First, find out what isn't true…

May 10, 2013

The three No’s of Khartoum – no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel


ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-18N

The three no’s of the khartoum conference. “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel”

Right, wrong? Just, unjust? Reasonable? Biased? Antisemitic? Most importantly, what were the conditions that prompted the Arab states to adopt this stance?

2. The conference has agreed on the need to consolidate all efforts to eliminate the effects of the aggression on the basis that the occupied lands are Arab lands and that the burden of regaining these lands falls on all the Arab States.

3. The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.

This is simply a reflection of UNSC res 476 1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

No peace with Israel: While territory sovereign to Egypt was under Israeli occupation the two states were technically at war. In the eventual Egypt Israel Peace Treaty Israel was first required and agreed to begin withdrawal before peaceful relations were assumed.

No recognition of Israel: There is no legal basis for demanding recognition.

A) States plead for recognition

B) ” ..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 of 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.

All states are never the less required to show “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.

No negotiations: Israel is in breach of numerous UNSC resolutions, International Law, the UN Charter, relative conventions. There is no legal requirement for negotiations. For example the words ‘negotiate’, ‘negotiations’ do not appear in UNSC res242 on which the Egypt Israel Peace Treaty is based. Israel was and still is required to adhere to the law, negotiations or not. Egypt and Jordan were correct in refusing negotiations while Israel was in breach of its legal obligations in respect to their sovereign territory.

The signing of a negotiated peace treaty between Egypt and Israel was by default an act of recognition and; after Israeli withdrawal peaceful relations were assumed. Likewise with Jordan. Both are examples of what UNSC res 242 was formulated to achieve. The end of hostilities between UN Member States.

However, while Israel occupies non-Israeli territories in Palestine, the Golan Heights, Shebaa Farms, the Alghajar village UNSC res 425 and UNSC res 426, Israel is technically at war and those states have a right to “restore” sovereignty over their territories. Professor Stephen M. Schwebel / Elihu Lauterpacht

The Palestinians meanwhile are under no legal obligation to sign a peace agreement with an Occupying Power, to recognize an Occupying Power or to negotiate with an Occupying Power. Negotiations mean only one thing, the Palestinians forgoing some of their legal rights so that Israel may keep non-Israeli territory illegally acquired by war, illegally annexed and illegally settled by Israel since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

Advertisements

1 Comment »

  1. This is a defense lawyers argument, true but not addressing the relevant facts or issues!

    From Wikipedia “Commentators have frequently presented the resolution as an example of Arab rejectionism. Efraim Halevy, Guy Ben-Porat, Steven R. David, Julius Stone, and Ian Bremmer all agree the Khartoum Resolution amounted to a rejection of Israel’s right to exist.”

    Comment by Anonymous — October 26, 2017 @ 7:13 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: