First, find out what isn't true…

November 17, 2009

Simple logic tells us Jerusalem is Palestinian. It’s in Palestine.


…It’s actually quite simple. If it isn’t the “acknowledged” Sovereign Territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel, then it’s a part of Palestine…

shortlink http://wp.me/pDB7k-il

UNSC res 476 tell us it “1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;”

corpus separatum has never been instituted. Jerusalem was never legally separated from what remained of Palestine after Israel declared its independence from Palestine.

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 by the British under the Mandate for 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, the area that became Jordan was renamed and now its citizens are all Jordanian. The folk who live in what remained of Palestine were Palestinians.

FACT – From 1946 till 1948 : the Palestinians, including Jewish folk, lived in the somewhat smaller, entity of Palestine that remained, still administered by the British under the Mandate for Palestine. 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.

FACT – From 1946 to May 14th 1948 : even Jewish folk living in what remained of Palestine were still Palestinians. 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. Never the less, the Jewish Agency considered it as 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 within them and by the International recognition of Israel within those boundaries. 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 of 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 and is not now Israeli territory. 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.

The Palestinians only ask for their rights under the Laws, UN Charter and relative conventions Israel obliged itself to uphold. That these Laws, the Charter and Conventions were written in large part because of what happened to Jewish folk under the Nazi regime and the Jewish State sees fit to ignore and circumvent them, should ring alarm bells

Advertisements

15 Comments »


  1. “It is Israel in breech of 223 UNSC resolutions.”

    Despite searching the UN archives I have found reference to 131 UN Resolutions only. Are you able to provide a link to a comprehensive list of all the UN resolutions Israel is in violation off?

    comment by Kenneth Hammond- August 2, 2011

    Comment by Kenneth Hammond — August 2, 2011 @ 1:29 am


    • “Despite searching the UN archives I have found reference to 131 UN Resolutions only”

      Good oh, I’ll change it. Most are reminders, resolutions never the less.

      Do you have a list of those you’ve checked? It’s been one of those things to do on the list of things I haven’t done

      Cheers

      Comment by talknic — August 2, 2011 @ 2:16 pm

      • I’ll take that as a no, you haven’t actually checked…

        Comment by talknic — May 1, 2012 @ 4:38 pm


  2. Best demonstrated by reading UNSC Resolutions 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 UNSC Resolution 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969 UNSC Resolution 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, UNSC Resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, UNSC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, UNSC Resolution 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980

    These are resolutions referring to Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem.

    “2. Considers that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status;”

    Comment by talknic — May 21, 2010 @ 7:18 pm


  3. A zionist supporter tries to convince others, that Israel was the only successor state and therefore in all of Palestine. I told him (like you do) that it declared itself in the borders of UNGAR 181 and that the United Nations (incl. Security Council and International Court of Justice) and the Supreme Court of Israel itself declares the territories as occupied. He’s ignoring it like all Hasbarats do and then repeats it over and over again.

    His main argument is, that he suggests that Jordania and Egypt would acknowledge his “fact” (Israel in all of Palestine) with this peace treaty phrase: “without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.” as if Jordania and Egypt gave back the territory to Israel, bacause the border is the border of (mandated) Palestine.

    Comment by Michael — May 14, 2010 @ 11:26 am


    • They cite something, but completely ignore what it says

      … territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

      military government is O C C U P A T I O N

      The peace treaties between Israel and Egypt/Jordan are the outcome of UNSC res 242 & UNSC Res 338. They are NOT treaties between the non-state entity of Palestine and Israel (UNSC Res 242 was not between Israel and the non-state entity of Palestine as the UN cannot directly pass resolutions on behalf of or against non-state, non UN Members)

      In both instances the Peace Treaties and UNSC Res 242/338 Israel is required to withdraw from all Jordanian & Egyptian Sovereign territories BEFORE normal relations resumed, leaving Israel as the occupying Power over what remains of the territories of the non-state entity of Palestine since Israel declared.

      Comment by talknic — May 21, 2010 @ 11:36 am


      • He claims that this would be also ok, if the terrories belonged to israel, because the arabs in israel lived under military rule till 1966 (or 1967).

        And my english ist not very good and I’ve problems to explain what the phrase “without prejudice to the status of any territories” means.

        Comment by Michael — May 21, 2010 @ 1:28 pm


  4. Talknic, Joshua, David, Solomon were all Israeli leaders who governed and controlled the land before 1948.

    Comment by Barry — January 18, 2010 @ 6:07 pm


    • WOW!!! That’s amazing Barry…… Joshua, David, Solomon… Were any ‘presidents’? Were they elected? Seems other folk have governed and controlled the land far far longer than the three put together..

      BTW How does it relate to today & the International Laws Israel obliged itself to uphold when the Jewish People’s Council declared Sovereignty over the boundaries recommended in resolution 181?

      Comment by talknic — January 19, 2010 @ 1:17 am


  5. Judea and Samaria and all of Jerusalem are liberated Israeli Land.
    Tell us when did it ever belong to Palestinians? Answer Never. It was never a Pal land to
    begin with, so your question is invalid. The Palestinians never governed or controlled any land before 1993. To make it simple, please tell me one
    Palestinian President before 1948. Keep thinking. The Palestinians want a capital, which they never had, in a country that never existed

    Israel existed 1500 years before Muhammad was born. Look at Islamic countries and look at
    Sharia laws. Its a brutal, violent and an intolerant religion. It produces the most inhumane people on this planet. Besides Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the
    entire Middle East and North Africa was never Arab or Muslim. The thieving Arabs stole all the land from the Native peoples in the Middle East in the 7th century and forced everyone they colonized, to become Muslim. Anyone that didn’t convert, had there heads cut off. The Jews resisted the terrorist Muhammad and didn’t convert.

    There is a primary historical fact, that must be established now. There has never been, I repeat NEVER been, a civilization, Entity, or a nation referred to as “Palestine” There was never a Palestinian tribe, and there was never a Palestinian country in the Land of Israel to begin with! Arab culture that allows honor killings to be legal. Israel is not for sale. It is not a pie to be sliced up and served to a clan of killers and their supporters.
    1: When did Jerusalem serve as a capital to any Arab Country ? Never.
    2: When did Jerusalem serve as a Palestinian capital ? Never.
    3: Only Israel have had Jerusalem as there capital in
    Ancient and modern times. Jerusalem was never in history an Arab capital and never will be one.
    4: How many times is Jerusalem mentioned in the Koran? Zero. Was Mohammed to so badly educated, he could not utter the word “J-e-r-u-s-a-l-e-m”

    The name Palestine, should not be made available to the Arabs in this area. It is misleading for the Arabs now claiming a potential state with this name; Its history evidences this: The name Palestine, derived from the Philistines (Philishteen) were invaders from the Agean sea, and unrelated to todays Arabs. The Philistines who were eventually defeated by Samson and King David more than 3000 years ago;

    Do we have to repeat history to prove this? The name Palestine was applied by the Romans, directing their old enemy’s name as a chagrin to Jews – it was certainly not directed or bestowed to the Arabs in this area. The name Palestine in the last 2000 years was never a state – certainly not owned by any people but the Jews: The muslim Turkish Governor’s letters to Hertz, state clearly that “EVERYONE ONE KNOWS THIS IS THE JEWISH HOMELAND, AND WE ARE ONLY THE APPOINTED CARETAKER FOR THE APPOINTED TIME”.

    The name Palestine belongs to the Philistines. Being that the Philistines were totally non-muslim people. The Arabs have no right to the name Palestine. And if the Palestinians were descendants of the Philistines, then what are they doing in Israel, they should go back to Crete where they came from.

    Comment by Barry Keller — January 13, 2010 @ 3:18 pm


    • Hi Barry,

      I’ll be brief.

      The answers are in the article.

      The ‘points’ you’ve raised are irrelevant to the modern world and the laws Israel obliged itself to uphold when the Jewish People’s Council declared Sovereignty on our behalf.

      A couple of questions:

      Name one Israeli president before 1948?

      Where was Go/-d during the Holocaust?

      Does it feel good to be so filled with hatred?

      Comment by talknic — January 13, 2010 @ 11:24 pm

  6. “Tiresome, you are”

    ‘Exacting’ is the word.

    This “non-state entity” was a section of a PROVINCE called Syria in the Ottoman Empire.”

    So what? Under the British Mandate it was Palestine. Even under the Ottoman Empire the region was known as Palestine. It was divided into provinces. The Akko Sanjak, Nablus Sanjak and a governorate, the Mutassariflik of Jerusalem.

    Here is the map used in the Treaty of Lausanne See the part marked PALESTINE.

    The Empire collapsed and the “entity” became defined by one thing and one thing only: the British Mandate…..It’s all there in the 1922 declaration by the League of Nations.”

    You’re full of shite. The declaration says Palestine Mandate” lets read it…

    The Palestine Mandate

    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; and

    Note carefully. The territory “of Palestine”. Belonging to Palestine.

    It goes on..

    Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

    Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country

    “in that country” not ‘of that country’. And “in Palestine” not ‘of Palestine’.

    No-where does it say a Jewish ‘state’

    “Do you know how they divide “Palestine?” There’s everything east of the Jordan River which the British are permitted to do with as they like, and there’s everything west of the Jordan River which is slated to become the home of the Jewish people. Now that is some piece of international legitimacy.”

    A) You’re spouting shite B) Since Israel Declared Sovereignty over and was recognized by the boundaries recommended in res 181. That became the Jewish homeland. No more, no less.

    “As for 181, it is not enshrined in the Declaration. What is enshrines is, “This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917..”

    That’s in the preamble. It’s in the preamble because they knew it did not say ‘state’ Only the right to a homeland, ‘in Palestine’

    “The section listing the UNGA declaration of 1947 comes much later “

    Yes. In the actual Declaration.

    “and is used to state only that the UN has given the right to establish a Jewish state in Eretz Israel”

    That’s also in the preamble. And… self determination per the UN Charter, precludes the UN from ‘establishing’ a state. It can only facilitate the circumstances and describe the conditions under which an entity might establish a state and recommend boundaries. Resolution 181 was a description of those conditions. The conditions are binding. A declaration of Sovereignty over boundaries is binding. An entity declaring Sovereignty must nominate it’s boundaries so other states know what they’re supposed to recognize. It must also have full control over the territories it wishes to declare over, which is hwy Palestine has never been able to Declare Sovereignty. It has never had full control over it’s territories, ever.

    ” No mention of borders, of limits, of Palestine or of Arabs. It is purposely left vague since Eretz Israel is a much larger territory than provided for in 181.”

    There 2,160 or so words in resolution 181, describing the boundaries accepted by the Jewish People’s Council, in detail. Do you think they could just pick and choose which bits they wanted from res 181? The parties either decided to Declare Sovereignty by the conditions or they didn’t. The Jewish People’s Council did.

    But for interests sake, let’s say it could pick and choose. Oddly enough, the bits chosen were conveyed in the the letter to the US President, informed the US of the Jewish People’s Council’s acceptance of the boundaries recommended in res 181. This was the basis of the US recognition of Israel’s Sovereignty.

    “What they’re doing is descriptive and certainly not acceptance of the provisions of 181. 181 isn’t listed there for a reason.”

    But it is listed there. The DECLARATION of a Jewish State (not the preamble) says … “…AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY” The United Nations was formed AFTER the League of Nations. So this was not a League of Nations resolution and it’s NOT the Balfour Declaration, which is in the preamble. The Balfour Declaration was for a Jewish Homeland “in Palestine”. Not a Jewish homeland “of Palestine”. They refer in the DECLARATION to UNGA res 181.

    //It was not an agreement between the Arab States and the Jewish Peoples Council, otherwise they’d’ve had to have co-signed in order for Israel to be a Sovereignty today. Israel accepted it, Declared under it and was recognized as a Sovereign State by the boundaries it recommended. It was a set of conditions under which either party, if they wished, could declare Sovereignty. Sovereignty is binding.”//

    “Absolutely false. The ONLY parties on the Arab side to have a voice were the Arab states.”

    What is false about it? Israel’s Declaration wasn’t to the Arab states. It’s to the International Community of States and a Declaration of Sovereignty IS binding, irrevocable. I’ve already provided the reference. Don’t you read anything?

    ” And there is nothing binding about an advisory opinion in the General Assembly. “

    Except of course an UNGA resolution can remind parties what IS binding. The Laws of war. The UN Charter. The Geneva and other conventions. Binding UNSC resolutions. The responsibilities of Sovereignty and statehood.

    “All they can do is recommend.”

    They can affirm and emphasize binding Laws, UNSC resolutions Conventions, the UN Charter, in fact anything that IS binding.

    ” It is the Security Council which under certain conditions can make laws.”

    Care to point where in the UN Charter it says the UNSC can make law? C’mon.

    “This is evidenced, by the way, in the desperate manner in which the Palestinians try to get Israel to sign off on UNGAR 194. They know they have to include it as part of an agreement for it to have any meaning. Likewise 181.”

    Twaddle. UNGA resolutions are non-binding. They can and do, affirm and emphasize and advise as to what is binding.

    A. I was just adding to the criticism of your claims. You want to claim Jerusalem Palestinian because of Israel’s supposed acceptance of 181.”

    That’s not my claim in it’s entirety. 1) ‘supposed? Strange, Israel informed the US Government it had accepted res 181 and the recommended boundaries. 2) The UN didn’t implement the neutrality of Jerusalem. 3) Israel’s annexation is illegal. Jerusalem is still in the non-state entity of Palestine. It’s Palestinian.

    ” I am not just refuting your claim but adding that even if you were right and I was wrong about 181 (I know, a ridiculous hypothetical), your claims about Jerusalem are false because 181 made it into an international city.”

    A) You say res 181 is irrelevant, then you cite it? Make up your mind. B) On what date did the UN implement it? Fact…NEVER!

    “B. Jerusalem was in Palestine under the British Mandate granted by the League of Nations, predecessor of the UN, to establish a Jewish home in all of Palestine west of the Jordan River.”

    A) Cite this alleged ‘all of Palestine west of the Jordan river’ where it says as a ‘state’.. verbatim….thx B) The Jewish People’s Council accepted the boundaries of Res 181 as our homeland State. No more, no less.

    “C. Exactly. “

    Exactly what? Exactly screws your argument above. (‘your claims about Jerusalem are false because 181 made it into an international city.’) …. Re-iterating 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.

    “D. Correct. But meaningless to your argument. “

    A) Correct indeed. B) It is the argument.

    “http://middleeastfacts.org/content/schwebel/what-weight-to-conquest.htm Schwebel was considered one of America’s foremost authorities on international law in the late 1960s and helped guide US diplomacy with his insights and interpretations.”

    Indeed. Which is precisely why I said “If that’s what Schwebel wrote” and as I thought, what you asserted wasn’t what he wrote.

    ” I trust him just a little more than I trust you. “

    Slight problem. You do not, or choose not to, understand what is actually being said by Schwebel.

    //(a) a State acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self ­defense; //

    Which does not convey Sovereignty. It is ‘occupation’. Nor does the next

    //(b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense//

    //(c) where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the State which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.//

    Section (c) is about the lawful the use of force to restore territory to the lawful sovereign. The ‘prior’ had acquired territory by war. The latter is redeeming it, legally, because it was inadmissible for the former to acquire territory by war.

    Which is why there is no UNSC condemnation of the Arab States Invasion of Palestine 1948. They had a right to redeem the territories Israel was usurping by war. Territories OUTSIDE OF the newly declared boundaries of Israel.

    “As for the Armistice agreements, they certainly do not delineate any borders at all. They clearly leave all borders for future conclusions.”

    Show where they ‘leave all borders for future conclusions’. Quote..verbatim. Remember, the armistices have all been between SOVEREIGN states.

    “Next: Israel was required to leave Egyptian land only because it agreed to do so, not because of 242.”

    Typical Hasbara. You just make it up…

    Egypt /Israeli peace agreement..”Convinced of the urgent necessity of the establishment of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East in accordance with Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338

    Article II
    The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel in the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

    “Besides, 242 is clearly written to allow for adjustments of borders.”

    A) You said it wasn’t about Palestine. B) it is only between ‘states’ C) Point out where it allows “for adjustments of borders”.. quote..verbatim. D) In fact it says “acknowledgement of the sovereignty ”

    ” It is definitely not written to ensure a departure of Israel to 1949 Armistice lines. Also, regarding 242, the meaning was Jordan and Egypt, not Palestinians or a future Palestine.”

    Indeed. However “..territories OCCUPIED in the recent conflict” and not withdrawn from, are still ‘occupied’ until they ARE withdrawn from. The territories of Palestine occupied in that conflict were Gaza, and the West Bank.

    In respect to the Palestinian territories acquired by war by 1949, although Israel could not ratify the Geneva Conventions until it became a UN Member State, after the armistice agreements, it did Declare that it would abide by International Law.

    The territories captured by war by 1949 were never annexed to Israel as required by International Law
    never annexed
    These territories, including Jerusalem, are not legally Sovereign Israeli territories.

    “And finally, the question of whether Israel is in breach of anything. It is not in breach of anything.

    Illegal settlements. Illegal annexation of East Jerusalem. Illegally built separation barrier.

    It can remain an occupying power in the West Bank for as long as 242 isn’t fulfilled in full.”

    Oh. OK. As the occupying Power, Israel cannot institute Israeli Civil Law. It cannot build Israeli civilian infrastructure. It cannot build for it’s own civilians. Laws of War Art. 55. “The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.”

    Occupation is a voluntary role. Israel could end it tomorrow. However Res 242 was ONLY between ‘states’. Sovereign states. Palestine is a non-state entity.

    The land they’ve acquired by force will be given, not returned, to the Palestinians except for parts that will be kept by Israel

    It’s not Israel’s to give. It is occupied. As for keeping, it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war and unilateral annexation is illegal.

    ” As for the US veto, it’s effective isn’t it?”

    No. It’s an imperial left over. It allowed China to take Tibet. The Russians to screw who ever they like. The US whoever it likes. Veto only stops action from being taken. The law still stands, Israel, by majority vote in the UNSC, is still in breech.

    “Thank heavens for at least one democracy that sticks to its democratic values”

    The power of veto is the complete opposite to a democratic value as one can get. You do understand what a democratic value is?

    “It’s quaint how you use “hasbara” and call what I’ve written “propaganda.” I call it information”

    But it isn’t information, it’s dis-information. You contradict yourself time and again and I know you cannot honestly answer any question I have posed.

    “You don’t like that it kills your silly ideas?”

    Oh? Where?

    “It has nothing to do with propaganda

    You’re using the arguments I used to use. I know them inside out. They’re bull shite.

    ” Read Schwebel and Ostrow”

    Read and understand. It’s the latter part you’re having problems with.

    Comment by talknic — December 19, 2009 @ 8:24 pm

  7. Tiresome, you are. Nonetheless:

    “Israel accepted and declared Sovereignty over the boundaries recommended in Res 181, it was recognized by the majority of the International Community of states by those boundaries (over riding the Arab States objections). What is outside Israel’s Sovereign territory and bounded by the existing Sovereign Arab States is not Israeli. It belongs to a non-state entity, called Palestine.”

    This “non-state entity” was a section of a PROVINCE called Syria in the Ottoman Empire. The Empire collapsed and the “entity” became defined by one thing and one thing only: the British Mandate. And what was this British Mandate? It was the mandate given the British by the League of Nations to establish a home for the Jewish people in this section of the Syrian province known as Palestine. It’s all there in the 1922 declaration by the League of Nations. Do you know how they divide “Palestine?” There’s everything east of the Jordan River which the British are permitted to do with as they like, and there’s everything west of the Jordan River which is slated to become the home of the Jewish people. Now that is some piece of international legitimacy.

    As for 181, it is not enshrined in the Declaration. What is enshrines is, “This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home.” The section listing the UNGA declaration of 1947 comes much later and is used to state only that the UN has given the right to establish a Jewish state in Eretz Israel. No mention of borders, of limits, of Palestine or of Arabs. It is purposely left vague since Eretz Israel is a much larger territory than provided for in 181. Sorry. What they’re doing is descriptive and certainly not acceptance of the provisions of 181. 181 isn’t listed there for a reason.
    Then you write:

    “Your logic goes against Israel being a legal entity. It was not an agreement between the Arab States and the Jewish Peoples Council, otherwise they’d’ve had to have co-signed in order for Israel to be a Sovereignty today. Israel accepted it, Declared under it and was recognized as a Sovereign State by the boundaries it recommended.

    It was a set of conditions under which either party, if they wished, could declare Sovereignty. Sovereignty is binding.”

    Absolutely false. The ONLY parties on the Arab side to have a voice were the Arab states. And there is nothing binding about an advisory opinion in the General Assembly. All they can do is recommend. It is the Security Council which under certain conditions can make laws.

    This is evidenced, by the way, in the desperate manner in which the Palestinians try to get Israel to sign off on UNGAR 194. They know they have to include it as part of an agreement for it to have any meaning. Likewise 181.

    Then on to your bold letters:

    A. I was just adding to the criticism of your claims. You want to claim Jerusalem Palestinian because of Israel’s supposed acceptance of 181. I am not just refuting your claim but adding that even if you were right and I was wrong about 181 (I know, a ridiculous hypothetical), your claims about Jerusalem are false because 181 made it into an international city.

    B. Jerusalem was in Palestine under the British Mandate granted by the League of Nations, predecessor of the UN, to establish a Jewish home in all of Palestine west of the Jordan River.

    C. Exactly.

    D. Correct. But meaningless to your argument.

    Next: the question of offensive war and defensive war…

    “Your logic goes against Israel being a legal entity. It was not an agreement between the Arab States and the Jewish Peoples Council, otherwise they’d’ve had to have co-signed in order for Israel to be a Sovereignty today. Israel accepted it, Declared under it and was recognized as a Sovereign State by the boundaries it recommended.

    It was a set of conditions under which either party, if they wished, could declare Sovereignty. Sovereignty is binding.

    http://middleeastfacts.org/content/schwebel/what-weight-to-conquest.htm

    Schwebel was considered one of America’s foremost authorities on international law in the late 1960s and helped guide US diplomacy with his insights and interpretations. I trust him just a little more than I trust you.

    As for the Armistice agreements, they certainly do not delineate any borders at all. They clearly leave all borders for future conclusions.

    Next: Israel was required to leave Egyptian land only because it agreed to do so, not because of 242. It was the demand made by the Egyptians and Israel acquiesced because it wanted peace badly enough to do so. Besides, 242 is clearly written to allow for adjustments of borders. It is definitely not written to ensure a departure of Israel to 1949 Armistice lines. Also, regarding 242, the meaning was Jordan and Egypt, not Palestinians or a future Palestine.

    And finally, the question of whether Israel is in breach of anything. It is not in breach of anything. It can remain an occupying power in the West Bank for as long as 242 isn’t fulfilled in full. The land they’ve acquired by force will be given, not returned, to the Palestinians except for parts that will be kept by Israel, if the Palestinians can bring themselves to stop coveting all of Israel. As for the US veto, it’s effective isn’t it? Thank heavens for at least one democracy that sticks to its democratic values.

    It’s quaint how you use “hasbara” and call what I’ve written “propaganda.” I call it information. You don’t like that it kills your silly ideas? That’s life. It has nothing to do with propaganda. Read Schwebel and Ostrow.

    Comment by Bad Joke — December 19, 2009 @ 12:20 pm

  8. Ridiculous. By your logic, since the Arabs officially rejected 181, they have zero claim to any part of Palestine listed in 181.

    Anyway, even your logic is entirely false since at no point did Israel declare itself a state on the basis of 181 and 181 cannot exist past the point of Arab rejection of the Resolution. If you read Israel’s Declaration of Independence you will see many reasons given for the right of the state of Israel to exist and 181 is not one of them.

    The most important error you make is in assuming that any part of Jerusalem was considered “Palestinian” by the UN. 181 makes Jerusalem into an international city with no sovereign.

    Of course, all of this is moot since any land Israel conquered in 1948/49 is land that was conquered in a defensive war and international law differentiates clearly between offensive and defensive wars. The proposition declared in UNSC Resolution 242 about the impermissible nature of acquisition of land in war relates only to acquisition of land in offensive wars, not in defensive ones (see Schwebel) such as 1967 was for Israel (Jordan attacked first after warnings from Israel not to attack).

    The Palestinians should really make an effort to compromise because they have no leg to stand on legally.

    Comment by Bad Joke — December 18, 2009 @ 4:52 am

    • Most of your ‘points’ have already been covered in the article. With solid references. Never the less…

      “Ridiculous. By your logic, since the Arabs officially rejected 181, they have zero claim to any part of Palestine listed in 181.”

      Not my logic olde dear. That’s YOUR logic.

      Israel accepted and declared Sovereignty over the boundaries recommended in Res 181, it was recognized by the majority of the International Community of states by those boundaries (over riding the Arab States objections). What is outside Israel’s Sovereign territory and bounded by the existing Sovereign Arab States is not Israeli. It belongs to a non-state entity, called Palestine.

      “Anyway, even your logic is entirely false since at no point did Israel declare itself a state on the basis of 181 “

      The Declaration of a Jewish State enshrines Res 181 and the letter to the US President on which the US based it’s recognition of Israel’s Sovereignty, announces the declaration and the acceptance of those boundaries.

      “and 181 cannot exist past the point of Arab rejection of the Resolution.”

      Your logic goes against Israel being a legal entity. It was not an agreement between the Arab States and the Jewish Peoples Council, otherwise they’d’ve had to have co-signed in order for Israel to be a Sovereignty today. Israel accepted it, Declared under it and was recognized as a Sovereign State by the boundaries it recommended.

      It was a set of conditions under which either party, if they wished, could declare Sovereignty. Sovereignty is binding.

      “If you read Israel’s Declaration of Independence you will see many reasons given for the right of the state of Israel to exist and 181 is not one of them”

      Oh? I know the Israel Declaration by heart. You make a weird claim, especially as the Declaration of a Jewish State says … “…AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY”

      “The most important error you make is in assuming that any part of Jerusalem was considered “Palestinian” by the UN. 181 makes Jerusalem into an international city with no sovereign.”

      A) Make up your mind. You just said “181 cannot exist past the point of Arab rejection of the Resolution” Contradicting yourself already? Res 181 counts when you want it to and it doesn’t count when you don’;t want it to…….Hasbara?

      B) Jerusalem was in Palestine under the British Mandate over Palestine

      C) 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.

      D) Jerusalem was and still is, a part of what is left of the non-state entity of Palestine. It’s status has never been legally changed.

      “Of course, all of this is moot since any land Israel conquered in 1948/49 is land that was conquered in a defensive war and international law differentiates clearly between offensive and defensive wars”

      A) Show me this particular differentiation….thx. You can? Yes?

      B) If it was a defensive war, which of Israel’s newly declared Sovereign territory did the Arab States attack?

      The UNSC says “It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war” It doesn’t differentiate. The reason is simple. The inhabitants might not have voted, or even been able to vote, for the regime in power at the outbreak of or waging war.

      Furthermore, Israel acknowledged that the captured territories were not it’s own through voicing it’s demands in August 1949. It was promptly told to go read the Armistice agreements.

      “The proposition declared in UNSC Resolution 242 about the impermissible nature of acquisition of land in war relates only to acquisition of land in offensive wars, not in defensive ones (see Schwebel) such as 1967 was for Israel (Jordan attacked first after warnings from Israel not to attack).”

      If that’s what Schwebel wrote, it’s shite and dis-proven by A) Res 242, which did not differentiate as to offensive or defensive war and B) Israel was required to withdraw from Egypt’s Sovereign territory under the peace agreements, as demanded under res 242.

      “The Palestinians should really make an effort to compromise because they have no leg to stand on legally.”

      Compromise what? They have nothing of Israel’s. Compromise their rights? Why? It is Israel in breech of 223 UNSC resolutions. It is Israel who has illegally acquire territory by war and illegal annexation and illegal settlements, not the Palestinians. The US veto vote in the UNSC has only stopped action being taken against Israel. The Law still stands, Israel is still in breech.

      It’s a pity people like yourself refuse to learn instead of spouting the same tired olde worn out propaganda bullshite.

      Comment by talknic — December 18, 2009 @ 8:21 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: