First, find out what isn't true…

ABOUT – In the interests of well informed opinion

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

If you can disprove any of the items here with citations of official documents from credible sources, I will gladly remove the offending item. Till then, feel free to put up, sans abuse and personal attacks…..learn!

“It’s just a blog!” – Uh Huh. However, the reference information it contains ISN’T just a blog. Please follow the links to documents to verify their veracity.!

Me? I’m just an old bloke in Oz who would dearly like to see the Palestine / Israeli issue resolved for the sake of all.

Propaganda, mis-information, hatred, bigotry and lies DO NOT HELP!

Propaganda & lies can easily be wiped away with a few quite simple questions based on non-partisan logic & maths and the actual Charters, Resolutions & Conventions of the UN etc & reading very carefully!!!! Beware of .. “In other words..”
Only the actual words are the ACTUAL words!
Beware of “So you mean to say..”
One means to say what what one says. Not what someone else wants you to say.

See how ‘other words’ like ‘negotiate’ & ‘negotiated’ change the meaning of the actual wording of UNSC resolution 242

You’ll find relevant documents and passages relating to the issue from reliable Israeli and non-partisan sources, so people can form an educated opinion without the propaganda and lies that have been generated over the last 100 years or so.

All I ask, as do the numerous UNSC resolutions against Israel, is that it abide by the Laws and uphold it’s VOLUNTARY obligations to the UN, which in no way threaten Israel or diminish it’s right to protect itself in accordance with the UN Charter, the Laws of War or the Geneva Conventions.

Q: There are many Jewish folk, even in Israel, who seek the same. Is it self-hating or Antisemitic to ask Israel to uphold it’s voluntary UN obligations?

The reference materials contained here are almost entirely gleaned from sources such as the UN, UNSC, UNHCR, UNRWA, the Knesset, the Israeli Government, the Jewish Virtual Library, the IAEA. There is no reference material from news sources, blogs (comments on them though). There are no Antisemitic or Islamist links or information.

link to this section
Do I support Israel? Most certainly! The Jewish people were given, gratis, the ‘territory’ in which to form a homeland and the opportunity, under the conditions of UNGA resolution 181, to declare Sovereignty over the territorial borders proposed in UNGA res 181, no more, no less. They did so and Israel was recognized as a Sovereign state, by the majority of the International Community of states, having Declared under those conditions and enshrined UNGA res181 in the Declaration of a Jewish State. It’s sovereignty is irrevocable.

Within it’s rightful territory, Israel is quite capable of and has the right to defend it’s people and actual sovereign territories from all comers according to the UN Charter, Laws of War and Conventions to which it is a voluntary signatory. It does not however, have the right to acquire ANY territory outside it’s own sovereign territory, other than by legal annexation.

As a UN Member state, Israel has the right to occupy territory as the “Occupying Power”, whereby it must uphold the Geneva Conventions to which it is a signatory and the UN Charter Chapt XI. This is exactly the same principal that applied to the occupation of the non-independent state Palestine, under the British Mandate over Palestine at the end of the Ottoman Empire and until 1948. Israel, like the British before them, does NOT have the right to claim that territory as it’s own by illegal, unilateral, annexation nor does it have the right to institute Israeli Civil Law in territories where it is the Occupying Power. It does not have the right to approve, encourage or support, illegal settlement.

The dream of a Greater Israel and G-od’s alleged promise was sold short when the Jewish Peoples Council declared a Sovereign State May 14th 1948, thereby defining it’s own territories and by default, what was not it’s own.

link to this section
The biggest lie is that Israel’s borders were never defined and that UNGA resolution 181 is irrelevant. However, in Israel’s own words…..
Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15, 1948
“MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”

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 The British Foreign Office issued a statement on May 17 to the effect that Great Britain would not recognize Israel for the time being because it had not fulfilled the “basic criteria” of an independent state. The British waited until a political party was elected to Govern the State of Israel, then granted de jure recognition, with conditions. The territories Israel had acquired by war, outside of it’s declared Sovereign Boundaries, were considered to be ‘occupied’. I.e., NOT Israeli Sovereign territory.
“His Majesty’s Government have also decided to accord de jure recognition to the State of Israel, subject to explanations on two points corresponding to those described above in regard to the case of Jordan. These points are as follows. First, that His Majesty’s Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it. Secondly, that His Majesty’s Government cannot regard the present boundaries between Israel, and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon as constituting the definitive frontiers of Israel, as these boundaries were laid 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…”

New Zealand 29 January 1949 “It is the understanding of the New Zealand Government that the settlement of boundaries and other outstanding questions will be effected in accordance with the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 11 December 1948.”

————
link to this section
Do I support the Palestinians? Most certainly! The majority of Palestinian people are civilian, men, women children who have never attacked Israel or taken any Israeli territory. They’ve not fired rockets, missiles, artillery shells, fletchettes, mortars, cluster bombs, phosphorus at anyone. They’ve not built a separation barrier on Israeli soil, bulldozed orchards homes apartments, built checkpoints, roadblocks, occupied or illegally acquired territory, been suicide bombers, created sonic booms, embargoed, sanctioned, withheld Israeli taxes, control Israel’s borders, airspace, territorial waters. They’ve never completely prevented Israelis from fleeing a war zone then attacked the territory with some of the most sophisticated weaponry on the planet as happened in Cast Lead.

The Palestinians have only ever asked for the rights afforded under the same UN Charter and conventions Israel has obliged itself to uphold! All they ask is that Israel abide by the law!

Militant Palestinian factions and individuals have committed war crimes, used terrorism. Proven, I condemn them un-equivocally. They however are not the majority of the Palestinian people.

What happened in the 1920’s is not the responsibility of Palestinians today. If they were alive in 1920, they’d be 89yrs old today. The life expectancy of a Palestine refugee to day is 73. It was about 47yrs in 1948-50. If they were alive in 1948, they’d have been children, no more than 14 yrs of age. They fought no wars, committed no slaughter, drove no-one from their homes.

The Palestinians have taken NOTHING of Israel’s.

Israel on the other hand, has taken and continues to take Palestinian territory, continues to dispossess, continues to occupy, continues to kill in order to protect Israelis illegally settling in the territories it illegally claims as it’s own.

link to this graphic

Israel is wiping the Palestinians off the map!

HOME

I do not necessarily support the views of every website citing or linking to these pages.

Comments are closed. If you don’t get it from the existing comments, you’ll never get it
Advertisements

13 Comments


  1. Hi Sean,

    It’s a complex issue which cannot be dealt with in a few words.
    Will replace this post in a few days. (update – weeks) [[ eventually 20th Nov 2010 ]]

    Cheers

    Comment by talknic — June 6, 2010 @ 1:20 pm


  2. Dear Talknic,

    Compliments on your blog/research. Have you also written on property/compensation rights of refugees.

    Kind regards,

    Sean

    ps keep up the good work

    Comment by Sean — June 4, 2010 @ 12:45 pm


  3. Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in reply to a question in Parliament, 17 November 1969:

    Question: “What is the British interpretation of the wording of the 1967 Resolution? Does the Right Honourable Gentleman understand it to mean that the Israelis should withdraw from all territories taken in the late war?”

    Mr. Stewart: “NO, Sir. That is not the phrase used in the Resolution.
    The Resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries.
    These words must be read concurrently with the statement on withdrawal.”

    – Mr. George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, on 19 January 1970:

    “”””I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council.
    “I formulated the Security Council Resolution.
    Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders.
    The proposal said ‘Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied’, and NOT from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will NOT withdraw from all the territories.””””

    Got it? “NO sir” that’;s not what it nmeans..
    AND
    British Forteign sec who Actually Wrote it!….
    “I Formulated the SC Res”…”””which means that Israel will NOT withdraw from all the territories.””””

    Unequivocal, not even “english 101”, English 3rd grade.

    Comment by Joe McMullan — April 18, 2010 @ 8:30 pm


    • Nice try…

      But quite irrelevant to the argument I’ve presented. However you put it, Israel was left as occupier of territories of the non-state entity of Palestine. As such, it is required to adhere to the rules of occupation under the Laws of War and the GC’s.

      The resolution did not confer sovereignty to Israel. Subsequent UNSC resolutions condemning illegal annexation, UNSC Res 1860, the armistice agreements, the Peace agreements all point to the same.

      Israel occupies.

      Comment by talknic — April 19, 2010 @ 3:29 am


  4. You chose to ignore the UNEQUIVOCAL statements of Caradon, George Brown, and Stewart, that the Territories would definitely NOT be withdrawn from Completely.
    Not to mention Kusinyetsov who realizes this and objects, but LOSES.

    as noted within, Resolutions calling for complete withdrawal were DEFEATED one after the other because they TRIED saying ‘all’ or even ‘the’ territories as that was NOT intended.
    You chose to ignore statements of 100% rebuttal.
    It’s either your Leftist or anti-semite Blindness, as this is not even debatable after the above statements.

    BTW akhmed, simultaneous (oops) General assembly Resolution 519 lost as IT tried the same.

    I hate amateurs.

    Comment by Joe McMullan — April 18, 2010 @ 8:26 pm


    • ‘ignore’ ‘100% rebuttal’ How weird. You seem to have problems reading..

      I’ve dealt with it at great length http://wp.me/PDB7k-6r#res-242-Israeli-evidence

      I’ve also acknowledged the fact that Israel was not required to withdraw from “territories occupied” belonging to non-state entity of Palestine. Why should it?

      High Contracting Powers are allowed to occupy the territories of non-state entities they control at the end of hostilities. They are however required to uphold the Laws of War, GC’s. The British occupied Palestine under the British Mandate over Palestine it upheld the Laws of War in respect to occupation. Jordan occupied under the Israel/Jordanian armistice Agreement it upheld the he Laws of War. Israel occupied under UNSC Res 242, it has dissed the Laws of War and the GCs.

      The meaning of UNSC Res 242 is confirmed as recently as 2005 by the UNSC. “UNSC Res 1860 – Recalling all of its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003) and 1850 (2008), Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state,”

      It’s confirmed by the condemnations of Israel’s illegal unilateral annexation of occupied East Jerusalem. UNSC Resolutions 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 UNSC Resolution 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969 UNSC Resolution 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, UNSC Resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, UNSC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, UNSC Resolution 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980

      It’s confirmed by the Egypt/Israeli Peace Agreement where Israel is required to withdraw from Sovereign Egyptian territory BEFORE normal relations resumed. Try reading it, especially the reference to UNSC Res 242.

      UNSC Res 242 was between “states”. It was not between Israel and the non-state entity of Palestine.

      ALL of the “states” already had recognized Sovereign boundaries, defined at least 19 – 20 years earlier. Israel was recognized by the information it supplied to the International Community of States 14th May 1948 http://wp.me/pDB7k-sa

      “It’s either your Leftist or anti-semite Blindness, as this is not even debatable after the above statements”

      Neither. The discussion before does not change the final wording. Only the final wording applies. Nor does the discussion after change the wording of the final resolution. Read it carefully. Where does it apply to the non-state entity of Palestine? Fact, it doesn’t, because the war was between states.

      “I hate amateurs”

      WOW a self hating amateur…cute

      Comment by talknic — April 19, 2010 @ 2:21 am


  5. The christianactionforisrael.org link. It also omits most of what Lord Caradon said of res 242. It also includes some gems, where words do NOT appear at all in the resolution.

    For example
    Eugene V. Rostow both confirms that the territories are occupied, ” … paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces ‘from territories occupied in the recent conflict’, and not ‘from the territories occupied in the recent conflict’. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word ‘the’ failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines.”

    If “territories occupied” are not withdrawn from, then they’re still occupied.

    He then oddly includes a word that does not appear in the resolution. “”The agreement required by paragraph 3. of the Resolution, the Security Council said, should establish ‘secure and recognized boundaries’ between Israel and its neighbours ‘free from threats or acts of force’, to replace the Armistice Demarcation lines established in 1949, and the cease-fire lines of June 1967. The Israeli armed forces should withdraw to such lines as part of a comprehensive agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in the Resolution, and in a condition of peace.”

    The exact words used are “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”

    It’s all one sentence. “respect for and acknowledgement of” applies to ” the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”.

    NOTHING about establish ‘secure and recognized boundaries’. Nothing about replacing the Armistice Demarcation lines established in 1949. Nothing about negotiate boundaries. The boundaries of the SOVEREIGN STATES had already been ‘established’ at least 19 years earlier. The resolution calls for them to be respected and acknowledged.

    When we read the Israeli/Egypt peace agreement, we see this take place. Israel had to withdraw from Sovereign Egyptian territory in order for normal relations to resume.

    That is what UNSC Res 242 was about…States. Nothing there at all about the non-state entity of Palestine or the boundaries between Israel and the Palestinian territories. And why would it? The High Contracting Power in control of non-state territories has the right to occupy them while adhering to the GCs. Israel has not. Instead, it has illegally annexed. Illegally settled. Illegally instituted Israeli civil law in “territories occupied” and not withdrawn from.

    “be back when you can even start to debate me Yassir”

    A) I’ve put up my argument and sources (none of which are partisan or biased). Where is your debate? I should debate insults and abuse?

    B) “Yassir” ? Is that really necessary in civil discourse? All it does is show what the type of person who supports and tries to justify the usurping of Palestinian territory. Lift your game, if you can.

    Comment by talknic — April 15, 2010 @ 6:20 pm


  6. 2. http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/242b.html

    be back when you can even start to debate me Yassir.

    Comment by Joe McMullan — April 15, 2010 @ 6:56 am


  7. Love your goofy attempt to Ignore how the language of 242 was arrived at and what it really means.
    What ‘withdrawl’ means EXACTLY.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/middle-east/18097-resolution-242-what-really-means.html

    have a gander goofy.

    It’s like claiming you were in the kitchen and your wife said ‘leave’ and you claim she meant the whole house, neigborhood, or marriage.

    Of course, thankfully in the case of 242 we know from the authors EXACTLY what they meant.
    If only we had the intent of the framers of the US constitution so well nailed, as we do from the authors of 242.

    You are completely STUFFED.

    Comment by Joe McMullan — April 15, 2010 @ 6:53 am


    • Hi Joe,

      “Ignore how the language of 242 was arrived at and what it really means”

      How strange, the whole article explores exactly what it means, without adding or changing any of the words. How it was arrived at is irrelevant once it is arrived at. How it was arrived at doesn’t change what IS actually in the final resolution.

      You link offers the same tired old same old. I’ve filled in the missing Lord Caradon dialogue. The parts the Israeli Govt dares not publish. http://wp.me/PDB7k-6r Try to refute it instead of insulting and calling people names, there’s a good chap.

      Whether all or some, “territories occupied’ and not withdrawn from, are still occupied.

      //UNSC Res 1860
      Recalling all of its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003) and 1850 (2008),
      Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state//

      UNSC Res 242 gave Israel the right to occupy Palestinian territories, nothing more. The UN doesn’t care which High Contracting Power occupies, as long as they abide by the GCs. Israel has not.

      Comment by talknic — April 15, 2010 @ 5:13 pm


  8. talknic, your responses are so witty. I wish FOX News would bring you on the air while they’re spinning (I mean reporting) on Israel.

    Comment by Bill Silverstein — March 18, 2010 @ 8:15 pm

  9. I don’t think it will make a difference. It was a mistake to offer the Arabs a percentage of the land that was left of Palestine. The Arabs should have been moved to Jordan or allowed to go back to their lands. But that was not done and instead we have this foolish war. The Jews will succeed in removing the Arab population even if it takes another 50 years. I am not a Zionist because that tool is passé, Israel exists already there is no need for a mechanism to return the Jews to their land when the Jews are already in their land.
    These articles are empty and meaningless because in our day and age there is no meaning except the meaning one wants to assign to a given episode. Even though what you are doing is meaningless (your point… their point… your counter point… their counter point) I hope you are at least having fun. I believe you having fun, in collecting this “information”, is the only meaning to this debate.

    Comment by Yaron — March 8, 2010 @ 6:30 am


    • Too bad Yaron,

      G-/od and the entire Jewish population of the planet were sold out when the Jewish People’s Council accepted and declared Sovereignty over the boundaries recommended in UNGS res 181. Here’s the subsequent notification to the international Community of States, on which they granted recognition, over riding the Arab states legal objections.

      Had the Zionist colonizers not demanded a separate state, we’d’ve had the right to settle anywhere in Palestine. Perhaps your attention should be focused on those who screwed us of that right.

      Pity isn’t it! Now Israel is bound by it’s voluntary obligations to the UN Charter, Laws of War, and all the conventions it has ratified, Israeli Jews (and Israeli Arabs) are limited to settling in Israeli Sovereign territories. (Israel has never legally annexed any further land BTW).

      I am not a Zionist because that tool is passé..”

      Uh huh. Be sure to mention it to them, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=world+zionist+federation Careful you’re not called an Anti-Semite though, they can be rather touchy about things.

      “Israel exists already there is no need for a mechanism to return the Jews to their land when the Jews are already in their land”

      Well, no, we’re not.

      A) It was a much bigger area. Much of which Israeli Jews have no right to anymore. Instead, many Jewish Israelis are illegally settled in OTHER PEOPLE’S land, outside of Israel. Thanks to those passe Zionistas and 62 years of Israel ignoring International Law.

      B) Many of us refuse to go to Israel because it has ignored the Law and is still engaged in illegally acquiring other folk’s territories.

      C) You say ‘the Jews’. ‘their land’. Why? You’re not Jewish?

      “These articles are empty and meaningless because in our day and age there is no meaning except the meaning one wants to assign to a given episode.”

      I’m sure the likes of Karadzic will be interested to hear your fantastic theory.

      Even though what you are doing is meaningless..

      And what you’re doing is….? Oh I know, having an ‘episode’.

      I hope you are at least having fun. “

      Yes, quite.

      “I believe you having fun in collecting this “information”, is the only meaning to this debate”

      No. The information requires a lot of carefull study. Every word, every bit of punctuation. The information however, stands without any debate (or any sense of fun I might have in debating those who show their shortcomings in trying to refute the information).

      Anyone can come along, read it, form an opinion based on it without exchanging a word in debate.

      Never the less I’ll promptly delete anything else you might post. Keep you to your word…OK?

      Comment by talknic — March 8, 2010 @ 9:40 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: