First, find out what isn't true…

November 10, 2014

The Hasbara – World’s worst propaganda – There was no occupation or illegal settlements before 1967 – Israel vs Palestine


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

The Hasbara – World’s worst propaganda – There was no occupation or illegal Israeli settlers before 1967?

The following are not an unfounded accusations. The information is not from propaganda sites. They’re the official words of the Provisional Israeli Government 1948 as recorded by the UNSC and the Israeli Government web site and the opinion of the International Court of Justice and the Laws of War and some of the States who recognized Israel. You decide.

Israel’s legal sovereign extent was defined by the Provisional Government of the State of Israel in its plea for recognition and it was immediately recognized as such while at war outside the territory of the State of Israel .. in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel [1]

May 15, 1948

Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, “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.”

Samples of the recognition of Israel:

USA 15 May 1948 “… as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947…”

Russia 17 May 1948
Letter from Mr. Molotov stated: “Confirming receipt of your telegram of May 16, in which you inform the Government of the USSR of the proclamation, on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947, of the creation in Palestine of the independent State of Israel and make re-quest for the recognition of the State of Israel and its provisional government by the USSR. I inform yon in this letter that the Govern-ment of the USSR has decided to recognize officially the Stale of Israel and its Provisional Government.”

British 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.” (Thus far nothing has replaced them)

Australia 28 January 1949 “… on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947…”

May 22nd 1948 Israeli Government statement

On May 22, 1948 UNSC S/766 the Provisional Government of Israel answered questions addressed to the “Jewish authorities in Palestine” was transmitted by the acting representative of Israel at the United Nations.

Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947?

"In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard. The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed." ... " the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel"

“international regulations” at the time say;

Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III
"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

Further to which as recently as 2004

9th July 2004 International Court of Justice the Court refers to the provisions of the Hague Regulation of 1907, which have become part of customary law, as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, applicable in those Palestinian territories which before the armed conflict of 1967 lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict

.

3 Jun 1948 in the Knesset

Report to the Provisional Government of Israel by Prime Minister and Minister of Defence Ben-Gurion 3 Jun 1948
"The entire expanse of the State of Israel allocated to us under the terms of the UN resolution is in our hands, and we have conquered several important districts outside those boundaries".
and;
"To the greatest possible extent, we will remain constantly on the offensive, which will not be confined to the borders of the Jewish State".

12 Aug 1948

the Provisional Israeli Government proclaimed Jerusalem Declared Israel-Occupied City- by Israeli Government Proclamation 12 Aug 1948

Occupation can actually be dated from May 22nd 1948.

None of these areas have ever been legally annexed to Israel. See HERE for the possible legal repercussions of this situation and HERE for the possible ramifications for Israeli citizens.

HERE for up to date information on all illegal settlements from peacenow.org

ShortLink to this Graphic http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk#googlemap
territory acquired by war by Israel and never legally annexed.  Israel has illegally acquired about 50% of the Palestinians rightful territories.
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
Map also available from Wikimedia

61 Comments »

  1. International regulations at the time specified what occupation meant. There was no prohibition against annexing territory that was conquered, especially from non-sovereign territory (Palestine did not exist as a state, it did not meet the criteria of statehood set out in the Montevideo Convention and the UN Partition Plan was legally non binding).

    Comment by David — June 17, 2016 @ 1:08 am

    • International regulations at the time are cited in the article you silly person.

      Read the LON Mandate Article 7 re- Palestinian Statehood [ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7 ] Palestine Nationality Law was adopted in 1925. Jews could become citizens of the Nation State of Palestine

      Palestinian Nationality Law was adopted in 1925 BEFORE the Montevideo Convention 1932

      Legal annexation is by agreement between the annexing party and the party being annexed. There are no annexation agreements between Israel and anyone else.

      Take your Ziopoop elsewhere

      Comment by talknic — July 25, 2016 @ 2:20 pm

      • Yes. I see that international regulations at the time meant. I know you posted them. Now direct me to where the Hague Conventions of 1907 prohibits annexation of occupied territory.

        “”Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

        All I see here is a description of what occupation means. Nowhere do I see a prohibition against annexing occupied territory. Note that this was written in 1907, at a time when right of conquest was considered perfectly acceptable.

        Palestine was not a nation state in 1925, it was Mandate (AKA a colonial possession in all but name) of Britain. Palestinian citizenship during the Mandate era was akin to Indian citizenship during British rule. Sure, Palestinian nationality was set out as a way to administer the population, but that doesn’t make it a state. Palestine was not a sovereign state in 1948.

        “Legal annexation is by agreement between the annexing party and the party being annexed.”

        Today, yes. In 1949, no. Israel was perfectly entitled to annex those territories according to the laws at the time. Keep in mind that the borders had just been redrawn in the aftermath of World War II.

        Comment by David — August 18, 2016 @ 8:00 pm

        • “Now direct me to where the Hague Conventions of 1907 prohibits annexation of occupied territory … “

          The UN Charter and International Law as expressed in numerous UNSC resolutions on unilateral annexation do

          ” … Note that this was written in 1907, at a time when right of conquest was considered perfectly acceptable”

          A) It wasn’t acceptable to the US, who by 1845 had adopted the legal practice of having an agreement or treaty https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/annexation/index.html

          B) Idiots for Israel seem to have never learned or heard about chronological order. You’re eminently qualified

          Problem with your inane drivel is that by 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) when Israel’s borders were proclaimed effective by the Israeli Government in its plea for recognition [ http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf ] the acquisition of territory by force/war was outlawed under the UN Charter based on International Law

          Unilateral annexation is illegal. Read UNSC 255 and its EIGHT reminders
          UNSC Res 252
          267
          271
          298
          446
          452
          465
          476
          478.
          None of which have anything to do with race or religion. They’re based on the UN Charter, International Law and the GC’s, all of which Israel obliged itself to uphold. Alas it hasn’t.

          “Palestine was not a nation state in 1925”

          According to the LoN Mandate FOR Palestine article 7 it was. [ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7 ] Palestinian Nationality Law was adopted in 1925

          ” … it was Mandate (AKA a colonial possession in all but name) of Britain”

          The LoN Mandate FOR Palestine tells us otherwise. You’re spouting Ziodrivel.

          “Legal annexation is by agreement between the annexing party and the party being annexed.”

          “Today, yes. In 1949, no. Israel was perfectly entitled to annex those territories according to the laws at the time”

          There is no record of Israel annexing any of the territories it acquired by war by 1949.

          “Keep in mind that the borders had just been redrawn in the aftermath of World War II”

          Really? What borders were redrawn? Israel’s borders were proclaimed by the Israeli Government May 15th 1948 (ibid), they are the only borders by which Israel gained International recognition. Whatever lay outside those borders is simply not Israeli territory!

          Comment by talknic — August 19, 2016 @ 5:37 am

          • I call these people the “San Remo Article 80 crowd” They’re messianic Zionists and most of them are evangelical. BTW: There are 250 millions of evangelical on this planet – probably the majority is Zionist. Saludos Ruedi

            *Deus lo vult*

            On 19 August 2016 at 07:37, First, find out what isnt true… wrote:

            > talknic commented: “”Now direct me to where the Hague Conventions of 1907 > prohibits annexation of occupied territory … ” The UN Charter and > International Law as expressed in numerous UNSC resolutions on unilateral > annexation do ” … Note that this was written in 1″ >

            Comment by Ruedi Bosshart — August 19, 2016 @ 9:46 am

          • Another thing: Here the orignal document where of the new “Jewish state” was replaced with new “Sate of Israel”

            Statement of the President re: recognition of Israel, May 14, 1948; Handwriting of the President; Alphabetical Correspondence File, 1916-1950; Ross Papers.

            http://www.trumanlibrary.org/exhibit_documents/index.php?tldate=1948-05-14&groupid=3429&pagenumber=1&collectionid=ROIexhibit

            On 19 August 2016 at 07:37, First, find out what isnt true… wrote:

            > talknic commented: “”Now direct me to where the Hague Conventions of 1907 > prohibits annexation of occupied territory … ” The UN Charter and > International Law as expressed in numerous UNSC resolutions on unilateral > annexation do ” … Note that this was written in 1″ >

            Comment by Ruedi Bosshart — August 19, 2016 @ 10:01 am

          • So what if the US required treaties from 1845 onwards? Was that international law at the time?

            You fail to recognize the fact that laws do not apply to situations before they were were passed. UN Resolution 255 is from 1968. It and all the other resolutions passed in the years afterward do not apply to 1948-1949.

            Direct me to the part of ther League of Nations Mandate where they said Palestine was a sovereign state. A nationality law doesn’t make it a state, like I said before, there was Indian nationality during the British Raj, so was India an independent state under British rule in 1947? Palestine was not a sovereign country with the same rights as one.

            Also, Israel had not ratified the UN Charter at the time, and it was not customary international law back then.

            Israel annexed the areas it had conquered on September 22, 1948 and proclaimed that henceforth, it would apply to any other part of Palestine conquered by the IDF. The 1949 Armistice Agreements set out the current borders, as a demarcation line, which is a temporary border until permanent peace can be achieved but a border nonetheless (see the North Korea-South Korea border for example). The agreements were signed by all sides. In effect, the Green Line is a border.

            I have one simple proposal. Name one international law that existed in 1949 that banned annexation by conquest that Israel was subject to.

            Comment by David — August 20, 2016 @ 9:55 pm

            • “So what if the US required treaties from 1845 onwards? Was that international law at the time?”

              B. Nope.
              A. By adopting the legal custom of having an agreement, the US was instrumental in that legal custom eventually passing into Customary International Law. Customary International Law is formed by a majority of nations adopting the same legal custom. Customary International Law forbidding the acquisition of territory by force was codified in Article 2 (4) in the UN Charter in 1945 some three years before Israel was ” 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

              “You fail to recognize the fact that laws do not apply to situations before they were were passed.”

              Correct.

              ” UN Resolution 255 is from 1968. It and all the other resolutions passed in the years afterward do not apply to 1948-1949″

              Also correct in respect to those resolutions. However, resolutions are not law although they often re-affirm and emphasize law and the UN Charter and various applicable conventions, all of which ARE binding.

              1) The laws re-affirmed and emphasized in UN resolution 255 and its subsequent EIGHT reminders, were in place long before the resolution was adopted and long before Israel proclaimed its borders and long before Israel was accepted into the UN
              2) Although the UN cannot directly censure non-member states for their actions prior to membership, nor can they censure Member States for their actions prior to membership.

              Never the less, Israel was obliged by its own words for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law, to adhere to International Law from the moment Israel was proclaimed. Or was the Israeli Government at the time simply LYING?

              “Direct me to the part of ther League of Nations Mandate where they said Palestine was a sovereign state. A nationality law doesn’t make it a state”

              Although Palestine under the British administration wasn’t an independent sovereign state, Article 7 tells us Palestine was a state in which Jews could attain Palestinian citizenship and the subsequent adoption in 1925 of the Palestine Nationality Law certainly point towards Palestine being a Nation State. Your argument is irrelevant BTW. As of the moment Israel proclaimed its borders, what lay outside of Israel was simply not Israeli and could not be legally acquired by war/force

              “Also, Israel had not ratified the UN Charter at the time, and it was not customary international law back then.”

              You’re spouting Ziocrap pal. States do not ratify the UN Charter. They are accepted into the UN or not and on acceptance they are all beholding to the UN Charter in its entirety. It was Customary International Law that territories can not be acquired by war/force long before Israel was proclaimed.

              “Israel annexed the areas it had conquered on September 22, 1948 and proclaimed that henceforth”

              Cite the document and its co-signatories agreeing to be annexed to Israel. Good luck

              ” The 1949 Armistice Agreements set out the current borders, as a demarcation line”

              Armistice Agreement Article V

              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.

              ” … which is a temporary border until permanent peace can be achieved but a border nonetheless”

              It’s not a state border. It’s only a border to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided. Occupied Territories do not belong to the Occupying Power.

              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 agreements were signed by all sides”

              The Palestinians didn’t sign any Armistice Agreements

              ” In effect, the Green Line is a border.”

              Not a state border. The Armistice Agreements tell us the “Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary

              “I have one simple proposal. Name one international law that existed in 1949 that banned annexation by conquest that Israel was subject to.”

              Article 2 (4) in the UN Charter in 1945

              Take your Ziopoop somewhere else pal. You’re out of your depth here.

              Comment by talknic — August 21, 2016 @ 12:53 pm

              • Once again, the UN Charter did not apply. Sure, you managed to dredge up one example of the US requiring treaties in 1845, though that still wasn’t anywhere close to customary international law, since European countries at the time were busy taking over independent countries in Asia and Africa on an empire-building spree. And take a look at how Germany seized Alsace-Lorraine from France in the 1870s. In 1908 Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina. At no time in the 19th century was the right of conquest abolished through customary international law. This sort of thing was common into the early 20th century Even after World War I, there were territorial changes, and the Allies redrew borders after World War II.

                “Although Palestine under the British administration wasn’t an independent sovereign state, Article 7 tells us Palestine was a state in which Jews could attain Palestinian citizenship and the subsequent adoption in 1925 of the Palestine Nationality Law certainly point towards Palestine being a Nation State.”

                Let me repeat this again. Citizenship/nationality do not a state make. Answer me this one simple question, was India a nation with the same rights as a sovereign state under British rule? If so, why was there Indian nationality? You have absolutely no basis for suggesting that Palestine had all the rights of a sovereign state because there was a nationality. Nationality or citizenship establishes one’s link with a certain territory that may or may not be a sovereign state. There is no basis for the idea that Palestine had the same rights as a sovereign state just because a Palestinian nationality (which in effect was a one of the British colonial nationalities) existed.

                Just so you know, there was Palestinian nationality established under the Palestinian Authority in the 1990s, before Palestine could meet any reasonable definition of a sovereign state and when no one recognized it as such.

                Secondly, the UN Charter was brand new at the time. Not customary international law yet. And the principle of right of conquest was only just being attacked at the time. The right of conquest was gradually dismantled through ratification of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg principles of 1950, and various UN Security Council resolutions. But in 1949, this concept was still in it’s infancy.

                Article V of the Armistice Agreements, which you cited, applied only to the Israeli-Egyptian border, which was resolved following the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. Article V specifically states it applies to Article VI, which deals exclusively with the Egyptian front. Show me something that deals with the West Bank.

                Yes, I know the Palestinians didn’t sign any agreements. They had no sovereign state. Show me an international law applying to the situation at the time which says their consent was needed.

                Comment by David — August 21, 2016 @ 1:27 pm

                • “Once again, the UN Charter did not apply.”

                  How strange … Article 2 (6) tells us it did

                  “Sure, you managed to dredge up one example of the US requiring treaties in 1845”

                  Hawaii, Texas, Alaska all had agreements/treaties. A legal custom by practice similarly adopted by a majority of the world’s nation states, thereby passing into Customary International Law

                  ” … that still wasn’t anywhere close to customary international law, since European countries at the time were busy taking over independent countries in Asia and Africa on an empire-building spree”

                  Name the states who have between 1945 and the present and why would anyone in their right mind want to put Israel in the same league?

                  ” And take a look at how Germany seized Alsace-Lorraine from France in the 1870s”

                  Pre 1945 – because Germany did in the `1870’s, Israel can do the same 1948 – 2016? You put Israel an a par? WOW!! You must be so proud! BTW, the argument is entirely irrelevant to the legal status since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) of the self proclaimed and recognized State of Israel and that state’s subsequent and ongoing illegal activities in territories “outside of the State of Israel”

                  “. In 1908 Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina”

                  Pre 1945 and irrelevant to the legal status since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) of the self proclaimed and recognized State of Israel and that state’s subsequent and ongoing illegal activities in territories “outside of the State of Israel”

                  “At no time in the 19th century was the right of conquest abolished through customary international law”

                  It was by 1945 Article 2 (4) in the UN Charter … Gave it to you before. Get your guide dog to read it to you

                  “This sort of thing was common into the early 20th century Even after World War I, there were territorial changes, and the Allies redrew borders after World War II.”

                  Pre -1945 and irrelevant to the legal status since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) of the self proclaimed and recognized State of Israel and that state’s subsequent and ongoing illegal activities in territories “outside of the State of Israel”

                  “Let me repeat this again.”

                  = double the bullsh*t!

                  ” Citizenship/nationality do not a state make”

                  An argument that’s irrelevant to the legal status since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) of the self proclaimed and recognized State of Israel and that state’s subsequent and ongoing illegal activities in territories “outside of the State of Israel”

                  ” … there was Palestinian nationality established under the Palestinian Authority in the 1990s, before Palestine could meet any reasonable definition of a sovereign state and when no one recognized it as such”

                  So what? It’s irrelevant to the legal status since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) of the self proclaimed and recognized State of Israel and that state’s subsequent and ongoing illegal activities in territories “outside of the State of Israel”

                  “Secondly, the UN Charter was brand new at the time. Not customary international law yet.”

                  Customary International Law existed before the UN was formed and your argument BTW, is irrelevant to the legal status since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) of the self proclaimed and recognized State of Israel and that state’s subsequent and ongoing illegal activities in territories “outside of the State of Israel”

                  ” And the principle of right of conquest was only just being attacked at the time. The right of conquest was gradually dismantled through ratification of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg principles of 1950, and various UN Security Council resolutions. But in 1949, this concept was still in it’s infancy.”

                  Amazing! Evidence? It was in fact written into the UN Charter when it was adopted 26 June 1945 by the representatives of the majority of the world’s countries. The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945. Israel didn’t exist as a an independent Sovereign state in 1945, International Law and the UN did!

                  ” … Show me something that deals with the West Bank.”

                  UNSC res 476 re-affirming and/or emphasizing International Law, the UN Charter and GC IV, all of which are binding!

                  ” I know the Palestinians didn’t sign any agreements. They had no sovereign state.”

                  LOL. It was and still is because they don’t agree! Why would anyone agree to their territory being colonized, occupied, illegally settled, to their being dispossessed? Would you?

                  “Show me an international law applying to the situation at the time which says their consent was needed”

                  The UN Charter

                  Comment by talknic — August 22, 2016 @ 5:01 am

                  • The UN Charter wasn’t customary international law at the time. It had just been signed, many countries were not UN members, and it was brand new (it takes a while for treaties to pass into customary internartional law: see the Fourth Geneva Convention, which was widely ratified in the 1950s, but the UN determined that it had passed into customary international law in 1993).

                    Comment by David — August 22, 2016 @ 7:10 pm

                    • The UN Charter is not Customary International Law. The Law stands outside the UN. Customary International Law if formed thru the majority of Nations adopting a particular legal custom. It is not formed thru or by the UN

                      If you don’t provide evidence for your idiotic Ziodroppings you’ll be banned. No further warning.

                      Like a true idiot for Zionist crimes, you’re spouting irrelevant nonsense

                      Cheers

                      Comment by talknic — August 23, 2016 @ 12:27 am

                    • According to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, customary international law is “a general practice accepted as law”. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia says “reliance must primarily be placed on such elements as official pronouncements of States, military manuals and judicial decisions.”

                      Read this: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_in_asofcuin

                      It’s the International Committee of the Red Cross’ overview. Basically, there must be a pattern of consistent behavior among states. In particular, there’s this:

                      “The third requirement is related to the time necessary to form a rule of customary international law through the adoption of virtually uniform, extensive and representative practice. As indicated above, while some time will normally elapse before there is sufficient practice to satisfy these criteria, there is no specific time requirement. It is all a question of accumulating a practice of sufficient density, in terms of uniformity, extent and representativeness”

                      As stated before, in 1949, this concept was only just being attacked. That very same decade, the Soviet Union had annexed the Baltic republics (which would only regain their independence decades later), and part of Finland after it won the Winter War, the region of Karelia, which Russia still holds to this day. After World War II, the Netherlands was actually allowed to annex German territory (most of which was eventually returned to West Germany after a huge payout by the German government in the 1960s). The US, UK, and Soviet Union redrew the borders of Poland at the Potsdam Conference in accordance with Josef Stalin’s wishes, which allowed the Soviet Union to keep the Polish territory it had won when it joined in the German invasion of Poland in 1939.

                      In short, during the 1940s, taking other countries’ territories by force was still a widely acceptable practice. The UN Charter indicated a change was underway, but that change was only just arriving.

                      Comment by David — August 23, 2016 @ 5:00 am

                    • What a pity for your argument that in 1945, BEFORE the independence from Palestine of the State of Israel in 1948, the UN adopted into its charter articles outlawing the acquisition of territory by war.

                      Take your drivel somewhere else…

                      Comment by talknic — August 23, 2016 @ 12:52 pm

                    • Yes, the UN Charter was adopted in 1945, but Israel did not ratify it at the tie, so it was not bound by it.

                      Comment by David — August 23, 2016 @ 6:09 pm

                    • Also, as I’ve pointed out before, it takes a while before a treaty signed becomes customary international law. As stated before, the Fourth Geneva Convention took decades before it was judged to have passed into customary international law. If a majority of countries in the world adopt a treaty, it does not automatically enter customary international law. There needs to be a period, and it needs to pass into actual custom (IE a majority of countries need to abide by the requirements for a while) before it’s judged to be widespread enough to qualify as customary international law. See the article I linked.

                      Given the fact that the UN Charter was still new, and that Israel hadn’t ratified at the time, I don’t see how this was customary international law.

                      Comment by David — August 23, 2016 @ 9:26 pm

                    • “the UN Charter was adopted in 1945, but Israel did not ratify it at the tie so it was not bound by it.”

                      A) International Law existed before the UN and before Israel was proclaimed orbecame a UN Member state
                      B) Israel didn’t exist at the time the UN Charter was adopted by the UN in 1945, including the Articles prohibiting the acquisition of territory by war/force (ibid)
                      C) All Members must adhere to it in its entirety IF they’re accepted into the UN
                      D) Israel proclaimed to the world that it would
                      (1) “be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations
                      (2) discharge “the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law”

                      Were they liars? Is that what you’re trying to say?

                      “The UN Charter wasn’t customary international law at the time.”

                      The UN Charter was based on pre-existing International Law/Conventions and majority held legal customs. The UN Charter had already been adopted as the UN Charter in 1945. 1945 comes BEFORE 1948.

                      Post 1945 members either accepted the UN Charter in its entirety or they can’t be members. Non-Member states are never the less still obliged to adhere to International Law

                      “see the Fourth Geneva Convention, which was widely ratified in the 1950s, but the UN determined that it had passed into customary international law in 1993)”

                      LOL … No points. It was announced in 1993. After having earlier passed into Customary International Law. The fact is shown quite clearly in UNSC resolutions on the Question of Palestine
                      21st May 1968 UNSC Res 252
                      267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 452 (1979) 20 July 1979, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 June 30 1980 and 478 August 20 1980. None of which have anything to do with race or religion. They’re based on the UN Charter, International Law and the GC’s, all of which Israel obliged itself to uphold.

                      Try something else

                      Comment by talknic — August 24, 2016 @ 3:14 am

                    • “International Law existed before the UN and before Israel was proclaimed orbecame a UN Member state”

                      I never stated anything to the contrary. But international law did not ban the right of conquest at the time.

                      “Israel didn’t exist at the time the UN Charter was adopted by the UN in 1945, including the Articles prohibiting the acquisition of territory by war/force (ibid)”

                      In 1945, the UN Charter only applied to nations that had actually signed and ratified it.

                      “All Members must adhere to it in its entirety IF they’re accepted into the UN”

                      Yes, AFTER they sign it.

                      “Israel proclaimed to the world that it would
                      be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations
                      discharge “the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law

                      Were they liars? Is that what you’re trying to say?”

                      No. After Israel signed and ratified it, it was obligated to uphold it.

                      “The UN Charter wasn’t customary international law at the time.”

                      “The UN Charter was based on pre-existing International Law/Conventions and majority held legal customs. The UN Charter had already been adopted as the UN Charter in 1945. 1945 comes BEFORE 1948.”

                      I’ve already demonstrated that it was not. Even the Allies who drafted it did a little border moving prior that same decade. They decided that while this had been an acceptable practice, there would be no more of it. Kind of like how they came up with the Fourth Geneva Convention that classified attacks on civilians as war crimes after they had spent the last few years bombing, incinerating, and nuking civilian cities.

                      “Post 1945 members either accepted the UN Charter in its entirety or they can’t be members. Non-Member states are never the less still obliged to adhere to International Law”

                      Yes. Israel was obligated to uphold the UN Charter AFTER it had ratified it. And non-member states are only obligated to uphold it once it passes into customary international law.

                      LOL … No points. It was announced in 1993. After having earlier passed into Customary International Law. The fact is shown quite clearly in UNSC resolutions on the Question of Palestine”

                      Of course it had passed into international law beforehand. But note how they didn’t say it passed into international law in the 1950s, or 60s or even 70s. The ratification, and the passage of time to the point where it became custom, resulted in it becoming customary international law.

                      Israel was obligated to respect the UN Charter only from May 11, 1949.

                      Comment by David — August 24, 2016 @ 4:54 am

                    • ” international law did not ban the right of conquest at the time”

                      Whatever crappolla you need to believe … The UN Charter tells us it did

                      http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html Article 2 (4)

                      “In 1945, the UN Charter only applied to nations that had actually signed and ratified it.”

                      States joining the UN after the UN Charter was adopted DO NOT ratify the UN Charter, they AGREE to adhere to the existing Charter it in its entirety

                      “Yes, AFTER they sign it.”

                      Show me Israel’s signature ratifying the UN Charter … thx

                      “After Israel signed and ratified it, it was obligated to uphold it.”

                      A) Israel it hasn’t upheld it according to subsequent UNSC resolutions B) Show me Israel’s signature ratifying the UN Charter … thx

                      //“The UN Charter was based on pre-existing International Law/Conventions and majority held legal customs. The UN Charter had already been adopted as the UN Charter in 1945. 1945 comes BEFORE 1948.”//

                      “I’ve already demonstrated that it was not”

                      You’re truly delusional. 1945 is actually BEFORE 1948. The UN Charter had already been adopted as the UN Charter in 1945. The UN Charter was actually based on pre-existing International Law/Conventions and majority held legal customs. You haven’t actually ‘demonstrated’ ANYTHING!

                      “. Even the Allies who drafted it did a little border moving prior that same decade. “

                      So what? What bearing has it on Israel, Israel’s proclaimed borders and Israel’s illegal activities in territories the Israeli Government itself claimed on May 22nd 1948 were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

                      “Israel was obligated to uphold the UN Charter AFTER it had ratified it.”

                      Show me Israel’s signature ‘ratifying’ the UN Charter … thx

                      ” And non-member states are only obligated to uphold it once it passes into customary international law.”

                      It was already customary International Law by 1945, that’s why it was included in the UN Charter in 1945

                      “Of course it had passed into international law beforehand. But note how they didn’t say it passed into international law in the 1950s, or 60s or even 70s. The ratification, and the passage of time to the point where it became custom, resulted in it becoming customary international law.”

                      It was included in the UN Charter 1945

                      “Israel was obligated to respect the UN Charter only from May 11, 1949”

                      International Law applied to Israel the day the Israeli proclamation came into effect at precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) according to the Israeli Government itself in the plea for International recognition, BEFORE Israel joined the UN!

                      15th May 1948 – Provisional Government of Israel “ … 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.”

                      14th May 1948 – Israel ” will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations

                      Comment by talknic — August 25, 2016 @ 3:41 am

                    • In 1947 the UN divided British Palestine and Israel accepted it, period.

                      On 25 August 2016 at 05:41, First, find out what isnt true… wrote:

                      > talknic commented: “” international law did not ban the right of conquest > at the time” Whatever crappolla you need to believe … The UN Charter > tells us it did http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index. > html Article 2 (4) “In 1945, the UN Charter o” >

                      Comment by Ruedi Bosshart — August 25, 2016 @ 6:59 am

                    • According to the UN, countries do ratify the charter

                      http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xix/index.html

                      https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=I-1&chapter=1&clang=_en

                      “Hawaii, Texas, Alaska all had agreements/treaties. A legal custom by practice similarly adopted by a majority of the world’s nation states, thereby passing into Customary International Law”.

                      Funny, I wasn’t aware that the United States constituted the majority of countries, and that it’s actions in annexing Hawaii, Texas, and Alaska were how things were done. Also, the annexation of Hawaii doesn’t count. What happened was that US citizens living in the Kingdom of Hawaii staged a coup with US military support, then set up a provisional puppet government that agreed to the annexation.

                      All you’ve done is show that the United States adopted a certain practice. But did a majority of the world’s nations adopt such a practice? If it was not a widely held practice and international norm, then it’s not customary international law.

                      “It was already customary International Law by 1945, that’s why it was included in the UN Charter in 1945”

                      Do you have any evidence for this?

                      “The UN Charter was based on pre-existing International Law/Conventions and majority held legal customs. The UN Charter had already been adopted as the UN Charter in 1945. 1945 comes BEFORE 1948.”

                      What international law and conventions? What legal customs? Funny, since forcible annexations and territorial changes without consent were still happening in the 1940s, and were perpetrated by the very same Allies that would write the UN Charter shortly afterward.

                      Comment by David — August 25, 2016 @ 7:21 am

                    • “According to the UN, countries do ratify the charter”

                      ‘Did’ ratify the UN Charter. It had already been adopted by the UN on the

                      “… twenty-sixth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and forty-five “ http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xix/index.html

                      Your citation refers to signatory states at the time ( the twenty-sixth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and forty-five.) Israel was not a signatory to the UN at the time the UN Charter was adopted. As of its adoption by the then signatories, joining countries are required to adopt legislation in that country to accommodate the Charter, in its entirety. By 1945 the acquisition of territory by force had already been incorporated into the UN Charter. BEFORE Israel proclaimed its independence in 1948, BEFORE Israel was accepted into the UN as a Member State 1949.

                      // “Hawaii, Texas, Alaska all had agreements/treaties. A legal custom by practice similarly adopted by a majority of the world’s nation states, thereby passing into Customary International Law”.//

                      “Funny, I wasn’t aware that the United States constituted the majority of countries”

                      What I wrote is still there for all to see. What’s more, you quoted it !!! Get your guide dog to read it for you. All you’re doing is making yourself look really really stupid

                      “All you’ve done is show that the United States adopted a certain practice. But did a majority of the world’s nations adopt such a practice?

                      Yes, they did. That’s why the acquisition of territory by war was prohibited under the UN Charter in 1945, BEFORE Israel proclaimed its independence in 1948

                      “If it was not a widely held practice and international norm, then it’s not customary international law.”

                      It was already Customary International Law by 1945, that’s why the acquisition of territory by war was prohibited under the UN Charter in 1945, BEFORE Israel proclaimed its independence in 1948

                      //“It was already customary International Law by 1945, that’s why it was included in the UN Charter in 1945”//

                      “Do you have any evidence for this?”

                      The UN Charter

                      “What international law and conventions? What legal customs? Funny, since forcible annexations and territorial changes without consent were still happening in the 1940s, and were perpetrated by the very same Allies that would write the UN Charter shortly afterward.”

                      It was customary International Law by 1945 and included in the UN Charter in 1945, BEFORE Israel proclaimed its independence in 1948

                      Your argument is nonsense. Territories outside of Israel’s proclaimed borders acquired by war by Israel and never legally annexed to Israel, are quite simply not Israeli

                      Comment by talknic — August 25, 2016 @ 9:24 am

                  • “Yes, they did. That’s why the acquisition of territory by war was prohibited under the UN Charter in 1945, BEFORE Israel proclaimed its independence in 1948”

                    No, they didn’t. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they did. They were forcibly redrawing borders it shortly before adopting the UN Charter.

                    “It was already Customary International Law by 1945, that’s why the acquisition of territory by war was prohibited under the UN Charter in 1945, BEFORE Israel proclaimed its independence in 1948”

                    No, it wasn’t. Should I go over the exhaustive list of cases of annexation of territory by force from the 19th century to the 1940s again?

                    //“It was already customary International Law by 1945, that’s why it was included in the UN Charter in 1945”//

                    No it wasn’t. There is no evidence that it was.

                    The UN Charter

                    The UN Charter wasn’t customary international law only four years after it came into effect, so it didn’t apply to countries that had yet to sign it, and it wasn’t based on already-existing customary international law any more than certain sections of the Fourth Geneva Convention that regulated attacks on civilians were based on existing customary law.

                    “What international law and conventions? What legal customs? Funny, since forcible annexations and territorial changes without consent were still happening in the 1940s, and were perpetrated by the very same Allies that would write the UN Charter shortly afterward.”

                    Comment by David — August 26, 2016 @ 2:03 am

                    • “There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they did.”

                      The UN Charter of 1945 tells us you’re a dope and in denial.

                      Comment by talknic — August 29, 2016 @ 9:31 am

                    • Finally!
                      That is a fact.

                      Comment by cigargod — August 29, 2016 @ 1:11 pm

                    • And Israel was only accepted into the UN AFTER it annexed those territories, so the UN Charter didn’t apply at the time of annexation.

                      Comment by David — September 15, 2016 @ 6:53 pm

                    • Put up an/the agreement/s under which Israel has annexed territories. Date, place, signatories.

                      Good luck buddy

                      BTW Israel agreed to abide by International Law (and the UN Charter) long before being accepted as a UN Member State
                      http://www.knesset.gov.il/docs/eng/megilat_eng.htm
                      http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad169.asp

                      Comment by talknic — September 16, 2016 @ 11:33 am

                  • I’ve already demonstrated that the UN Charter doesn’t apply. It was not customary international law at the time, and Israel hadn’t signed it yet.

                    Comment by David — September 5, 2016 @ 10:10 am

                    • Where and how did you ‘demonstrate’ it? By babbling on about the years BEFORE the UN? BEFORE the UN Charter was adopted? BEFORE Israel became a state? BEFORE Israel was accepted into the UN in 1949 on the basis of the pre-existing 1945 Charter?

                      What you did show is that the UN Charter had already been adopted by the original UN members and was already in force 3 years BEFORE Israel was proclaimed, 4 years before Israel was accepted into the UN on the basis that it adhere to the existing UN charter per the UN Charter

                      Article 2

                      The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

                      1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

                      2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

                      3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

                      4. All Members. shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.. http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html

                      You’ve amply demonstrated just how f*cked in the head supporters of the Zionist Movement’s ongoing colonization of Palestine can be

                      Comment by talknic — September 6, 2016 @ 1:27 am

            • What about this: II. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MANDATORY REGIME

              1. THE COVENANT

              In a first group — “A” Mandates *1*/ (Syria and Lebanon, Palestine and Transjordan, and Iraq) — the nation is provisionally recognised as independent, but receives the advice and assistance of a Mandatory in its administration until such time as it is able to stand alone.

              In a first group — “A” Mandates *1*/ (Syria and Lebanon, *Palestine*and Transjordan, and Iraq) — the nation is provisionally recognised as independent, but receives the advice and assistance of a Mandatory in its administration until such time as it is able to stand alone.

              In the second group — “B” Mandates (the Cameroons, Togoland, Tanganyika, Ruanda-Urundi) — as it is impossible to grant autonomy, the Mandatory is “responsible for the administration” under certain specified conditions. These conditions, which are briefly indicated in the Covenant, are designed to prevent certain abuses and to ensure that the Administration has the welfare of the natives constantly in mind. They aim also at securing respect for the rights and interests of other Members of the League of Nations.

              Finally, the territories in the third group — the “C” Mandates (South West Africa and the Islands of the Pacific)– are “administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory” and subject to the same safeguards in the interests of the indigenous population as the territories under “B” Mandate. http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/C61B138F4DBB08A0052565D00058EE1B

              But at the end is 181, when it comes to the division of British Palestine, period!

              On 20 August 2016 at 23:55, First, find out what isnt true… wrote:

              > David commented: “So what if the US required treaties from 1845 onwards? > Was that international law at the time? You fail to recognize the fact that > laws do not apply to situations before they were were passed. UN Resolution > 255 is from 1968. It and all the other res” >

              Comment by Ruedi Bosshart — August 21, 2016 @ 1:36 pm

            • By 1945 the acquisition of territory by force had already been incorporated into the UN Charter.

              You mean this, right: “4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

              On 20 August 2016 at 23:55, First, find out what isnt true… wrote:

              > David commented: “So what if the US required treaties from 1845 onwards? > Was that international law at the time? You fail to recognize the fact that > laws do not apply to situations before they were were passed. UN Resolution > 255 is from 1968. It and all the other res” >

              Comment by Ruedi Bosshart — August 25, 2016 @ 9:40 am

  2. Is Israel supposed to forgo as being a Jewish state as part of two state solution under international law? Source would be appreciated.

    Comment by Anonymous — April 2, 2016 @ 1:57 pm

    • I should give a source for something I haven’t claimed? P*ss off!

      Comment by talknic — April 3, 2016 @ 2:32 am

      • You got me all wrong. I didn’t say that you claimed it. I was just curious whether Is Israel supposed to give up as being a Jewish state as part of two state solution under international law?

        Comment by Anonymous — April 3, 2016 @ 1:56 pm

        • OK. Retraction due and done. My apologies.

          No. International Law has no jurisdiction over a sovereign state acting within its borders and having no effect on other states. International Law governs interactions between ‘nations’, hence the name Inter’national’ Law.

          However, being a democracy for all its citizens per the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, is incongruous with being a Jewish state, which is why Israel has never been able to write its constitution and;
          without the promised and obligatory constitution, Israel has never had a legally elected government.

          Comment by talknic — April 4, 2016 @ 4:59 am

          • Good morning Talknic
            “without the promised and obligatory constitution Israel has never had a legally elected government.”
            The UK has no constitution either and in some extend one might argue
            that the situation in Britain is even worse when we compare the ruling power of the High Courts. The Supreme Court of Israel can turn down laws whereas the British counterpart can not:
            “Since there is no documentary constitution containing laws that are fundamental in status and superior to ordinary Acts of Parliament, the courts may only interpret parliamentary statutes. They may not overrule or declare them invalid for being contrary to the constitution and ‘unconstitutional’. – See more at: http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution#sthash.uPZBKDWn.dpuf

            Comment by ruedi bosshart — April 4, 2016 @ 6:44 am

            • Unlike Israel, the British were not promised or obliged to have a constitution

              BTW consecutive Israeli governments have regularly ignored the Supreme Court of Israel same as they have the UNSC, International Law and the UN Charter

              Comment by talknic — April 4, 2016 @ 4:25 pm

              • Good point! You’re referring to 181 i presume:
                “10. The Constituent Assembly of each State shall draft a democratic constitution for its State and choose a provisional government to succeed the Provisional Council of Government appointed by the Commission. The constitutions of the States shall embody chapters 1 and 2 of the Declaration provided for in section C below and include inter alia provisions for:”

                Comment by ruedi bosshart — April 4, 2016 @ 5:35 pm

                • UNGA res 181 https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/UNISPAL.NSF/0/7F0AF2BD897689B785256C330061D253
                  The Jewish Agency regarding it as binding as far as the Jewish people were concerned http://wp.me/pDB7k-Yx
                  The declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel http://www.knesset.gov.il/docs/eng/megilat_eng.htm

                  Comment by talknic — April 6, 2016 @ 10:22 am

                  • Thank you Talknic
                    We declare that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People’s Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People’s Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called “Israel.”

                    Comment by ruedi bosshart — April 6, 2016 @ 10:30 am

                    • In the immediate euphoria of having reached independent statehood the un-elected Provisional Israeli Government robbed Israelis of their legal right to their constitution. It will never be written because being a Jewish State is irreconcilable with being a democracy. Israel is in a bind, with no solution

                      Comment by talknic — April 6, 2016 @ 2:19 pm

                    • ​Things will change when more and more liberal minded Israeli Jews will emigrate to the west for good and at the same time, due to Iran’s importance as a strategic partner for the future wars in Central Asia ​will be taking shape.

                      Comment by ruedi bosshart — April 6, 2016 @ 3:16 pm

  3. Hi, it’s probably a waste of time declaring I’m not a Zionist stooge or Islamist fanatic (but I’ve done it antway in the hope of a response) this blog puts forward the argument that, amongst other things, “The area has never been legally annexed to Israel”. However, having read in wikipedia (stop laughing) the article on the Borders of Israel, it states, On September 22, 1948, during a truce in the war, the Provisional State Council of Israel passed a law annexing all land that Israel had captured in that war, and declaring that from then on, any part of Palestine taken by the Israeli army would automatically be annexed to Israel.[34] I checked note 34, and it led me to the AREA OF JURISDICTION AND POWERS ORDINANCE http://www.israellawresourcecenter.org/israellaws/fulltext/areajurisdictionpowersord.htm
    can I have your thouts on how this is not “legal annexation” or at least declared annexation?

    Comment by andrewsz8757 — December 19, 2015 @ 3:01 pm

    • The annexation of territories the Israeli Government itself claimed on May 22nd 1948 were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” requires the agreement of the legitimate citizens of the territories to be annexed. No such agreement exists

      The US, in adopting the legal custom of having an agreement or treaty with representatives of the legitimate citizens of territories to be annexed ( see the annexation of Texas ), was instrumental in that legal custom passing into Customary International Law which in turn was instrumental in the formulation and adoption of the notions of self determination inherent in the convention on human rights

      The Wikipedia article on the Borders of Israel, like almost every article related to the I/P issue in Wikipedia, is infected by Zionist propagandists. The opening paragraph is not only false information, it is in complete contravention of Wikipedia’s editorial criteria, which requires each statement to have verification.

      The best way to read Wikipedia articles on the I/P issue is to read the talk pages, which will give you an insight into how the articles are shaped. For example:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Borders_of_Israel#Multiple_issues_with_the_lede_and_NOTHING_is_sourced._The_map_is_very_misleading

      Comment by talknic — December 23, 2015 @ 5:47 am

      • Thank you for responding. To take up your point regarding “…the agreement of the legitimate citizens of the territories to be annexed.” The Israelis spent a lot of effort removing the “legitimate citizens” in many of the aforesaid areas in 1948, so what’s to stop Israel now holding a “plebiscite” (or some such) and have the majority Jewish population vote for formal annexation (like in Crimea, recently). This would be legal annexation, would it not?

        Comment by andrewsz8757 — December 30, 2015 @ 6:44 pm

        • Hi Andrew,

          Israel’s illegal settlers are not the legitimate citizens of any non-Israeli territories held under Israeli occupation. I am unsure of the status or make up of the Crimean population.

          Comment by talknic — December 31, 2015 @ 1:05 pm

  4. Can you create a Facebook page?

    Comment by paul — October 23, 2015 @ 1:01 pm

    • I did have a Facebook page. It was inexplicably deleted after about a week. At about the same time I was banned from the Guardian and received various threats to my person & my home

      Comment by talknic — October 26, 2015 @ 3:26 am

      • Well, you create exceptional stuff. Must feel good to know you are up against people who can’t counter it, so they attempt to destroy.

        Comment by cigargod — October 26, 2015 @ 3:40 am

        • Thanks for the support. I actually feel rather sad there are such people.

          Comment by talknic — October 26, 2015 @ 1:58 pm

  5. Nice maps.

    Comment by cigargod — October 23, 2015 @ 3:51 am

  6. […] beispielsweise hilft https://talknic.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/the-hasbara-worlds-worst-propaganda-there-was-no-occupation-… die dort präsentierten dokumente, welche aussagen des Provisional Government of the State of […]

    Pingback by gegen balfour declaration hasbara | treueliebe — December 6, 2014 @ 4:12 pm

  7. hi talknic, thank you so very much. every time i visit your site i’m impressed and grateful.

    sincerely,

    annie

    Comment by annie — March 18, 2013 @ 7:19 am

    • Hi Annie,

      It’s a pleasure. The truth always remains intact, needing no justification or embellishment. It just needs the layers of bullsh*te dusting off so people can see it.

      Comment by talknic — March 18, 2013 @ 1:37 pm

    • Let me remind you that Arab countries rejected 29 November 1947 Partition Plan for Palestine (UN resolution 181) and from that point everything was left to the outcome of the war that the Arabs started immediately after that resolution voted. So you can roll yourself forth and back, you won’t change the simple facts. The Muslims still don’t accept Israel right to exist.

      Comment by israebest — June 17, 2013 @ 6:02 pm

      • See this!
        The Partition Resolution 181 was adopted on 29 November
        1947. The Palestinians opposed it and demanded that it’s legality
        be tested in the International Court of Justice founded in 1946, but
        this was never to happen. In early December 1947 ethnic cleansing
        began. On 10. March 1948 the Plan Dalet was adoptet which
        resulted in 250’000 Palestinians uprooted by the day of declaration
        of the State of Israel on May 14 1947. End of April 1948 the Arab
        League decided to intervene militarily. By the end of 1948 more than
        700’000 Palestinians were uprooted and more than 400 villages and
        towns were ethnically cleansed and destroyed.Ilan Pappe

        Comment by ruedi bosshart — December 14, 2013 @ 10:25 am

      • @ israebest “Let me remind you that Arab countries rejected 29 November 1947 Partition Plan for Palestine (UN resolution 181)”

        So what? They were not obliged to accept it. You’re spouting irrelevant arguments

        Let me remind you … Israel proclaimed its frontiers May 15th 1948 as “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947 “ http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf What lay “outside of the State of Israel” .. “in Palestine”, according to the ISRAELI GOVT http://pages.citebite.com/x1r0b4d1y6mkv was not and is still not Israeli. It has never been legally annexed to Israel. It is illegal to acquire territory “by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure “ http://pages.citebite.com/y1f0t4q1v4son

        ” and from that point everything was left to the outcome of the war that the Arabs started immediately after that resolution voted.”

        Jewish forces under Plan Dalet were already outside the territory slated for the Jewish state on the day Israel was declared. On Israel proclaiming its frontiers, the civil war in Palestine prior to Israel being declared, immediately became a war waged by the State of Israel in non-Israeli territories “outside the State of Israel”

        The Arab Regional Powers had a right and a duty to protect what remained of Palestine from foreign forces.
        There are no UNSC resolutions condemning an Arab state for invading or attacking Israel.
        According to the Israeli Govt the Arab states invaded “Palestine” http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook1/Pages/5%20Arab%20League%20declaration%20on%20the%20invasion%20of%20Pales.aspx NOT Israel.

        The UNSC resolutions on the Question of Palestine do not call for peace in Israel. Israel was never invaded.

        “The Muslims still don’t accept Israel right to exist”

        Irrelevant. It’s another stupid non-argument. There are numerous UN Member states who do not recognize each other. It ISN’T illegal to not recognize Israel or any other state. Israel exists despite not being accepted by certain Arab States . Israel is a UN Member State and the Occupying Power over non-Israeli territories and Israel is in breach of hundreds of UNSC resolutions because of its illegal actions in territories “outside the State of Israel” since 1948 and since 1967

        UNSC Resolution 476 is one of at least EIGHT reminders of UNSC Res 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 452 (1979) 20 July 1979, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 June 30 1980 and 478 August 20 1980. None of which have anything to do with race or religion. They’re based on the UN Charter, International Law and the GC’s, all of which Israel obliged itself to uphold. It hasn’t.

        Comment by talknic — December 19, 2013 @ 7:55 pm

        • @israebest
          it’s my personal research based on ilan pappe’s book:
          The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
          http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851685553
          http://palestine-studies.org/enakba/exodus/Pappe,%20The%20Ethnic%20Cleansing%20of%20Palestine.pdf

          http://free-palestine.ch/faq.php?lang=en
          Palestinians were told to flee by the Arab army’s? Another example of received wisdom which has no basis in matters of fact. “On 10 March 1948, (well before the declaration of independents of Israel , Plan Dalet (ethnic cleansing) was adopted. The first targets were the urban centres of Palestine, which had all been occupied by the end of April. About 250,000 Palestinians were uprooted in this phase, which was accompanied by several massacres, most notable of which was the Deir Yassin massacre. Aware of this developments, the Arab League took the decision, on the last day of April, to intervene militarily, but not until the British Mandate had come to an end. (15 March 1948)” [4] The complete number of uprooted Palestinians figures around 700.000. More than 400 towns and villages were destroyed and leveled. [5]

          http://free-palestine.ch/index.php?lang=en
          1947: The Partition Resolution 181 was adopted on 29 November
          1947. The Palestinians opposed it and demanded that it’s legality
          be tested in the International Court of Justice founded in 1946, but
          this was never to happen. In early December 1947 ethnic cleansing
          began.

          Comment by ruedi bosshart — December 19, 2013 @ 8:35 pm

  8. Hi Talknic,

    Is Hebron control of Israel? Do you know the legalities of it? What are the Human Rights Organizations say?

    Comment by Anonymous — June 17, 2012 @ 7:09 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: