ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-Yx
How many times have you heard “the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 was not binding and is irrelevant because the Arabs rejected it”
Friday, 5 March 1948 Rabbi Silver stated to the UNSC
“Nevertheless, reluctantly but loyally, we accepted the decision which appeared fair and reasonable to the United Nations”
“We feel under the obligation to make our position unmistakably clear. As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision of the United Nations. We regard it as binding, and we are resolved to move forward in the spirit of that decision. “
Friday, 19 March 1948 Rabbi Silver replacing Mr. Shertok at the Council table as representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine stated
“We are under the obligation at this time to repeat what we stated at a [262nd meeting] meeting of the Security Council last week: The decision of the General Assembly remains valid for the Jewish people. We have accepted it and we are prepared to abide by it. If the United Nations Palestine Commission is unable to carry out the mandates which were assigned to it by the General Assembly, the Jewish people of Palestine will move forward in the spirit of that resolution and will do everything which is dictated by considerations of national survival and by considerations of justice and historic rights.”
“The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State.”
And again:
Security Council S/PV.271 19 March 1948 The representative of the Jewish Agency, Rabbi Silver:
The statement that the plan proposed by the General Assembly is an integral plan which cannot succeed unless each of its parts can be carried out, is incorrect. This conception was never part of the plan. Indeed, it is contrary to the statement made by the representative of the United States during the second session of the General Assembly. The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State. Mr. Herschel Johnson, representing the United States delegation, speaking in a sub-committee of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question on 28 October 1947, stated, in discussing this very matter in connexion with economic union: “The element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only.”
UNGA res 181 is enshrined in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
Someone is lying … You decide
First, find out what isn't true... 
On the question of whether the State of Israel has declared its borders, which we were discussing elsewhere, I do not think the matter is as clear-cut as you suggest. It is too strong to say that 181 is ‘enshrined’ in Israel’s declaration:
“On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable”.
It acknowledges the existence of the the resolution, and says it makes irrevocable the right of the Jewish people to establish a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel, but says nothing about other aspects of the resolution.
And Rabbi Silver’s remarks on 19 March do seem to leave considerable wiggle room: “If the United Nations Palestine Commission is unable to carry out the mandates which were assigned to it by the General Assembly, the Jewish people of Palestine will move forward in the spirit of that resolution and will do everything which is dictated by considerations of national survival and by considerations of justice and historic rights.”
“Moving forward in the spirit of that resolution” and doing “everything which is dictated by considerations of national survival etc.”, are not the same thing as accepting the resolution in all its details, such as borders. To me, it reads as if they are taking from 181 the right of the Jewish State to exist, but if the Arabs don’t also accept 181, the Jewish state feels free to do what it likes in its own interests.
Comment by Walk Tall Hang Loose — October 2, 2012 @ 12:46 pm
Postscript: I have now found your entry of December 16, 2010 which quotes the letter to the USA of May 15th 1948, and the letter to the Security Council of May 28th, both of which clearly state that the borders of Israel are those in the partition plan in UNGAR 181. Many congratulations to you for your extensive research that has brought these facts to light.
Comment by Walk Tall Hang Loose — October 2, 2012 @ 3:59 pm
The Hasbara is totally Right !!!!!!
Arabs Rejected the “Unbalanced” Partition Plan
The UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) uses the term “unbalanced” in describing the reason for Arab rejectionism of Resolution 181, [4] which does not exactly fit reality. Seventy-seven percent of the landmass of the original Mandate for the Jews was excised in 1922 to create a fourth Arab state – Trans-Jordan (today Jordan).
In a statement by Dr. Abba Hillel Silver, the representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), he had that to say about fairness, balance, and justice: [5]
“According to David Lloyd George, then British Prime Minister, the Balfour Declaration implied that the whole of Palestine, including Transjordan, should ultimately become a Jewish state. Transjordan had, nevertheless, been severed from Palestine in 1922 and had subsequently been set up as an Arab kingdom. Now a second Arab state was to be carved out of the remainder of Palestine, with the result that the Jewish National Home would represent less than one eighth of the territory originally set aside for it. Such a sacrifice should not be asked of the Jewish people.” [6]
Referring to the Arab States established as independent countries since the First World War, he said:
“17,000,000 Arabs now occupied an area of 1,290,000 square miles, including all the principal Arab and Moslem centers, while Palestine, after the loss of Transjordan, was only 10,000 square miles; yet the majority plan proposed to reduce it by one half. UNSCOP proposed to eliminate Western Galilee from the Jewish State; that was an injustice and a grievous handicap to the development of the Jewish State.” [italics by author].
I see. So, five months AFTER the Arabs rejected the plan, the Jewish Agency official didn’t make the statement to the UNSC? Or, five months AFTER the Arabs rejected the plan, the Jewish Agency LIED to the UNSC?
What Dr. Abba Hillel Silver had that to say about fairness, balance, and justice comments about the Arab States established as independent countries since the First World War are irrelevant to the topic being discussed here. Which is “the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 was not binding and is irrelevant because the Arabs rejected it”
Like the Hasbara, you’re deflection is bullsh*t.
BTW Please attribute your citations. Plagiarism is a crime
Comment by israebest — June 18, 2013 @ 4:47 am
Arab Aggression Before and After the Adoption of Resolution 181
Following passage of Resolution 181 by the General Assembly, Arab countries took the dais to reiterate their absolute rejection of the recommendation and intention to render implementation of Resolution 181 a moot question by the use of force. These examples from the transcript of the General Assembly plenary meeting on November 29, 1947 speak for themselves:
“Mr. JAMALI (Iraq): … We believe that the decision which we have now taken … undermines peace, justice and democracy. In the name of my Government, I wish to state that it feels that this decision is antidemocratic, illegal, impractical and contrary to the Charter … Therefore, in the name of my Government, I wish to put on record that Iraq does not recognize the validity of this decision, will reserve freedom of action towards its implementation, and holds those who were influential in passing it against the free conscience of mankind responsible for the consequences.”
“Amir. ARSLAN (Syria): … Gentlemen, the Charter is dead. But it did not die a natural death; it was murdered, and you all know who is guilty. My country will never recognize such a decision [Partition]. It will never agree to be responsible for it. Let the consequences be on the heads of others, not on ours.”
“H. R. H. Prince Seif El ISLAM ABDULLAH (Yemen): The Yemen delegation has stated previously that the partition plan is contrary to justice and to the Charter of the United Nations. Therefore, the Government of Yemen does not consider itself bound by such a decision … and will reserve its freedom of action towards the implementation of this decision.” [8]
The Partition Plan was met not only by verbal rejection on the Arab side but also by concrete, bellicose steps to block its implementation and destroy the Jewish polity by force of arms, a goal the Arabs publicly declared even before Resolution 181 was brought to a vote.
Arabs not only rejected the compromise and took action to prevent establishment of a Jewish state but also blocked establishment of an Arab state under the partition plan not just before the Israel War of Independence, but also after the war when they themselves controlled the West Bank (1948-1967), rendering the recommendation ‘a still birth.’
The UN itself recognized that Resolution 181 had not been accepted by the Arab side, rendering it a dead issue: On January 29, 1948, the First Monthly Progress Report of the UN-appointed Palestine Commission, charged with helping put Resolution 181 into effect was submitted to the Security Council (A/AC.21/7). Implementation of Resolution 181 hinged not only on the five member states appointed to represent the UN (Bolivia, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Panama, Philippines) and Great Britain, but first and foremost on the participation of the two sides who were invited to appoint representatives. The Commission then reported:
“The invitation extended by the [181] resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. … As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PRESIST [PERSIST] IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UN[O] RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM [THERE FROM]. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE [TO] ACCEPT [THE] INVITATION.” [9]
The UN Palestine Commission’s February 16, 1948 report (A/AC.21/9) to the Security Council noted that Arab-led hostilities were an effort
“To prevent the implementation of the [General] Assembly’s plan of partition, and to thwart its objectives by threats and acts of violence, including armed incursions into Palestinian territory.”
On May 17, 1948 – after the invasion began, the Palestine Commission designed to implement 181 adjourned sine die [Latin: without determining a date] after the General Assembly appointed a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities.
Some thought the Partition Plan could be revived, but by the end of the war, Resolution 181 had become a moot issue as realities on the ground made the establishment of an armistice-line (the “Green Line”) – a temporary ceasefire line expected to be followed by peace treaties – the most constructive path to solving the conflict.
A July 30, 1949 working paper of the UN Secretariat entitled The Future of Arab Palestine and the Question of Partition noted further that:
“The Arabs rejected the United Nations Partition Plan so that any comment of theirs did not specifically concern the status of the Arab section of Palestine under partition but rather rejected the scheme in its entirety.” [10]
By the time armistice agreements were reached in 1949 between Israel and its immediate Arab neighbors (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Trans-Jordan) with the assistance of UN Mediator Dr. Ralph Bunche, Resolution 181 had become irrelevant, and the armistice agreements addressed new realities created by the war. Over subsequent years, the UN simply abandoned the recommendations of Resolution 181, as its ideas were drained of all relevance by subsequent events. Moreover, the Arabs continued to reject 181 after the war when they themselves controlled the West Bank (1948-1967) which Jordan invaded in the course of the war and annexed illegally.
Attempts by Palestinians to roll back the clock and resuscitate Resolution 181 more than six decades after they rejected it as if nothing had happened are a baseless ploy designed to use Resolution 181 as leverage to bring about a greater Israeli withdrawal from parts of western Palestine and to gain a broader base from which to continue to attack an Israel with even less defendable borders. Both Palestinians and their Arab brethren in neighboring countries rendered the plan null and void by their own subsequent aggressive actions.
Professor Stone wrote about this novelty of resurrection in 1981 when he analyzed a similar attempt by pro-Palestinian experts at the UN to rewrite the history of the conflict (their writings were termed “studies”). Stone called it “revival of the dead.”
“To attempt to show … that Resolution 181(II) ‘remains’ in force in 1981 is thus an undertaking even more miraculous than would be the revival of the dead. It is an attempt to give life to an entity that the Arab states had themselves aborted before it came to maturity and birth. To propose that Resolution 181(II) can be treated as if it has binding force in 1981, [E.H., the year the book was written] for the benefit of the same Arab states, who by their aggression destroyed it ab initio, [In Latin: From the beginning] also violates ‘general principles of law,’ such as those requiring claimants to equity to come ‘with clean hands,’ and forbidding a party who has unlawfully repudiated a transaction from holding the other party to terms that suit the later expediencies of the repudiating party.” [11] [italics by author].
Resolution 181 had been tossed into the waste bin of history, along with the Partition Plans that preceded it.
Apart from being off topic again and citing Stone’s opinions, he held no legal office at the time he made them the following facts remain problematic holes in your Hasbara
Problem 1) UNGA res 181 is enshrined in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel May 14th 1948, months AFTER being rejected by the Arab states http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Declaration+of+Establishment+of+State+of+Israel.htm
Problem 2) UNGA res 181 is referred to BY THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT May 15th 1948, months AFTER being rejected by the Arab states and AFTER Israel has been established, in the Israeli Government plea for recognition http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf
Problem 3) UNGA res 181 is referenced in the replies to the UNSC of May 22nd 1948, months AFTER being rejected by the Arab states, AFTER Israel has been established, AFTER the Israeli Government plea for recognition and AFTER Israel had been recognized http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk
Problem for you … Were these ALL errors by the Jewish Agency, the Jewish People’s Council the Zionist Movement and the Israeli Government? Or were they all lying? Or are the Israeli apologists lying AFTER the fact? Please try to answer honestly, if you know how … thx
Comment by israebest — June 18, 2013 @ 4:49 am
Israel’s Independence is not a Result of a Partial Implementation of the Partition Plan
Resolution 181 has no legal ramifications – that is, Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document was never consummated. Like the proposals that preceded it, Resolution 181’s validity hinged on acceptance by both parties of the General Assembly’s recommendation.
Cambridge Professor, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice, a renowned expert on international law, clarified that from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs. In a monograph relating to one of the most complex aspects of the territorial issue, the status of Jerusalem, Judge, Sir Lauterpacht wrote that any binding force the Partition Plan would have had to arise from the principle pacta sunt servanda, [In Latin: treaties must be honored – the first principle of international law] that is, from agreement of the parties at variance to the proposed plan. In the case of Israel, Judge, Sir Lauterpacht explains:
“The coming into existence of Israel does not depend legally upon the Resolution. The right of a State to exist flows from its factual existence-especially when that existence is prolonged shows every sign of continuance and is recognised by the generality of nations.”
Reviewing Lauterpacht’s arguments, Professor Stone, a distinguished authority on the Law of Nations, added that Israel’s “legitimacy” or the “legal foundation” for its birth does not reside with the United Nations’ Partition Plan, which as a consequence of Arab actions became a dead issue. Professor Stone concluded:
“The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.” [13]
Comment by israebest — June 18, 2013 @ 5:00 am
“The UN International Court of Ju…” Plagiarism isn’t appreciated here, it is a criminal offence..
Never the less, apart from being mostly inaccurate drivel (e.g., there was no “Mandate for the Jews”), as of the moment the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel came into effect at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) and was recognized by the International community, as it asked to be recognized, whatever preceded declaration and recognition became irrelevant. None of it effects the Internationally recognized legal status of Israel’s sovereign extent or what Israel may or may not do in non-Israeli territories “outside the State of Israel”
May 15, 1948 Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States,
Re Lauterpacht – refer to problems 1) 2) 3) above. All assertions, inclusions and confirmation of UNGA res 181 by Jewish representatives and the Israeli Government. Were they ALL LIARS?
Comment by talknic — June 20, 2013 @ 12:07 am
Hi,
“it reads as if they are taking from 181 the right of the Jewish State to exist, but if the Arabs don’t also accept 181, the Jewish state feels free to do what it likes in its own interests”
In respect to the Arab states not accepting the resolution: The recommendation was for either party to declare “independence”. Independence is unilateral by its very nature. One cannot demand an entity must declare independence, nor can there be a co-signature to independence. That would be ‘dependent’ on the other party.
The Jewish Agency understood this basic principal. Rabbi Silver, officially representing the Jewish Agency at the UNSC Friday, 19 March 1948
Again Rabbi Silver, officially representing the Jewish Agency at the UNSC 19 March 1948
All contracts are only recommendations until they are accepted. The final act of acceptance was to for the Jewish People’s Council to declare, which it did in accordance with the recommendations.
All that was required was for the Mandate to end so the territory for the Jewish State and the territory for the Arab State were both free from occupation. Only then could either party declare independence, if they wished.
However, by May 14/15th 1948 there were already Jewish troops in control of territory slated for the Arab State, making it impossible to declare an independent Arab State even if they had wanted to.
The Israeli Government acknowledged the extent of Israel’s borders on May 22nd 1948 in a statement to the UNSC and acknowledged it had territory “outside the state of Israel” under “military control”. Occupation.
As to what Israel feels free to do: In respect to Palestinian territory, Israel is adhering to Deuteronomy 20:15 … as long as Palestine is not an Independent State, Israel will follow the path outlined by the Israeli Government on the 31st August 1949 to Conciliation Commission.
Twice now, in front of the world at the UN, the official Palestinian spokesman has offered Israel all the Palestinian territories Israel acquired by war by 1949. Foregoing their rights under the law. Israel has only demanded more of the Palestinians and; disrespected the sovereignty of its neighbouring states, exactly as it stated 31st August 1949. Israel’s Peace Treaty with Egypt only came about only after Egypt had its sovereign territories restored. Territory that belonged to a neighbouring ‘state’, per Deuteronomy 20:15
There is only one thing protecting Israel from the force of the Law. The US veto vote in the UNSC. Faced with the law, Israel would be bankrupt for decades as it tried to pay reparations going back 64 years to both the Palestinians and Syria since 1967. It’s why the US demands there be a negotiated settlement. Israel MUST negotiate a deal with the Palestinians in order to cut a new ‘contract’ and circumvent the consequences of the Law.
Comment by talknic — October 2, 2012 @ 7:10 pm