven ShiloahTHE REPLY: 3 September 1949 addressed to Mr. Reuven Shiloah, Head of the Delegation of Israel, by the Chairman of the Conciliation Commission, Emphatically dismisses the notion. referring Israel back to the armistice agreements. “2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question”
NB: (a) The territorial adjustments proposed above has the following effects: …etc etc The territorial adjustments proposed were not accepted, to the opposite effect.
Actions speak louder than words. The ‘effects’ have been Israel has:
A) failed to have “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” Illegally acquiring by war, Sovereign Syrian territory. (Israel was forced to withdraw from Egyptian territory BEFORE the Peace Agreement became effective)
B) illegally claimed non-state territories belonging to the Palestinians, prior to the question of Palestine being resolved.
C) illegally annexed “territories occupied”
D) illegally instituted Israeli Civil Law in “territories occupied”
E) illegally built Israeli civilian infrastructure and dwellings for illegal settlers in illegally acquired and illegally annexed “territories occupied”
F) illegally sold illegally acquired and illegally annexed “territories occupied” to illegal settlers
G) has yet to write a constitution
H) shown that it cannot be trusted
G) As a separate state, taken away the Jewish right to live in all of Palestine, limiting Israeli Jews to only Israeli Sovereign territory unless, they become ILLEGAL settlers. Furthermore, under the 1948 Israeli military ordinance, still current, it is forbidden for Israeli citizens or residents to travel from Israel to the territories of a hostile entity. Contrary to the Hasbara, Israel prevented Israeli Jews and Israeli Muslims, Israeli Christians et al, from worshiping in Jerusalem.
December 13, 2009
Israel was attacked by five Arab States in 1948. What actual Sovereign Israeli territory did they attack?
it’s a territory of Palestine…
ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-ki ( Revision 27th Dec 2009 – additional material )
Since childhood I was told that five Arab States invaded Israel immediately after Israel Declared Independence. That was good enough for me. How dare they. Then someone posed the question: “Which Sovereign Israeli territories were attacked and which UNSC resolution condemned the alleged Arab League invasion of Israel?”
What? That’s a ridiculous question. Of course they did. Israel was fighting for it’s life. We’ll have none of this nonsense. So in order to substantiate my beliefs, I began looking through UNSC resolutions for something condemning the Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine. In those days, it was books and the public library. A tedious business. Today the information is at our fingertips.
Here I’ve used the United Nations, Yale Law repository OnLine at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/scres049.asp, the Truman Library, Jstor, the Jewish Virtual Library and the Israeli Government website, Hansard. There is only primary source information, no citations from the likes of Ilan Pappé, Benni Morris. In fact I’ve never read anything they’ve written.
Rather than find what I was looking for, a UNSC condemnation of the Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine or confirmation that the Arab League had attacked Sovereign Israeli territory, I began to notice the UNSC resolutions seemed rather at odds with what I’d been told. The more I looked the more apparent it became that something was amiss in the rhetoric I’d been led to believe. Even the Arab League Declaration contradicted what I’d been told.
The first item listed at the Yale Law repository, after Israel’s Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel , is the letter from the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15th 1948, informing him of the Declaration and on which the US based it’s recognition of Israel as an Independent Sovereign State.
In particular, it says “..the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. “ Quite at odds with the notion that Israel had never defined it’s boundaries with Palestine in 1948 and the notion that UNGA resolution was irrelevant because the Arabs had rejected it. The first of the fallacies had fallen.
Irrefutable. Next step is recognition. Was Israel given de jure recognition or de facto recognition? Here I went through a maze only to discover the British record shows recognition of Sovereignty (state) is different from the recognition of Government (the authority in power).
Hansard 27 April 1950 His Majesty’s Government have also decided to accord de jure recognition to the State of Israel, subject to explanations on two points corresponding to those described above in regard to the case of Jordan. These points are as follows. First, that His Majesty’s Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it. Secondly, that His Majesty’s Government cannot regard the present boundaries between Israel, and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon as constituting the definitive frontiers of Israel, as these boundaries were laid down in the Armistice Agreements concluded severally between Israel and each of these States, and are subject to any modifications which may be agreed upon under the terms of those Agreements, or of any final settlements which may replace them.
In announcing these two acts of recognition, His Majesty’s Government wish to reaffirm their conviction that the problem of Palestine is capable of solution by peaceful means, given good will and understanding on the part of all the parties concerned. It is their earnest hope that the steps they have now taken will help to create stability in the areas concerned, and will, therefore, make a contribution towards the peace of the Middle East as a whole. “
The British recognized Israel’s sovereignty over territories is bound by it’s Declaration of Sovereignty, not ‘facts on the ground’.
Sovereignty is in law, of the state. The state in law is de jure, regardless of whether the Government in authority is provisional, de facto, or elected, de jure.
The Provisional Government was given de facto recognition by the USA. The Elected Government was subsequently given de jure recognition.
The USSR gave de jure recognition of the authority of the Provisional Government. Israel’s provisional Government was de facto, with authority to elect a Government to the state, which would, in law become de jure when a Government was elected. The USSR gave de jure recognition to this provisional authority.
Israel was a Sovereignty, (the State) recognized de jure, the provisional Government recognized de facto, the elected Government eventually recognized de jure and the British made it clear that Israel did not have Sovereignty over the territories it had captured by war by 1949. They were “occupied”.
Furthermore rather than Jordan’s control over the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) being illegal as I’d been led to believe, A) Jordan and Israel signed an Armistice Agreement, whereby Israel AGREED to Jordanian occupation. B) There is no UNSC resolution condemning 1) Jordan’s occupation, as a regional power, protecting the territories of Palestine OR 2) It’s temporary annexation as a trustee was requested by the Palestinians and was demanded by the Arab League, in accordance with the UN Charter covering regional powers and the notion of being a trustee. The Arab League was in accordance with legal procedure.
The refutation of the first fallacy confirmed and three more shredded, in one fell swoop. My interest was well kindled and ablaze by now, fueled in part by a hard to reconcile, indoctrinated partisan dis-belief and in part by an equally non-partisan and unbridled inquisitiveness.
Link to this section
If the Arab League had launched a war of aggression on Israel’s newly Declared Sovereign Boundaries, there would be the customary UNSC resolution condemning it. Right? See UNSC Resolution 660 on the invasion of Kuwait for an example.
The first UNSC resolution after the 14th May 1948, UNSC Resolution 49; May 22, 1948, asks all parties for a ceasefire. In UNSC resolution after resolution none bears a condemnation of the Arab States Declaration. What was going on? Was it a war of aggression or not? Were the Arab League actions legitimate? Legal?
What makes a war ‘legal’? Bouvier’s Law Dictionary tells us 6. To legalize a war it must be declared by that branch of the government entrusted by the constitution with this power. The Governments of the Arab League States did so. Informing the UNSC on 15th May 1948 . This of course does not tell us if it was a war of aggression. For that, we must look to a UNSC resolution, because all wars of aggression, even if declared, are illegal and customarily condemned by the UNSC.
The first thing that struck me, was all the UNSC resolutions on the War of Independence, say “in Palestine”. Surely the UNSC knew that as of the 15th May 1948 Israel, as an Independent Sovereign State, was no longer a part of the of Palestine. They’d also be aware that the boundaries of what remained of the Palestine after Israel declared, were defined by default by Israel’s declared boundaries and those of the neighbouring Arab states. Did the UN simply forget it was Israel who was invaded? Or is Israel the Sovereign state, in the non-state entity of Palestine?
The fact is, the UNSC was aware, as was the Israeli Government, who confirmed with the UNSC the extent of Israeli Sovereignty on May 22nd 1948 and on June 15th 1949
Link to this section http://wp.me/pDB7k-ki#armistice-agreements
So what actual sovereign Israeli territories were attacked? The armistice agreements should tell us.
The first article in the Egypt/Israel General Armistice Agreement also says ‘in Palestine’. Article 1 – “With a view to promoting the return to permanent peace in Palestine“
Withdrawal is first mentioned where it tells us Egyptian forces are required to withdraw from Al Faluja (Al Fallujah), which was NOT a part of the Declared Israeli Sovereign territories. (load the Google Earth overlay, then type ‘ Al Faluja Israel ‘ into the search box) It was, according to the Israeli Government, outside of Israel, occupied.
The agreement goes on in Article V to say:
1. The line described in Article VI of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Line and is delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolutions of the Security Council of 4 and 16 November 1948.
2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.
3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.
4. Rules and regulations of the armed forces of the Parties, which prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement with application to the Armistice Demarcation Line defined in Article VI.
The Lebanon/Israel General Armistice Agreement Tells a similar story. “in Palestine”. Same “not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary”. Same “…prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement..” It also tells us in Article V – 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.
It does NOT say ‘shall follow the international boundary between Lebanon and Israel’!!!
The Jordan/Israeli General Armistice Agreement Similar again “in Palestine”. Same “not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary”. Same “…prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement..”
Being an agreement, Israel agrees to Jordan occupying the West Bank! Another piece of information at odds with the rhetoric claiming Jordan’s occupation was illegal AND showing it was by AGREEMENT that Israelis, Jewish or non-Jewish, not enter the area.
It also says in Article VI – 6. “Wherever villages may be affected by the establishment of the Armistice Demarcation Line provided for in paragraph 2 of this article, the inhabitants of such villages shall be entitled to maintain, and shall be protected in, their full rights of residence, property and freedom. In the event any of the inhabitants should decide to leave their villages, they shall be entitled to take with them their livestock and other movable property, and to receive without delay full compensation for the land which they have left. It shall be prohibited for Israeli forces to enter or to be stationed in such villages, in which locally recruited Arab police shall be organized and stationed for internal security purposes.”
Israel AGREED that if people left voluntarily, they should be compensated.
Syrian/Israeli General Armistice Agreement Same, “in Palestine”. Same “not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary”. Same “…prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement..” It also adds, in Article V: “1. It is emphasized that the following arrangements for the Armistice Demarcation Line between the Israeli and Syrian armed forces and for the Demilitarized Zone are not to be interpreted as having any relation whatsoever to ultimate territorial arrangements affecting the two Parties to this Agreement.”
The two parties being Syria and Israel. Not Israel and Palestine. It also tells us the Armistice line is between ‘forces’, not ‘countries’.
Further to Article V: “5. (a) Where the Armistice Demarcation Line does not correspond to the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the area between the Armistice Demarcation Line and the boundary, pending final territorial settlement between the Parties, shall be established as a Demilitarized Zone from which the armed forces of both Parties shall be totally excluded, and in which no activities by military or para-military forces shall be permitted.”
As with Lebanon, it is telling us that in places, Syria borders Palestine. At the time of the armistice, Israel was a Sovereign Country, no longer a part of what was left of Palestine.
In all the UNSC resolutions and all the Armistice Agreements, nowhere is there anything about any Sovereign Israeli territory being attacked. No where are any Sovereign territories of Israel required to be withdrawn from. They all tell us Israeli forces were “in Palestine”. None mention the Palestine as being a part of the ‘final territorial settlement’. The UNSC Resolutions are between existing sovereign ‘states’.
You won’t find UNSC condemnation on the Arab League invasion of Palestine, simply because there is none. The Arab League States were UN Members and High Contracting Regional Powers and the British Mandate over Palestine had ended. Under the UN Charter Article 52 it was their right and as representatives of Palestine at the time, their duty to protect it from the aggression the Sovereign state of Israel had inherited from Plan Dalet, from the moment Israel declared. What had been a civil war, became a war waged by a state on Palestine.
So where did the armistice agreements leave the territories of Palestine that Israel controlled? Were they Israel’s to do as it wished? Were they automatically Israeli? Or occupied? What was their status?
Based on the Israeli Government’s statements of the 22nd May 1948 and 15th June 1949, the Laws of War tell us they were occupied. The British considered them occupied. Although Israel didn’t ratify the Geneva Conventions until July 1951, after it became a UN Member State May 11, 1949. At the time of the armistice agreements, Israel was not obliged to the Geneva Conventions. It was however through it’s Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel obliged to the UN Charter and subsequent notification, obliged to discharge “.. the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law”
International Law tells us that in order for a Sovereignty to acquire territories, it must legally annex them under an agreement or treaty. Now If I could just find the annexation document………… Perhaps there was something in regard to their status in the correspondence to the Conciliation Commission, prior to Israel’s acceptance into the UN.
Link to this section
A letter of the 31 August 1949, addressed to the Chairman of the Conciliation Commission by Mr. Reuven Shiloah, Head of the Delegation of Israel.
“3. With regard to the territorial adjustments of which the Commission treats in Chapter II of it’s memorandum, the Delegation of Israel considers that in addition to the territory indicated on the working document annexed to the Protocol of May 12, all other areas falling within the control and jurisdiction of Israel under the terms of the armistice agreements concluded by Israel with Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom and Syria should be formally recognized as Israeli territory. The adjustment of the frontiers so created will be subject to negotiation and agreement between Israel and the Arab Government in each case concerned”
There we have Israel’s intention is to acquire all of Palestine and an admission that at that point in time the territories of Palestine were not yet actual Israeli territory. There goes the argument that Israel has never wanted all of Palestine and the twaddle that they were Israel’s because it won the war.
The reply dated 3 September 1949 addressed to Mr. Reuven Shiloah, Head of the Delegation of Israel, by the Chairman of the Conciliation Commission, Emphatically dismisses the notion. referring Israel back to the armistice agreements. “2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question”
Now If I could just find the annexation document…………
What began as a search for something to substantiate my long held and firmly entrenched beliefs, had only shown their deep flaws.
All the UNSC resolutions tell us peace is sought “in Palestine“. They also tell us that the “question of Palestine” needs to be resolved. Not peace ‘in Israel’. Not the ‘Israel/Palestine question’. Not peace ‘in Israel and Palestine’. Why?
The ‘Israel question’ was resolved on the 14th May 1948, when the Jewish People’s Council Declared a Sovereign Jewish State within the frontiers of UNGA res 181 and Israel was recognized as such by the International Community of states. There is no question over it’s Sovereignty, it’s boundaries or it’s existence as a state.
The wars have been in Palestine, not Israel. The “territories occupied” have been in Palestine, not Israel.
The harder I look, the more the fallacies fall.
Link to this section
The Arab Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine, contradicts the notion that the Arab League was bent on a genocidal attack, threatening to drive all Jews into the sea. To be sure they were against Israel’s existence, based on legal grounds, but their Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine says: “The Governments of the Arab States emphasise, on this occasion, what they have already declared before the London Conference and the United Nations, that the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed.
Democracy!! Equal rights!! How dare they! Nowhere did the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine threaten Israel or threaten to actually institute the legal basis of their argument. It merely stated the legal case as a basis for protecting their ward as regional powers per the UN Charter. Israel was no longer a part of Palestine on the 15th May 1949. The Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine was given to the UNSC, making the war a legally declared defensive war. Which is why there is no UNSC resolution condemning it.
Meanwhile Israel continues to this day to take more and more territory. Ignore more and more UNSC resolutions. The “Palestine question” is when will they stop and what can be done about it!
December 2, 2009
The fear of Right of Return to Israeli Sovereign Territory. It’s another Fairy tale from the Fallacy Factory.
then it’s a territory of Palestine…
Shortlink to this article – http://wp.me/pDB7k-jS
DEFINITION OF A “REFUGEE” UNDER PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION OF 11 DECEMBER 1948 (UNGA res 194)
Report to the Provisional Government by Prime Minister and Minister of Defence – 17 Jun 1948
“We cannot allow the Arabs to return to those places that they left.”
“The Arabs attacked us in Jaffa, Haifa, etc.; and
I do not want those who fled to return.“
(ibid)
It is every civilian’s right to flee the violence of war. Even Jewish folk. It is also every civilians right to return after the war. Land ownership is not a criteria. Even a landless bum who lived under a bridge has RoR. The only criteria is that the region was their normal place of abode at the time they fled or were dispossessed.
All civilians have a right to flee violence and return, no matter who starts a war or for what reason or who tells them to flee or who wins or loses. Because they are A) Civilians, who… B) …might not have voted for or even have been able to vote for, the regime in power when hostilities began. C) Did the Palestinians vote for the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem? No, they didn’t. He was installed by a Jewish chap, one Herbert Samuel. D) Did they vote for the Governments of the Arab States? No, they didn’t. E) Were they responsible at the time for the Jewish folk who fled the Arab states? No they were not! F) Were the Palestinians of today responsible? No, they were ALL children in 1948.
—-
Let’s look at the Israeli notion of having a peace agreement before RoR is granted.
A) RoR is an individual right. As such the Palestinian negotiators can only really negotiate to ensure that RoR be observed.
B) and most important and I must say the most bizarre thing about the Israeli demand. Let’s say Palestine signs a peace agreement. OK. Very good. However, the returnees would be ISRAELI citizens, NOT citizens of Palestine!!
Like so much that comes from Israel, it is simply NON-SENSE that they tied to a peace agreement with an entity that they no longer belong to, that no longer represents them.
What happens should hostilities break out between Israel, of whom they would be citizens, and Palestine, of whom they would NOT be citizens? Would they lose their Israeli citizenship?
—
According to the Jewish Virtual Library – On May 14th 1948 Israel was guaranteed a minority of non-Jewish civilians within it’s Sovereign territory. 538,000 Jews / 397,000 Arabs. Of this minority, only some fled the violence of war. Simple mathematics tells us that even if all of them had fled, had they returned some weeks later, by August 1948, they could not possibly have been a demographic threat. Never the less, in August 1948 Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett is quoted as saying, “To repatriate those who had fled would be suicidal folly.“
He was quite wrong. RoR has inbuilt safe guards for the country of return. They have the right to refuse RoR to folk who do not satisfy the criteria.
That was 63 years ago. In 2009 the life expectancy of a Palestine refugee is 73yrs. In 1948 it would have been even lower. In 2011, every Palestine refugee still alive, who fled Israel’s Sovereign territory in 1947/48, are at the very minimum, 63 years of age. Past the age of rampant procreation and natural attrition has seen many who are older, pass away.
For the most part, were children at the time of their dispossession. They did not take part in any hostilities, did not vote for the Mufti of Jerusalem, did not vote for the leaders of the Arab States, had nothing to do with the Holocaust, did not kill or dispossess any Jews or Israelis and were not even born as far back as 1920.
Today, there are less ’48 Palestine refugees with a genuine RoR to Israel’s Sovereign territories, than ever before. Naturally their numbers grow ever smaller every day. The Demographic threat to Sovereign Israel, is BULL SHITE! A blatant lie.
There are three main areas to which Palestine refugees have RoR.
1) Those from what is Sovereign Israeli territory as per Israel’s Declaration of a Sovereign State, where there was an absolute maximum of 397,000 Arabs in 1948. Remember Israel has never had any territory legally annexed to it, not all it’s minority non- Jewish population fled the violence and those who did are now beyond the age of procreation.
2) Those who were dispossessed from territories slated for the Arab State, illegally acquired by war under Plan Dalet then Israel between 1948 & 1949, none of it annexed to Israel.
3) Those who were dispossessed in 1967 from ‘territories occupied in the recent conflict’. Some of whom were also dispossessed in ’48-’49. Again, territories never legally annexed to Israel.
Are there 3.5 to 4 million Palestine refugees ready to flood Israel? NO! That too is a fallacy. The Palestinians have only ever claimed RoR as per UN resolutions which are as a matter of course, based on UN Refugee Conventions which do not allow for all lineal descendants.
Under basic RoR, only innocent civilians, who actually lived in a region and who agree to live in peace, have legitimate RoR. It is their right to either return or opt for compensation. Even then the state of return has the right to veto those who do not fit the criterion. Although the state of return is obliged to recognize and grant only basic RoR, they can expand on this basic right through their own legislation and allow, as some countries have, for lineal descendants.
The 3.5 to 4 million figure often cited by the ‘demographic threat’ scare mongers, comes from the UNRWA figures for Palestine refugees. UNRWA was set up because of the unique set of conditions that apply to Palestine refugees
A) The protracted nature of the conflict B) Israel’s illegal refusal to recognize even basic RoR and Israel’s illegal claims to territory OUTSIDE it’s Sovereign borders C) All Palestinians and Palestine refugees are stateless.
However 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
(Q) “Is UNRWA involved in the Middle East peace negotiations and in the discussions on a solution to the refugee issue?”
(A) “No. UNRWA is a humanitarian agency and its mandate defines its role as one of providing services to the refugees. However, UNRWA highlights the international community’s obligation to provide a just and durable solution for Palestine refugees.”
Yet Professor Ruth Lapidoth perpetuates the fallacy on the Israeli Government web site. “According to Palestinian sources, there are about 3.5 million Palestinian refugees nowadays registered with UNRWA. If Israel were to allow all of them to return to her territory, this would be an act of suicide on her part, and no state can be expected to destroy itself.”
Is she, a professor, really that ignorant? Of course she isn’t. The ambiguity of her assertion shows she is engaged in typical propaganda modus operandi. Planting the seeds of panic in order that there be no RoR at all. She does not say the Palestinians demand that all lineal descendants have RoR, she only says “there are about 3.5 million Palestinian refugees nowadays registered with UNRWA “….she then slyly adds…. “ If Israel were to allow all of them to return to her territory…etc”
This is a typical propagandista’s strawman argument, enough to make people think this is the Palestinian demand. It isn’t. The Palestinians have only asked for RoR per the UN Conventions, (res 194) which is as a matter of course, a resolution based on the UNHCR statute. No RoR for lineal descendants, one must have lived in the region. Added to which Israel is NOT REQUIRED to admit all those registered with UNRWA into Sovereign Israeli territory. The UNRWA mandate does not cover RoR or final status negotiations and only those who agree to live in peace need be granted RoR.
The propagandists also treat us to the false notion that, because Palestine refugees are served by UNRWA, they are not covered by the UNHCR. However, although the Palestine refugees are afforded ‘assistance’ whilst they are refugees under UNRWA and because of this they are not afforded ‘assistance’ under the UNHCR, they are never the less, still refugees and as such have RoR.
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 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.”
What has been Israel’s true intentions all these years? Let’s look at the events from the launch of Plan Dalet in the weeks prior to May 14th 1948. We are told it was a defensive strategy. Fair enough. However, if folk have fled, what is the strategy of razing their villages and homes if they were not there? It does not add up.
What was Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett talking about when he said in August 1948 “To repatriate those who had fled would be suicidal folly.“? If he was talking about those who fled Sovereign Israeli territory being a demographic threat, simple maths tells us it just does not compute. If he was talking about them being a violent threat. Israel was not and is still not required to repatriate folk unless they agree to line in peace. Either he was ill informed, which I doubt, or lying or had crap maths skills or perhaps was creating an insidious propaganda mantra in order to promote fear in the Israeli psyche, thereby preventing any RoR at all. A propaganda mantra that lives on today.
Perhaps Moshe Sharett was talking about those unfortunates who fled from the territories outside of Israel’s Sovereignty? Territories slated for the new Arab State, already cleansed under Plan Dalet before the 14th May 1948 and after, by Israel during the war of Independence? Territories Israel has illegally acquired by war but never annexed? Territories Israel did not Declare Sovereignty over.
If these are the folk Moshe Sharett was talking about, why was he, a few weeks later, in August 1948, saying they’d be a demographic threat were they to return. Before the War of Independence was even over? Was it Israel’s intention in August 1948 to keep these territories? It was by August 1949 according to Israel.
Fact is, all of Israel’s actions have confirmed that intention. Israel HAS kept all the territories it has acquired by war. Yet none of the territories Israel has captured have ever been legally annexed. They are, quite simply, NOT legally Sovereign Israeli territory.
Unilateral annexation is invalid and Armistice lines are only borders where they were borders before the armistice. Only parts of the Green Line were ever actual borders. The majority of the ‘Green Line’ was never a border between Israel and Palestine. Parts of the armistice line were the border between Israel and the Arab States and other parts were a border between Palestine and the Arab States. For the most part, it was only an armistice line.
Is there a demographic threat to the territories Israel has illegally claimed as it’s own for 62 years?
Of course there’s a threat to Israel’s existence in these territories. They’re not Israeli. Legally, it’s up to the Palestinians to pass legislation as to who returns and illegal settlers who might stay.
Israel’s fallacious ‘facts on the ground’. It’s ignoring International Law, UNSC resolutions. Even dissing it’s own voluntarily Declared obligation to adhere to the UN Charter. All ignored. Added to which the USA’s complicity in using it’s power of veto in the UNSC, have caused a hugely complicated and seemingly intractable MESS for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Further reading:
DEFINITION OF A “REFUGEE” UNDER PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION OF 11 DECEMBER 1948
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees Adopted on 28 July 1951 by the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons convened under General Assembly resolution 429 (V) of 14 December 1950
November 27, 2009
November 17, 2009
Simple logic tells us Jerusalem is Palestinian. It’s in Palestine.
…shortlink http://wp.me/pDB7k-il …
FACT – Israel has defined boundaries between itself and Palestine: The Jewish Peoples Council accepted the borders outlined in UNGA res 181 and was recognized by the majority of the International Community of States, over riding the Arab States objections. The Israeli Govt will not inform you of this and other essential facts.
Israel has never legally annexed any territory outside it’s declared sovereign boundaries.
FACT – the entity of Palestine DID exist: At the fall of the Ottoman Empire, there was an entity called Palestine, it was administered under the British Mandate over Palestine. (occupation as a trustee). The currency was Palestinian. The postage stamps were Palestinian. The citizens of Palestine were all Palestinians. They had Palestine marked on their passports and papers. Even Jewish folk were Palestinians.
FACT – the entity of Palestine still exists: When TransJordan finally gained independence from Palestine in 1946, what remained of Palestine was still called Palestine. The name of Palestine was not changed.
FACT – From 1946 till 1948 : the Palestinians, including Jewish folk, lived in the somewhat smaller, entity of Palestine that remained. BTW It is clearly a fallacy to say the Palestinians have a state in Jordan. At the time only the Palestinians living in the particular area that became TransJordan had a right to become Jordanian citizens. The Palestinians who did not live in that particular area, did not. The folk who live in what remained of Palestine are Palestinians.
FACT – From 1946 to May 14th 1948 : even Jewish folk living in what remained of Palestine were still Palestinians. At that point in time Jerusalem was in Palestine.
In 1947 the United Nations voted to present a set of conditions under which Palestine might be further subdivided, giving the Jewish Agency and the Arab States an opportunity, if they wished, to declare Sovereignty over borders recommended in Resolution 181.
UNGA resolution 181 was non-binding. There was no requirement for co-signing. It was after all, about Sovereign Independence. Neither party was obliged to accept it or declare sovereign independence over their apportioned lot. The conditions it contained were according to the law in respect to Declaring Sovereignty. Although UNGA resolutions are not binding, they often refer to Laws (all law is binding), Conventions, the UN Charter (all the UN Charter is binding) and UNSC resolutions which ARE binding.
The Laws surrounding a Declaration of Sovereignty and recognition by the majority of the International Community of States is binding. Sovereignty is irrevocable. Israel’s acceptance of the borders UNGA Resolution 181 detailed, was binding by virtue of the Declaration of a Jewish State. Much like the recommended retail price of goods is not binding, until the purchaser signs the contract and when one buys goods, one signs a contract with the vendor, not with another buyer. The contract in this instance wasn’t with the Arab States, other wise they’d have to have signed simultaneously, nor was it with the UN. It was a unilateral undertaking on behalf of the world’s Jewish population to the ” comity of nations”
UNGA Res 181 was acknowledged by the Jewish Peoples Council and enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel and reiterated in the notification of Declaration to the International Community of Nations.. // Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15, 1948 “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” //
Shabtai Rosen, (rip) Professor of international law at Bar Ilan University “(a) Shortly after the signing of the Israel-Egyptian agreement, early in March. 1949, Israeli forces advanced south to the littoral into the area allocated to the Jewish State: in General Assembly resolution l8l (II) of 29 November 1947“
On Israel accepting the conditions and Declaring Sovereignty over the borders outlined by UNGA resolution 181 in order to become a Sovereign State, what remained of Palestine, was an even smaller entity of Palestine. Still called Palestine.
Having informed the International Community of States of the Jewish Peoples Council Declaration of Sovereign Independence (see letter) and having been recognized by the majority of the International Community of States based on the information the Provisional Government issued, Israel was no longer a part of Palestine. Israel’s Sovereign territory was set, it’s borders defined and by default, also it’s borders with the ever shrinking, Palestine.
Link to this section
The UN has never executed it’s part of UNGA res 181 in respect to Jerusalem becoming a neutral entity. Nor was it obliged to as UNGA res 181 was not binding. By the Jewish People’s Council’s own pen, Israel had no Sovereignty over Jerusalem. It was not Israeli. It’s status, like the rest of Palestine’s territories, has not legally changed in over 2,000 years. Far longer than the Jewish Kingdom existed. Jerusalem was and still is, legally a part of Palestine.
In declaring Sovereignty, Israel obliged itself of the legal obligations of Sovereignty. As a UN Member State it is also obliged to the UN Charter, resolutions and conventions it has ratified. In respect to Jerusalem, Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem was declared illegal by the UNSC. Legal annexation can only be through a treaty or by agreement, such as Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank as a trustee, asked for by and in agreement with the Palestinians.
It is often argued that the Palestinians could have also declared a state on the termination of the British Mandate over Palestine in May 1948. However, in order to declare Sovereignty, an entity must have full control over all it’s territories. The Palestinians were denied the privilege. By May 14th 1948, under Plan Dalet, the Jewish Agency was already in control of territories allocated for the new Arab State, making it impossible for the Palestinians to declare sovereignty, even if they wanted to. IN FULL
Israel is in breech of some 223 UNSC resolution, most of which are only reminders of previously unheeded resolutions. The US veto vote on the UNSC has only prevented action being taken against Israel for it’s gross violations of International Law. The Laws and Israel’s violations still stand.
October 19, 2009
Lying for Israel since 1948. The BIGGEST LIE!
Shortlink http://wp.me/pDB7k-gm
THE BIGGEST LIE! - UNGA res 181 is irrelevant, Israel’s borders have never been defined
Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15, 1948
“MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”
Also bear this in mind. Israel has never legally annexed any territory outside it’s Declared Sovereign borders. Ever!
How many people on the planet believe the fallacy?
Prime Ministers, Senators, Presidents, politicians, civilians
and worst of all ISRAELI CITIZENS!!
Israeli citizens who have been led to believe they are living in Israel.
Israeli citizens in Ashkelon, Beer Sheeba.
Israeli citizens in a big chunk of territory bordering Lebanon.
Israeli citizens whose lives have been sacrificed for the Zionist dream of a Greater Israel.
How much longer can the world allow this fallacy to pollute the issue?
How much longer can the International Community turn a blind eye to this deceit?
How much longer will honest Israeli citizens allow themselves to be used by a corrupt, cabal of people who are willing break the very basic tenets of Judaism?
Enough is enough already!
Jewish folk were given, completely gratis**, a big chunk of land for a Sovereign homeland. Enough territory for every Jewish person on the planet today.
The extent of Israel’s Sovereignty had been declared & confirmed by the Israeli Government with the UNSC on May 22nd 1948 admitting to having territories “outside of Israel” It was further confirmed with the UNSC by the Israeli Government on June the 15th 1949
Instead of being grateful, Israel has taken more and more and more.
Illegally ‘acquired’ by war, illegally acquired through illegal annexation.
Illegally acquired through illegal settlements in “territories occupied” NOT belonging to Israel!
ILLEGALLY sold to those who are either complicit, or ignorant of what has and is still being done in the name of all the world’s Jewish population.
** ‘real estate’ is not territory.
The US paid Mexico for their territories.
How much did Israel pay?
October 17, 2009
Watching AKUS make a fool of himself on CiFWatch. Another idiot for Israel
Shortlink http://wp.me/pDB7k-fS
“This is not a critique of the fatally flawed Goldstone report itself, which has been ably carried out by many more competent experts than me and which could be continued pointlessly ad infinitum. Even the announcement advertising the discussion of the report this week and the terms of reference for the “fact-finding mission” reveal the bizarre world which the UNHRC inhabits which makes such discussions essentially meaningless and certainly fruitless:The holding of the Special Session comes at the request of Palestine.
There is no such country as “Palestine”. In the Draft Resolution the word “Palestine” is given an asterisk, and a footnote explains that it is a “Non-Member State of the Human Rights Council”. In fact, it is a non-state, non-member of the Human Rights Council.
A) AKUS is an expert now? WOW!!!
B) United Nations Charter Article 35
l. Any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly.2. A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter.
C) The LoN Mandate for Palestine refers to the LoN Charter article 22, under which Palestine held the status of a Provisional State. This status has never legally altered. A Provisional State that has been hacked away by the formation of Jordan and Israel. What remains of the Provisional State of Palestine is still Palestine. It has not been renamed since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. When you eat half an apple what’s left? Apple or does it magically change into something else, perhaps AKUS’s ziocaine induced Hasbara bullsh*te?
Some expert AKUS turns out to be.
There is, in fact, no need to read the report in order to anticipate its methods and conclusions. It is more interesting to look at how it has been received, and what actions will be taken as a result.
Uh huh. ‘in fact’? ‘In fact’, IT’S JUST YOUR OPINION! (I guess he just ‘listens’ to the moaning of the losing team in order to ‘watch’ a football match)
D) Furthermore, under the UN Charter Chapt XI, Israel, as the Occupying Power, has a duty towards the Palestinians. To protect them, their property and their territory and to assist them in achieving effective independent statehood.
October 6, 2009
Liars for Israel, again. Obadiah Shoher breaks the basic tenets of Judaism!
ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-dn
From Obadiah Shoher – Samson Blinded Org. A rebuttal of the Goldstone report – The actual Goldstone Report
The lies begin in the 1st sentence…Comments in green
Goldstone report: the rebuttal
The Goldstone report’s title, Human rights in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, reveals its leanings. Since Gaza is also a part of Palestine, “other occupied Arab territories” can only refer to Israel proper.
“Israel ‘proper’”? Israel has never legally annexed any territory, Arab or otherwise. Israel proper is Sovereign Israel, as defined by the borders Israel Declared Sovereignty over May 14th 1948.
The UN commission was composed of professional human rights advocates, none of whom were experienced in military or anti-terrorism realities. To cover that glaring gap, the commission included one Colonel Travers, a human rights activist with no meaningful wartime experience.
Desmond Travers is a recently retired Colonel of the Army of the Irish Defence Forces. His last appointment was as Commandant of its Military College. In a career spanning over forty years, he served in various command and instructional appointments in the Infantry Corps. He was a founder of two of the Forces’ teaching and training institutions. He also served in command of troops and in key operational appointments with various UN and EU peace support missions. These were in the Middle-East (Cyprus, Lebanon) and in the Former Yugoslavia (Croatia and Bosnia and Hercegovina).
The fact that the Goldstone commission received the “full support” of the Hamas government (page 6) despite its nominal mandate to investigate Hamas’ crimes suggests that the terrorist group was assured of slap-on-the-wrist treatment.
The author attributes his own suggestion to the report.
The official Palestinian participant in the hearings, Muhammad Srour, was arrested in Israel immediately thereafter on security grounds.
Muhammad Srour was not charged with anything. He was released on 23 July 2009.
“The Goldstone commission heavily relied on the testimony of terrorists from both the Hamas and PA sides.”
An assumption by the author, with nothing to back it up.
The conclusions were predetermined by limiting the inquiry to the events following the July 2008 ceasefire (page 7). During the ceasefire, naturally, relatively few rockets were fired at Israel until the December escalation. As a result, Palestinian war crimes—indiscriminately launching 8,000 rockets at Israeli population centers over the last nine years—are only sketched in the report.
103. Palestinian armed groups have launched about 8000 rockets and mortars into southern Israel since 2001 (Chapter XIII). While communities such as Sderot and Kibbutz Nir-Am have been within the range of rocket and mortar fire since the beginning, the range of rocket fire increased to nearly 40 kilometres from the Gaza border, encompassing towns as far north as Ashdod, during the Israeli military operations in Gaza.
104. Since 18 June 2008, rockets fired by Palestinian armed groups in Gaza have killed 3 civilians inside Israel and 2 civilians in Gaza when a rocket landed short of the border on 26 December 2008. Reportedly, over 1000 civilians inside Israel were physically injured as a result of rocket and mortar attacks, 918 of which were injured during the time of the Israeli military operations in Gaza.
105. The Mission has taken particular note of the high level of psychological trauma suffered by the civilian population inside Israel. Data gathered by an Israeli organization in October 2007 found that 28.4% of adults and 72-94% of children in Sderot suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. 1596 people were reportedly treated for stress-related injuries during the military operations in Gaza while over 500 people were treated following the end of the operations.
106. Rocket and mortars have damaged houses, schools and cars in southern Israel. On 5 March 2009, a rocket struck a synagogue in Netivot. The rocket and mortar fire has adversely impacted on the right to education of children and adults living in southern Israel. This is a result of school closures and interruptions to classes by alerts and moving to shelters and also the diminished ability to learn that is witnessed in individual experiencing symptoms of psychological trauma.
107. The rocket and mortar fire has also adversely impacted on the economic and social life of the affected communities. For communities such as Ashdod, Yavne, Beer Sheba, which experienced rocket strikes for the first time during the Israeli military operations in Gaza, there was a brief interruption to their economy and cultural brought about by the temporary displacement of some of their residents. For towns closer to the Gaza border that have been under rocket and mortar fire since 2001, the recent escalation has added to the exodus of residents from these areas.
108. The Mission has determined that the rockets and, to a lesser extent, mortars, fired by the Palestinian armed groups are incapable of being directed towards specific military objectives and were fired into areas where civilian populations are based. The Mission has further determined that these attacks constitute indiscriminate attacks upon the civilian population of southern Israel and that where there is no intended military target and the rockets and mortars are launched into a civilian population, they constitute a deliberate attack against a civilian population. These acts would constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity. Given the seeming inability of the Palestinian armed groups to direct the rockets and mortars towards specific targets and given the fact that the attacks have caused very little damage to Israeli military assets, the Mission finds that there is significant evidence to suggest that one of the primary purposes of the rocket and mortar attacks is to spread terror amongst the Israeli civilian population, a violation of international law.
The UN commission set an incredibly high standard of criminal behavior: “restrictions on human rights and fundamental freedoms relating to Israel’s strategies and actions in the context of Israeli military operations (page 7).“ Certainly, all military operations involve certain restrictions on rights and freedoms, and any army could be condemned with such a sweeping inquiry. Conspicuously, the commission chose not to investigate numerous violations of Israeli human rights by Palestinians, including a prohibition on visits to Palestinian-controlled areas by Jewish Israeli citizens.
A) Israel, under the 2005 agreement had ALL crossings into Gaza closed. It didn’t even allow journalists into Gaza. B) The report was a Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict
While accusing Israel of war crimes, the Goldstone report states explicitly that it does not “pretend to reach the standard of proof applicable in criminal trials (page 9).” In the same paragraph, the commission explicitly abrogates presumption of innocence for institutional bodies such as IDF or Israel, reserving the principle to individuals. The result of this approach is that Israel is blamed by default for all injuries to human rights in Gaza, whether she is culpable or not.
25. On this basis, the Mission has, to the best of its ability, determined what facts have been established. In many cases it has found that acts entailing individual criminal responsibility have been committed. In all of these cases the Mission has found that there is sufficient information to establish the objective elements of the crimes in question. In almost all of the cases the Mission has also been able to determine whether or not it appears that the acts in question were done deliberately or recklessly or in the knowledge that the consequence that resulted would result in the ordinary course of events. The Mission has thus referred in many cases to the relevant fault element (mens rea). The Mission fully appreciates the importance of the presumption of innocence: the findings in the report do not subvert the operation of that principle. The findings do not attempt to identify the individuals responsible for the commission of offences nor do they pretend to reach the standard of proof applicable in criminal trials.
26. In order to provide the parties concerned with an opportunity to submit additional relevant information and express their position and respond to allegations, the Mission also submitted comprehensive lists of questions to the Government of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza authorities in advance of completing its analysis and findings. The Mission received replies from the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza authorities but not from Israel.
Need one go on? Why do so many who defend Israel’s illegal activities break the basic tenets of Judaism?
About : Google banned our site from the AdSense advertising program for “unacceptable content,” “advocating against a group,” and “sensitive content.” Yahoo/ Overture restricted our ads to a few odd keywords. Adbrite closed our account. Amazon deleted all reviews to stop the discussion. Russian ad provider Begun rejected our ads as “extremist.” Many other sites and conventional media outlets refused our ads. China blocked our site
Is it any wonder?
October 4, 2009
Watching CifWatch lower themselves, resorting to toilet humour….
Unable to actually quote anything I’ve ever said said that fits their criteria, the folk who are unable to honestly address difficult questions on CiF or here. The same people who declare on their web site : “The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard”, proudly announce …..
“Time for Some Toilet Humor…Ever wondered why certain Guardianistas are able to spend so much time online talknicing out of their backsides…”
The irony of the ‘humor’ they’ve chosen to exhibit, their childish vindictiveness and choice of words, seems to escape them. It serves Israel how exactly? Who’d want to be associated with such people, let alone believe anything they have to say? If they’re representative of Israel, Israelis or Jewish folk, do they realize what kind of an ugly, spitefull, picture they’re presenting?
AKUS (re-appeared recently on CiF as Akusia ?), who is unable to produce a map of Israel’s Sovereign territory, because no doubt it’s too embarrassing, bravely leads the comments
October 4, 2009 at 12:32 am
AKUS
Indeed!
Typical outback humor!! And then, when the mods get into action – all those long, long, nitpicking comments just flushed down the toilet….
Free Eora! The Cadigals will rise again!!
October 4, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Chas N-B
Superb! Shows they are going through the motions and that it’s good that CifWatch is flushing them out. I love how you guys cut the crap.
CifWatch: wiping clean the marble and smashing the cistern!
(Enough already.)
Indeed. Enough already to show folk who it is running off to the mods in what appears now as a self confessed and concerted effort to have folk banned, rather than addressing the points those folk might raise. Which makes their credo “The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard” seem rather incongruous and more than a tad shallow.
Enough already to show how un-aware AKUS is of his own transparency, blabbering on in ignorance about people with whom I have a close relationship and who he claimed were wiped out.
Enough already to show Chas N-B’s ‘toilet’ vocabulary has him in appropriate company.
How sad. In a world where real Antisemitism actually exists and should by all means be revealed, CiFWatch is busy revealing it’s adherents to be nothing more than hypocrites and sad little gutter snipes.
October 1, 2009
CiF on ‘alleged’ War Crimes. Israel vs the UN. Should Ehud Barak have immunity?
The Guardian CiF Afua Hirsch guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 September 2009 – The attempt to arrest the Israeli minister in Britain has rekindled a lively debate on diplomatic immunity from international law
First we should look at what International Law actually says. Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Preamble: The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference held at Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949, for the purpose of establishing a Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, have agreed as follows:Part I. General Provisions
Art 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
The UK, as a signatory to the Conventions, is a High Contracting party.
Art. 146.The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.
Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.
In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defence, which shall not be less favourable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949.
Art. 147. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
Art. 148. No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.
Art. 149. At the request of a Party to the conflict, an enquiry shall be instituted, in a manner to be decided between the interested Parties, concerning any alleged violation of the Convention.
If agreement has not been reached concerning the procedure for the enquiry, the Parties should agree on the choice of an umpire who will decide upon the procedure to be followed.
Once the violation has been established, the Parties to the conflict shall put an end to it and shall repress it with the least possible delay.
The answer seems to be NO! The operative words are ‘alleged to have’.
Furthermore, it is an indisputable fact that Israel confined the entire population of Gaza, preventing them from fleeing a war zone, by having all crossings closed under the 2005 agreement, including those between Gaza & Egypt. Escape was not possible, ironically, not even into the sea.
