by default it’s a territory of Palestine, regardless of whether it is a state or not…
…ShortLink http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y … …If you can disprove any of the items here with logic and citations of official documents from credible sources, I will gladly remove the offending item. Till then, feel free to put up, sans bull sh*te, abuse and personal attacks…..enjoy!
“..at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time”, after the British Occupation under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine “terminated”, Israel became a sovereign state, independent of its neighbours including what remained of Palestine.
The Jewish people’s homeland state had been declared. Far smaller than the ‘historic’ homeland of the Jewish people. By its own Declaration Israel the Jewish Pople’s ‘Historical’ Homeland, became just that, historical. Of interest, but not in fact negating any of the State of Israel’s obligations to International Law and subsequently the UN Charter. Another opportunity missed by the Zionist Federation for Jews to live anywhere in the Jewish People’s Historical Homeland anywhere in Palestine
What was a civil war (1947 – 1948) prior to Israel’s declaration, became a war waged by the new State on what remained of Palestine ” at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time” , the moment the Israeli Declaration came into effect. (ibid)
Under the preemptive Plan Dalet, Jewish forces were already OUTSIDE of Israel’s Sovereignty on the 14th May 1948. Confirmed in statements by the Israeli Government to the UNSC – May 22nd 1948 and June 15th 1949
As regional powers, in accordance with the UN Charter, the Arab League legally declared an invasion of “PALESTINE” (not Israel). Even though Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Iraq were UN Member States, there is no UNSC Resolution condemning the Invasion of Palestine. The Arab States had a right, according to the UN Charter, to attempt to expel foreign forces from what remained of Palestine.
—
Propaganda: When National interests are at stake, rest assured, it’s big business! All Governments propagate some form of propaganda. When Governments are tied in with land and big construction & infrastructure projects, like the illegal settlements Israel insists on continuing, it’s really big business. You can be sure the propaganda will be ramped up.
An example of propaganda : We’re told the Arabs of the area that became Israel invited to stay when Israel became a State. It is in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel. OK, how did they suddenly become a demographic threat in the few weeks after they’d left, if they would not have been a demographic threat had they stayed?
It does not make sense. One notion is a lie. Did the Jewish people’s council not know about Plan Dalet?
———-
link to this section
Let’s start with some oft repeated nonsense, which would bring tears of laughter, were the complete ignorance of those who seek to perpetuate it not so pathetically sad….
Top place of honour goes to Ma’ayan Cohen, the top legal advisor for the Home Front Command. (yes, you read it right, the TOP LEGAL ADVISOR!)
From Haaretz : “The Israel Defense Forces Home Front commander has utilized a rare, British Mandate-era statute to bar a Palestinian resident of East Jerusalem from the capital for a period of four months.”
The top legal advisor is un-aware that the Mandate expired and has cited a Military Law of OCCUPATION in a territory Israel claims is sovereign to Israel. In effect he is admitting the illegality of Israeli settlements in “territories occupied” and the illegal annexation of territory, illegally acquired by war. It DEFIES LOGIC for the territory of a sovereign to be under the occupation of the sovereign.
But he isn’t the only one depending on their extraordinary ability to not read the Israeli Declaration
We have Ephraim commenting at the Foreign Policy Journal … another “the Mandate for Palestine is valid to this day and in perpetuity” … another … “the borders were defined in 1920 .. guaranteed by the anglo american convention in 1924 .. guaranteed by the anglo american convention in 1924. they are know and were administered in the mandate for 23 years”
One can only assume they’ve either never read the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel – OR – the Israeli Government has it all wrong on their website and the Jewish People’s Council had no idea of what they were talking about.. The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel May 14, 1948 : “On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired…”
It seems clear enough there at the top of the page, except to those who’ve never bothered to read the Declaration or perhaps those who don’t know what the word ‘expired’ means. Either way, their stupid notion is only the thin edge of the Fallacy Wedge…it’s @#$&*# HUGE!!
Almost everything the Israeli’s say against the Palestinians is a fallacy! Spread either by the un-witting or by the ignorant or PURPOSEFULLY by those who’re not interested in anything but justifying the illegal acquisition of Palestinian territory. Honesty and integrity do not play a part in their MO. You need to check everything they say. EVERYTHING!!
link to this section
UNGA res 181 is irrelevant, Israel’s borders have never been defined
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.” Also available as PDF from the Truman Library additional info from
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.”
Shabtai Rosen, British-born professor of international law at Bar Ilan University “(a) Shortly after the signing of the Israel-Egyptian agreement, early in March. 1949, Israeli forces advanced south to the littoral into the area allocated to the Jewish State: in General Assembly resolution l8l (II) of 29 November 1947“
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.”
Bear this in mind. Israel has NEVER legally annexed ANY territory outside the extent of its Declared Sovereignty.
|
The British Occupation under the League of Nations Mandate: The mandate stipulated that they were to foster the conditions leading to an Independent State of Palestine wherein the Jews could establish a homeland amongst the other inhabitants, as Palestinians, under democratic Palestinian law. The mandate ended 14th May 1948. It is no longer relevant except as an historical reference. Jordan (TransJordan): Jordan relinquished all trustee status over the West Bank in order that the Palestinians can legally declare Sovereignty (unfortunately Israel prevents this). Since relinquishing trustee status, Jordan has also revoked the temporary citizenship of Palestine refugees in order that they maintain RoR to Israel and to the possible future Palestinian state. |
Exactly WHO is being wiped off the map? link to this section – – link to this graphic
|
Palestinian territories – West Bank: Gaza: |
link to this section
Israel’s northern ‘borders’ with Lebanon include Acre, Nazareth
Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
“Article V 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine.”
It is illegal to acquire territory by force/war and Israel has never legally annexed ANY territory outside the Sovereign borders of it’s declaration.
link to this graphic
(rough representation only)
Q: – On what date was Paleestinian territory bordering Lebanon legally annexed to Israel?
A: – It has NEVER been annexed!
link to this section
Israel’s Southern ‘borders’ with Egypt and Gaza include Ashkelon, Beer Sheba etc?
Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
“Article V. 1. The line described in Article VI of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Line and is delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolutions of the Security Council of 4 and 16 November 1948.
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.”
Article XI No provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question.
It is illegal to acquire territory by force/war and Israel has never legally annexed ANY territory outside the extent of it’s declared Sovereignty.
link to this graphic
(rough representation only)
Q: – On what date was Palestinian territory bordering Egypt, containing Ashkelon, Beer Sheba, etc annexed to Israel?
A: – It has NEVER been annexed!
link to this section
The Jewish Federations of North America ‘FACT’ Territory Can Be Acquired in War
“Some people take this to mean that Israel is required to withdraw from all the territories it captured. On the contrary, the reference clearly applies only to an offensive war. If not, the resolution would provide an incentive for aggression. If one country attacks another, and the defender repels the attack and acquires territory in the process, the former interpretation would require the defender to return all the land it took. Thus, aggressors would have little to lose because they would be insured against the main consequence of defeat”
It is admissible to ‘restore’ by war (failing a UN Chapter Six solution), one’s own Sovereign territory, illegally acquired by another party. What Israel has ‘acquired’ illegally by war, was not Sovereign Israeli territory. The Jewish Federations of North America disregard these pertinent facts A) That Israel informed the International Community that it had accepted and declared Sovereignty ONLY over the boundaries recommended by UNGA Res 181. The majority of the International community recognized Israel based on that notification, over riding the Arab States legal objections. B) Israel has never legally annexed any territories C) a key word – “sovereign”… ( the linked article cites it, but ignores the same facts )
…ShortLink http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y#Schwebel Professor Stephen M. Schwebel – (NB: ‘Professor’ not as a Judge of International Court of Justice) as quoted by
99. The state of the law has been correctly summarized by Elihu Lauterpacht, a distinguished authority on international law, as follows:
“… territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the unlawful use of force. But to omit the word `unlawful’ is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor’s charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territorial change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign. This cannot be regarded as reasonable or correct.”
restore the lawful sovereign.
A) It is inadmissible to ‘acquire’ territory by war, aggressive/illegal OR defensive/legal. The reason the phrase does not include an ‘aggressive/illegal’ or ‘defensive/legal’ qualification is because it means ANY war. The inhabitants might not have voted for or even been able to vote for the regime in power at the start of the conflict. The UN Charter stipulates ‘self determination’. Not the determination of a conquering power.
B) If it is one’s sovereign territory already, one is not ‘acquiring’ it, one is ‘restoring it.
The JFNA have run with Schwebel’s opinion without looking at it. Ignoring the key word and ignoring what Israel’s actual sovereign territories are. In his convoluted attempt to ‘explain’ for Israel, Schwebel has tripped over himself. That he has tripped over himself shows us he as trying to justify rather than explain.
They also misconstrue UNSC Res 242. A) “territories occupied” and not withdrawn from, are still occupied! B) UNSC Res 242 is between States. The boundaries it refers to are those of States, which had all been recognized and acknowledged as theirs before 1967. C) It only allows Israel to remain occupying some territories, pending the resolution of the question of Palestine.
Q1: – What if folk are conscripted? Do you think it would be fair to acquire the territory belonging to citizens who have been forcefully conscripted into the military? Would it be fair to acquire the territory of Iraq’s citizens, when Iraqi’s were ruled by a dictator?
Q2: – Why would anyone disregard pertinent facts surrounding Israel’s actual Sovereign territories and an absolutely essential key word?
Q3: – Why is this Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15, 1948, perhaps one of the most important document’s relating to the recognition of Israel as a Sovereign state, NOT on any Israeli Government website?
Q4: – Why Did the Jewish People’s Council decide to purposefully decide to NOT mention boundaries in the Declaration, other than to ensure there was ambiguity?
There is no legal requirement to include boundaries in the Declaration. It was made in acceptance of the conditions of UNGA res 181 for declaring. So I find it strange that, as a defense for illegally acquiring Palestinian territory after 14th May ’48, we’re told the Jewish People’s Council decided to purposefully NOT mention boundaries in the Declaration. It’s bizarre.
Q5: – Why mention purposefully not mentioning something that didn’t even require mentioning and why is it always only brought up in defense of illegal acquisition?
Q6: – What actual Sovereign territories of Israel have the Arab States attempted to acquire by war?
link to this section
Israel’s borders are from 1967 and East Jerusalem is Israeli?:
The acquisition of territory by war/force is inadmissible. This is either re-affirmed or emphasized in the UNSC resolutions. In order to acquire territory outside one’s sovereignty, it must be legally annexed with the consent of citizens to whom the territory belongs, through a referendum of the territory’s legitimate citizens, not including the citizens of the occupying power (see the legal annexation of Texas, a move which was instrumental in the eventual passing of the legal custom of having an agreement passing into Customary International Law). A) The territories it acquired by force by 1949 have not been legally annexed B) The annexation of East Jerusalem was declared illegal by
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 …. Oh, and Israel’s annexation of the Golan was also condemned by the UNSC Res 497
Q1: – If Israel has not legally annexed the territories it acquired by war/force and the 1949 and 1967 armistice lines are not borders if they were not borders before the armistice/s, on what legal basis does Israel claim these territories outside it’s own Sovereign Territory?
Q2: – If Israel has not legally annexed the territories it acquired by war/force and the 1949 and 1967 armistice lines are not borders, on what legal basis has Israel instituted Israeli civil law in territories it occupies?
link to this section
Jerusalem is not Palestinian
From the fall of the Ottoman Empire there was an entity called Palestine. Jerusalem was a part of it. Under the British Mandate over Palestine, TransJordan was carved off. What remained was Palestine, under the British Mandate over Palestine.
When Israel Declared it’s Sovereign borders, May14th 1948, Israel did not include Jerusalem.
What remained of Palestine after Israel Declared is still known as Palestine, it includes Jerusalem. The name has never been changed. It is still called Palestine. It’s citizens are Palestinians.
Israel exists. So it’s all water under the bridge. People should get over it? Facts on the ground have changed the reality?
A) Peace agreements are based on Internationally recognized Sovereign territory. If only one party is Sovereign state, it’s sovereign territories, by default, define what ISN’T it’s own.
B) It shows that if the Palestinians agree to the fabled ‘67 borders between Israel and Palestine (which in fact are not borders), contrary to the Israeli propaganda, it would be the Palestinians who are being generous. Not Israel.
Q: Why should decent folk tolerate lies, propaganda and fallacies about the past being purposefully promoted and used TODAY, on Israel’s behalf TODAY, in order to justify and support it’s continued and illegal expansionist policies, TODAY.
In the age of the internet, once something is put out, it cannot be fully purged. Most people don’t bother to check, they’re either too busy just trying to make ends meet in this busy world or they don’t care. So called ‘news’ is delivered in byte sized easily consumable packages that tell them next to nothing.
Propagandists like and depend on them being that way. Propagandists don’t care if they put something out which is a blatant lie, because they know that even if they retract their work, it will still be out there, being spread by those who support their cause or un-wittingly by folk who don’t crosscheck.
Although news reports are the last place for non-partisan reports & facts, they can be quite revealing.
A classic example of Purposefully Perpetuating Lies:
link to this section
In September 2008 Muslims urinated next to the Torah scrolls
On the 7th Sep 2008, there was a huge outcry when it was reported that Muslims urinated near the Torah Scrolls. Israeli news services were flooded with the report, as were thousands of blogs. GOOGLE example. There is a retraction on JPost
To the best of my knowledge, apart from this one solitary JPost report, none of the blogs and news services have not issued statements repudiating their original reports, preferring to perpetuate a false accusation, which of course, is against the basic tenets of Judaism.
The thousands of vile, hate filled comments against Muslims, hosted by these news services and blogs, remain. ALL based on a false accusation. Cute eh?
ANOTHER – This is reported BEFORE the Gaza dis-engagement.
link to this section
The Palestinians destroyed all the greenhouses the settlers gave them when they left Gaza
However, PRIOR to the Israeli dis-engagement of Gaza and the subsequent reports of the people of Gaza destroying the hundreds of greenhouses so ‘generously donated’ by the departing settlers..
Under international pressure to save what is left for Palestinian economic development, Israeli and international officials are working on a plan to pay settlers to hand over the remaining greenhouses and a dairy to Palestinians, to preserve jobs and production. These businesses provide thousands of jobs to Gazans.
Of the roughly 1,000 acres of agricultural land that were under greenhouses in the 21 Israeli settlements in Gaza, only 500 acres remain – creating significant doubts that the greenhouses could be handed over to the Palestinians as “a living business,” the goal cited by the Israeli coordinator of the pullout, Eival Giladi.
HOME …
&
Questions the propagandists dare not honestly answer
Items are in random order
link to this section
Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy’s civilian population from harm’s way.
Netanyahu’s speech at the UN General Assembly 24th September 2009 “Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy’s civilian population from harm’s way.”
Although it gave forewarning, Israel had all the crossings closed, under the 2005 agreement with Egypt, (only possible to have such an agreement as an Occupying Power), thereby preventing civilians from fleeing a war zone, BEFORE attacking, which is illegal under Geneva Convention 1V…Section II..Occupied territories..Art49…The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Civilians could not even flee into the sea, because Israel controls the Palestinian territorial waters.
It is also worth considering that under the Laws of War, Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
Q1: – Where could the innocent civilians of Gaza have gone, when all means of escape were closed?
Q2: – Of what use were the weapons available to the Palestinians as defense against a ship, miles out to sea, firing artillery shells into the territory or against a missile, fired from a fighter plane?
link to this section
Palestinians helped Hitler in the Holocaust via the efforts of the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini
The Palestinians of today have a life expectancy of 73 yrs. In 1945 it was likely lower. It’s now 2009. Subtract 1945 from 2009 = 64. Subtract 64 from 73 = 9yrs old in 1945. Simple maths tells us that today’s Palestinians had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Holocaust or Hitler or WW2. By the War of Independence in 1948 they were only 12yrs old. Still children.
Ironically the Mufti was appointed by the British, by a Jewish chap, one Herbert Samuel, who also created the Supreme Muslim Council. Furthermore, Haj Amin al-Husseini was booted out of office in 1939. When he met Hitler, in 1941 he wasn’t actually an official representative of the Palestinian people. He certainly wasn’t the Mufti of Jerusalem and the Palestinians of today were ALL children.
Yet Snr Leiberman continues to perpetuate the ‘myth’ of Palestinians involvement in the holocaust even today.
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has ordered diplomats to use an old photograph of a former Palestinian religious leader meeting Adolf Hitler to counter world criticism of a Jewish building plan for East Jerusalem. Asked why Lieberman issued the order, a spokesman said: “because it’s important for the world to know the facts” and would not elaborate.
Q1: – How many Palestinians voted for the appointment of the Mufti of Jerusalem?
Q2: – How many Palestinians of today voted for the appointment of the Mufti of Jerusalem?
Q3: – How many Palestinian children between the ages of 0yrs and 12yrs fought in the war of Independence 1948?
Q4: – How many Palestinian children between the ages of 0yrs and 9yrs supported Hitler in 1941?
Q5: – How many Palestinian children between the ages of 0yrs and 9yrs supported the ex Mufti of Jerusalem in 1941?
Q6: – How many Palestinian children between the ages of 0yrs and 3yrs supported the Mufti of Jerusalem in 1939?
Q7: – What ‘facts’ was Lieberman’s spokesman talking about?
Answer – NONE! None of it is relevant to today’s Palestinians. It’s just BULLSHITE!
link to this section
UNSC Resolution 242 calls for the negotiation of borders between Israel and the Palestinian territories.
UNSC Resolution 242 was between the Sovereign Arab States and the Sovereign State of Israel. The resolution is specifically dealing with already SOVEREIGN, STATES, with RECOGNIZED boundaries. The word ‘negotiate’ does not appear in the document. The words used are ‘acknowledgement of’
UNSC Resolution 242 actually calls for a Peace Agreement between Sovereign Israel and the Sovereign Arab States. Expanded HERE
link to this section
Karsenty vs France 2 – The IDF was cleared of killing Mohammed Al Durah by a French court
Not according to the actual court decision..
“Considering the state of the elements of the investigation, which form a factual base sufficient to allow that the statements at issue, often close to a judgment call, could have been made by the author of the article and the press release at issue to discuss subjects of such general interest as the danger of power – in this case, the power of the press – in the absence of counterbalance, and the right of the public to serious information; it can be found that Philippe KARSENTY exercised his right of free criticism in good faith; that, in doing so, he did not overstep the limits of the freedom of expression recognized in article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which applies not only to information or ideas that are met with favor or considered inoffensive or insignificant, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb;
That the decision of the lower court will therefore be overturned; the charges against Philippe KARSENTY and the demands of the civil parties dismissed;
ON THESE GROUNDS
The court
By judgment rendered after due hearing of the parties and after having deliberated according to the law;
In view of the interlocutory order of October 3, 2007;
Declares no objection to the pleadings submitted by Philippe KARSENTY;
Overturns the deferred judgment and dismisses the charges against Philippe KARSENTY;
Dismisses the demands of the civil parties.
THE PRESIDENT THE COURT CLERK”
Q: – What is the actual jurisdiction of a court in a libel appeal?
This the only link on this site to any Arab information
link to this section
The Palestinians hate us because we’re Jews.
Sheik Ahmad Yassin Founder of Hamas. DoB on passport 1929 He claims DOB was 1938. Working on the latter DOB, he was dispossessed as an innocent child aged 10. The Jewish state prevented a child of 10 from returning home. If he was born in 1929, he’d have been dispossessed at 19 yrs of age. In 2004 he’d have been 75 years old, 56 years homeless, 56 years stateless, half blind, a quadriplegic, when Israel assassinated him with a HellFire Missile and slaughtered eleven other people in the process.
Bear in mind how the propaganda paints this man.
“Our homeland was stolen, I have a home and a land in Askalan (Ashkelon). Others in Yafa (Jafa), Gaza. We ask for our rights, nothing more. We don’t hate the Jews and fight them because they are Jews. They are people of religion and we are people of religion. We love people of religion
If my brother, who has the same religion and parents as me. If he takes my home and expel(s) me from my land. I will fight him. I will fight my brother. I will fight my cousin if he does that to me. So when a Jew takes my home and expels me, I will fight him as well. I don’t fight the USA, Britain or other countries, I am at peace with all people. I love all people and wish them well. Even the Jews. The Jews lived with us for a long time, We never assaulted them or transgressed on their rights. They used to hold high positions in the Government and ministries. But if they take my home and make me a refugee.
We have 4 million Palestinian refugees outside of Palestine, Who have more right to this land? The Russian immigrant? Who left this land over 2,000 years ago? Or the one who left it 40 years ago? Who has more right? We don’t hate the Jews, We only want them to give us our rights. ”
Q: – If half of your shared homeland was given away for a Catholic state, without you being asked, then a further half was taken, illegally, by force and you were dispossessed for 62 years, in some cases twice 1948 & 1967, would you vent your anger on Catholics or Jews?
link to this section
The Hamas Charter states that they want to kill all Jews
The Hamas Charter does indeed contain some ghastly rhetoric. Written in war, for war, citing scripture also written in war, for war, it attempts to demonize the enemy and certainly does the Palestinian cause no favours. It’s the Hamas version of the USA’s Axis of Evil statement.
It does however contain a caveat. Caveats are just as important as any other clause in a contract/charter/statement. The caveat in this instant shows precisely who the rest of the document is aimed at and why. In the propaganda war, the caveat is of course never cited.
Q1 : – If it were Catholics given half of Palestine in ’48 for a homeland state without consulting the majority of the local inhabitants and the Catholic state rather than a Jewish state, then acquired, illegally, by war, another 50% of the remainder, dispossessing the local non-Catholic inhabitants, razing their villages and homes, forbidding them to return, populating the territory with Catholics, do you really think the Hamas Charter would still say “Jews”?
Q2 : – Which came first? Hamas? Or Plan Dalet, razing villages, homes, dispossessing tens of thousands of non-Jews, never allowing them to return?
link to this section
“Jews are colonizing their legitimate historical land” – OR – Jewish people are a race.
From HaaretzSeven Chinese people with Jewish roots landed at Ben-Gurion Airport on Tuesday to start a new life in Israel, becoming the largest such group to ever arrive here.
Q1: – Can anyone explain please the features of these Chinese Jews?
Q2: – Can anyone explain please the features of the Jewish actress Sophie Okonedo?
Q3: – Can anyone explain please the features of these Japanese Jews?
Q4: – Can anyone explain please the features of these Kaifeng’s Jews?
link to this section
Combatants must wear a uniform.
An emblem is required. Not a uniform.
The Laws of War – Article 1: ”To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance“
Common sense tells us that even in the most law abiding militaries, Combat Fatigues are camouflaged. They’re camouflaged so that the enemy CAN’T see them! Enemy armies might have similar or even identical military fatigues. An army might have many different uniform configurations, depending on the conditions. A legitimate militia (per the Laws of War), may not have the resources to afford a uniform. That’s why there is no legal requirement to wear a uniform.
Q1: – Do ANY country’s undercover operatives wear a uniform OR carry their arms openly?
Q2: – Who can see the uniform of a pilot in a fighter plane or combatants in a tank?
Q3: – Why are combat fatigues camouflaged?
Q4: – Who can see the uniform on someone controlling a UAV?
link to this section
Hamas do not wear uniforms
Israeli Knesset :“You can see on television that most of those who died during the attack were wearing Hamas uniforms, either black or other uniforms of Hamas” Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni on December 28, 2008 Israeli Knesset.
Dec 27: IDF operation against terror infrastructure in the Gaza Strip Since this morning, the IDF attacked dozens of targets affiliated with the Hamas terror organization in the Gaza Strip. The targets included command centers, training camps, various Hamas installations, rocket manufacturing facilities and storage warehouses. The vast majority of the casualties are terror operatives, most of whom were wearing uniform and working on behalf of terror organizations.
Q1: – Where is the legal requirement to wear a uniform stated?
Q2: – Is Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni a liar?
Q3: – Are the IDF liars?
A search with google reveals that Hezbollah also wear uniforms.
link to this section
Qassams only target civilians, it’s terrorism
HRW classify the firing of Qassams as a war crime rather than terrorism, because only the person firing a Qassam can tell what it’s intended target is and it is impossible to say that every rocket fired is aimed purely at civilians. Whoever fires the things is guilty either way. Furthermore, numerous military targets have been hit.
Q: – How can one tell exactly what an un-guided armament is intended to hit?
link to this section
There is never a UNHRC investigation of rockets fired at Israelis
Palestinians admit to it. What’s to investigate?
Q: – Why did the Goldstone report condemn them and call them war crimes?
link to this section
Israel could not protect itself if it ended Occupation:
There is no obligation to unilaterally occupy. Under the instruments of the UN, all Sovereign States have the right to protect their sovereignty against attack by any armed person, group, militia, state or entity, according to the Geneva Conventions and Laws of War, from within it’s Sovereign Territory. They are allowed to make incursions into the enemy’s territory, they may even Declare a Defensive War. More importantly they can lobby the UN/UNSC for a peace keeping force.
Q1: – Given the above facts, why couldn’t Israel protect it’s actual Sovereign territories if it ended occupation?
Q2: – Why would the separation barrier not work just as efficiently if it was built only on Israeli Sovereign territory?
link to this section
Resolution 181 was irrelevant because the Arabs states refused to recognize it. Israel has not defined it’s borders:
Res 181 is still enshrined in the preamble of the Declaration of a Jewish State. Neither party was dependent on the other party forming or refusing to form a state. Such a situation would require an agreement to be signed simultaneously. There was no such requirement. The resolution was non-binding. However, Israel became a Sovereign State on the 14th May 1948. accepting the borders of Resolution 181 (partition) in order to be recognized as a Sovereign State. Israel was recognized by the borders it accepted under 181, by the Majority of the International Community of states, over riding the Arab States objections.
Furthermore, there is this rather revealing letter:
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.”
Q1: – If Israel was and still is recognized as a Sovereign State, how can it NOT have recognized borders?
Q2: – Bearing in mind that armistice lines are not borders unless they were borders before the armistice and that Israel has never legally annexed ANY territories, if it is a Sovereignty, what are Israel’s actual sovereign territories defined by?
… HOME …
link to this section IN FULL
Captured territory belongs to Israel because the Arabs started the war:
It is Inadmissible to acquire territory by war/force. There are no exceptions. The same rule applies to both defensive and aggressive wars. Laws of War Art. 55. “The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.”
All civilians live in Sovereign States, States or non-state entities whose respective Governments can change, sometimes for the worse. The regime starting a war might be a dictatorship. The territories of Sovereign states, non-Sovereign states or non-state entities, no matter which government/regime is in power or which power occupies, belong to it’s civilians.
Once a war has started, the Laws of War and the Geneva Conventions apply in order that the war be fought fairly and to protect the innocent. They do not differential between who starts, is winning or losing, finally wins or loses a war, because the civilians might not have voted, or even been able to vote, for the regime Governing the entity who started the war. Furthermore,under the UN Charter they have the right to self determination. It is illegal to subject them to force in order to acquire territory. It must be via agreement/treaty, which is decided by a referendum of the entity’s citizens.
Q1: – What actual Israeli Sovereign territory did the Arab States attack in 1948?
Q2: – Was it an Israeli military installation the Arab states bombed in Tel Aviv?
link to this section IN FULL
Israel was attacked by five armies of the Arab states the day after it Declared Independence: The Jewish Agency launched Plan Dalet in the weeks PRIOR to Declaration. It was a major preemptive military operation which attempted to gain strategic ground in the fear of an ensuing war with the Arab states should the Jewish People’s Council accept the borders of res 181 and Declare a Sovereign state. Villages and towns, both inside (even though the Declaration of Jewish State begs the Arabs to stay), and outside of the territory slated for the new Jewish state were cleansed and razed. (None of this territory was ever annexed to Israel)
By the 15th of May 1948, Israel was a newly Declared Sovereign State, with clearly defined Sovereign territories. The Arab states had every right to protect the territory not under Israel’s newly Declared Sovereignty of 14th May 1948, from the aggression Israel inherited from Plan Dalet, launched in the weeks PRECEDING it’s Declaration. Whether the Arab States formed a state or not of these territories is irrelevant to their right to protect the territory of the entity they represented.
The UNSC did nothing because A) Prior to Declaration, it was a civil war and under the British Mandate B) after Declaration, they knew even as Israeli was Declaring Sovereignty over the borders of Res181, it was already in breach of the borders it was claiming. The Arab states attacked Israeli forces in non-Israeli territory. The Arab states actually launched a defensive war.
Israel was admitted to the UN under the presumption that it would abide by the Charter and Laws of War (both obligatory in their entirety) and withdraw after the war. Israel did not, it illegally claimed the territories it had acquired for strategic position, forbidding the return of civilians who’d fled.
Q1: – What actual Sovereign Israeli territories did the Arab States attack in 1948?
Q2: – Was it an Israeli military installation the Arab states bombed in Tel Aviv?
Q3: – Why was there no UNSC resolution condemning the Arab states if they attacked Israel’s actual Sovereign territories?
link to this section IN FULL
The Arab states attacked Israel with the intention of committing genocide
Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine May 15, 1948
The Governments of the Arab States emphasise, on this occasion, what they have already declared before the London Conference and the United Nations, that the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed.
Their declaration must be read very carefully, bearing in mind that at the time it was issued, Israel was already a Sovereignty. Israel was NOT a part of Palestine.
Q : – Why was there no USNC resolution condemning the Arab states if they attacked Israel’s actual Sovereign territories?
IN FULL
… HOME ..
link to this section….IN FULL HERE
The Palestinians already have a state in Jordan. Over 70% of Jordan’s population are Palestinian.
A) Jordan was NEVER part of the British Mandate over Palestine in 1948. It was a recognized as a Sovereign state in 1946 (TransJordan).
B) Only the Palestinians who lived in the territory of Jordan had a right to become citizens of Jordan when it was recognized as a Sovereign state. The Palestinians who DID NOT live in that particular part of British Mandate Palestine in 1946 did not.
C) When Jordan legally annexed the West Bank, in agreement with the Palestinians, it was only as a trustee. (more here) IN FULL HERE
D) A question In 1921 how many Jewish folk lived in the territory that became TransJordan?
link to this section …. IN FULL HERE
The Palestinians could have formed a state when Israel withdrew from Gaza, or in 1947 1948 and at various times since then.
In order to Declare a Sovereign State, an entity must have full control over the borders it wishes to claim as it’s own. The British ended their protective Mandate over Palestine so that Sovereign States could be Declared in Palestine if the parties so wished. It was not mandatory. The same rule applied to East Timor’s Independence from Indonesia. Indonesia had to withdraw from East Timor in order for East Timor to Declare Sovereignty.
Even if they wanted to, the Palestinians were denied the privilege in 1948. By May 14th 1948, under Plan Dalet, the Jewish Agency was already in control of territories allocated for the new Arab State, making it impossible for the Palestinians to Declare Sovereignty.
Israel must withdraw from the Palestinian territories, for the Palestinians to declare Sovereignty.
AN unfortunate ‘facts on the ground’ situation has been created by Israel. It has never annexed the territories it illegally acquired by 1949, it has, of it’s own accord, deceived it’s own citizens for 61 years and created a monumental stumbling block in the path to peace.
Q1: – Where will Israel withdraw to in order that the Palestinians can declare Sovereignty if Israel has not legally annexed any of the territories it has illegally acquired by war since 1948?
Q2: – Why should the Palestinians bear the burden for Israel’s illegal behaviour? IN FULL HERE
link to this section
Gaza is not under occupation:
Under International Law, the Geneva Conventions and UNSC Resolution 242, as the Occupying power Israel is permitted to control what and who goes in and out of Gaza at ALL crossings, Israel is permitted to control Gaza’s airspace and territorial waters. Israel retained the ability to have all of the crossings closed, under the 2005 agreement with Egypt, the Palestinian Authority and Israel, including those between Gaza & Egypt. It exercised this power during Caste Lead. Preventing the civilian population from fleeing a war zone.
Egypt’s cooperation with Israel is tied to the Israeli/Egyptian Peace Treaty. Were Egypt were to open the border crossings without Israeli consent, under the 2005 agreement, Egypt would be in breach the Peace Treaty.
Furthermore, the UNSC said this of Gaza on 8 January 2009, when it adopted 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,
Q1: – If Israel’s ability to have full control over Gaza’s territorial waters, being able to close Gaza off COMPLETELY including the crossings with Egypt, being able to dictate what and who and when anything may or may not enter or exit Gaza from ANY direction, is not occupation, what on earth is it?
Q2: – If Israel is NOT permitted to do the above under International Law, UNSC resolutions, by what authority does it?
Q3: – If ‘territories occupied’ (res 242) are not withdrawn from, they are surely still occupied, no?
Q4: – Why do Israel’s willing propagandistas ignore irrefutable proof of what the UNSC says and continue to spew out their ignorant mantras day after day, over and over?
link to this section
Egypt and Israel could make peace, but the Palestinians refuse:
A carefull read of the Egypt/Israel Peace Agreement shows us Israel was required to withdraw from all of Egypt’s territories before normal relations resumed. (The peace agreements between Israel and Jordan/Egypt accomplished the requirements of UNSC Res 242)
Article II Determination of Final Lines and Zones
1. In order to provide maximum security for both Parties after the final withdrawal, the lines and the Zones delineated on Map 1 are to be established and organized as follows:
…until Israeli armed forces complete withdrawal from the current J and M Lines established by the Egyptian-Israeli Agreement of September 1975, hereinafter referred to as the 1975 Agreement, up to the interim withdrawal line, all military arrangements existing under that Agreement will remain in effect, except those military arrangements otherwise provided for in this Appendix.
Within a period of seven days after Israeli armed forces have evacuated .any area located in Zone A…..
Within a period of seven days after Israeli armed forces have evacuated any area located in Zones A or B…
The Parties agree to remove all discriminatory barriers to normal economic relations and to terminate economic boycotts of each other upon completion of the interim withdrawal.
As soon as possible, and not later than six months after the completion of the interim withdrawal, the Parties will enter negotiations with a view to concluding an agreement on trade and commerce for the purpose of promoting beneficial economic relations.
1. The Parties agree to establish normal cultural relations following completion of the interim withdrawal.
2. They agree on the desirability of cultural exchanges in all fields, and shall, as soon as possible and not later than six months after completion of the interim withdrawal, enter into negotiations with a view to concluding a cultural agreement for this purpose.
Upon completion of the interim withdrawal, each Party will permit the free movement of the nationals and vehicles of the other into and within its territory ….
etc etc
March 26, 1979
The President,
The White HouseDear Mr. President,
I am pleased to be able to confirm that the Government of Israel is agreeable to the procedure set out in your letter of March 26, 1979, in which you state:
“I have received a letter from President Sadat that, within one month after Israel completes its withdrawal to the interim line in Sinai, as provided for in the Treaty of peace between Egypt and Israel, Egypt will send a resident ambassador to Israel and will receive in Egypt a resident Israeli ambassador.”
Sincerely,
Menachem Begin
link to this section
Jordan’s occupation of the West Bank was illegal
Not according to the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Jordan and Israel
Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
Article VI – 1. It is agreed that the forces of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom shall replace the forces of Iraq in the sector now held by the latter forces, the intention of the Government of Iraq in this regard having been communicated to the Acting Mediator in the message of 20 March from the Foreign Minister of Iraq authorizing the delegation of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom to negotiate for the Iraqi forces and stating that those forces would be withdrawn.
Q: – What is it people do not understand about “it is agreed”?
Gaza is part of Egypt and the West Bank is part of Jordan:
Egypt and Jordan were already a Sovereign States in 1948. They were both regional powers, with the right and duty under the UN Charter, to protect non-state entities from aggression. Egypt did not annex Gaza or claim it as it’s own. It occupied the territory as per the requirements of the Geneva Conventions, as the Occupying Power, by AGREEMENT with Israel under their respective armistice AGREEMENTS.
The West Bank as it is now officially named, was legally annexed at the request of representatives of the majority of the legitimate citizens of the territory. Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only by demand of the other Arab states (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950) in keeping with the UN Charter Chapt XI
Unlike Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem, there is no UNSC resolution against Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank or against Egypt’s occupation of Gaza.
Q1 : – If it was illegal, why is there no UNSC resolution against the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank?
Q2 : – If it was illegal, why is there no UNSC resolution against Egypt’s occupation of Gaza?
Q3 : – If both the territories are represented by the Arab States, why would there be a resolution against them taking temporary possession under the laws of occupation, as per the UN Charter?
Q4 : – If Jordan and Egypt’s occupations of The West Bank and Gaza were illegal, why did Israel AGREE to them remaining as Occupying Powers in the Armistice AGREEMENTs?
link to this section …. MORE …. Maps from the Jewish National and University Library / Zionism & Israel Information Center.
There was no “p”alestine in 1948:
There was an entity called Palestine from the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It was under the protection of the British Mandate over Palestine. All citizens in Palestine had Palestine marked in their passports and papers. It’s citizens, Jewish, Arab, Christian etc, were all Palestinians. (There was no Israel in Palestine pre-1948. Nor was there ever a state of Israel before 1948. There was once a small Kingdom once, for a brief period in history)
From the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine has been whittled away, but it’s name has not been changed. When TransJordan became a state, what remained under the British Mandate over Palestine, was Palestine. When Israel Declared Sovereignty May 14th 1948, what remained was Palestine. People who live in Palestine are ….Palestinians.
Q1: – Why was the British Mandate over Palestine called the British Mandate over PALESTINE?
Q2: – Why, under the British Mandate over Palestine, did the Palstine’s citizens have PALESTINE stamped on their papers?
Q3: – When was Palestine’s name changed since the fall of the Ottoman Empire?
link to this section
The Arab states have done nothing for the Palestinians:
The Arab States have hosted Palestine and Palestinian refugees for 62 years and 42 years respectively. This has cost billions of dollars and has also come at great cost to their societies. They have fought wars on in order to protect the the territory of Palestine, they have adapted their own legislature to accommodate the Palestinians desire to retain their RoR.
Q: – What do you think it costs to host refuge camps for 62 years?
link to this section
The Arabs states have kept the Palestinians as refugees, but Israel absorbed Jewish refugees:
1) Host countries are NOT responsible for the creation of refugees nor are they responsible for refugees RoR. It is the SOLE responsibility of the country of return, for creating refugees by A) driving them out OR B) by NOT recognizing their right to return.
The same laws and rights apply to Jewish folk.
2) Indeed, Jewish folk left and/or fled the Arab states AFTER Plan Dalet began cleansing in April 1948 and subsequent dispossession by Israel in the War of Independence. Some did go to Israel and were granted citizenship. However many didn’t go to Israel but elsewhere, where they took up citizenship. If a refugee takes up citizenship in a new country, they are no longer a refugee and forgo all RoR and compensation.
Q: – How many Jewish refugees are there today, who are not citizens of either Israel or another country?
… HOME …
link to this section
Right of Return is dependent on a Peace Treaty:
Right of Return is an inalienable INDIVIDUAL right and choice, to be recognized at the earliest opportunity.
Q: – If RoR is an individual right and the Geneva Conventions say at the earliest practicable time after the cessation of hostilities, i.e., a cease fire or armistice, what legal basis is there for Israel’s demand that it be tied to a Peace Agreement?
link to this section
The UN is biased against Israel, it has never passed a resolution against the Palestinians
1) The 223 UNSC resolutions against Israel ask no more than the UN Member uphold it’s obligation to the UN Charter, ratified Conventions and Peace Treaties. The majority of the 223 UNSC resolutions re-iterate prior resolutions. (some of these links on Wiki have been bastardised) Only the US Power of Veto has prevented action being taken and allowed Israel to ignore it’s obligations.
Q: – If a country has not adhered to the law or it’s obligations, is it biased to ask again?
2) The Palestinians cannot be part of the United Nations, because they are not a Nation State. The UN cannot censure (pass a resolution against) Non Members – HERE is why!
Q: – Can a football club censure people who are not in the football club?
link to this section
Arafat stole money from the Palestinians
The final audit for the International Monetary Fund says otherwise:
From the NY Times (SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED)
“In total, the Fund estimates, the amounts diverted from the official budget from 1995 until 2000, when the diversions stopped, may have exceeded $898m. IMF officials say $799m was returned to the PA, with the difference accounted for by investment losses………the bulk of the money diverted from the budget – including all the Swiss bank accounts – was either given back or invested in companies that became part of the PIF, an assertion backed by the IMF”
Since becoming transparent, Palestinian funds have been frozen. Shrewd, yes. Devious, yes. Clever, yes. A thief, no!
Q1: – If you knew your people’s money would be frozen, how would you go about trying to keep it out of the hands of your enemies?
link to this section
Arafat was not even Palestinian
Often cited as though it somehow de-legitimizes him and/or the Palestinians
Q1: – By the same criteria does this mean Golda Meir wasn’t an Israeli?
Q2: – A great many of Israel’s leaders were not born in Israel, does this mean they were not Israeli?
… HOME …
EXAMPLE on Cif. By one PetraMB 13 Oct 09, 3:24pm
link to this section
If part of Israel is “built on stolen land”. It is also true of US, Canada, Australia, and of course for countries consisting of territories conquered by military campaigns, such as e.g. Saudi Arabia:
Because of what the early colonizers did we now have laws forbidding such behaviour.
A) They are not retrospective laws.
B) These countries are no longer colonizing.
C) Parts of Mexico were legally annexed to the USA. The UK legally annexed the Falklands.
D) Australia is no longer dispossessing the Aboriginals, it is addressing land rights issues. The Australian Aboriginals have not asked us to leave. The Canadians have addressed their native rights issues.
E) Israel is still colonizing via illegal settlements, it has never legally annexed any territory and is still in breach of the law.
First, find out what isn't true... 
The entire text provided for you was to prove, without doubt, that you were incorrect in stating that customary international law is binding without exception. The fact of the matter is that there is a major exception, that of the persistent objector. Your cited information regarding the Lotus case is a non-sequitor as are all aspects of the case. The only relevant thing from the Lotus Case for this discussion is the recognition of the court of the fact that customary law is based upon consent, not coercion or “democratic rule.” That a majority of states may accept something as customary does not strip a state the right to opt out of the custom by being a persistent objector. The idea of persistent objection is referenced with respect to the Fisheries Case.
In summary: Obeying customary international law is binding upon a state unless it persistently objects to the custom. If a state is a persistent objector, than the custom to which it objects is not applicable.
Israel is a Member of the UN. Israel is bound, as are all UN Member states, to the UN Charter in it’s entirety. Israel didn’t know? SHEEEEEEESHKA Best re-write the Declaration for the establishment of the State of Israel.
You’re correct. However, nowhere in the UN Charter does it say “member states shall refrain from acquiring territory by force.”
In fact, there is no convention that Israel is party to that prohibits it from acquiring territory that is terra nullius in the midst of a war. If this is a matter of customary international law, one would have to demonstrate sufficient state practice and opinio juris in 1967 in addition to demonstrating that Israel failed to be a persistent objector to this custom.
Comment by Anthony — December 12, 2010 @ 9:42 pm
The entire text provided for you was to prove, without doubt, that you were incorrect in stating that customary international law is binding without exception.”
Not what was said. QUOTE ME..then try to make your point. If you start with straw, you end up with straw.
“The only relevant thing from the Lotus Case for this discussion is the recognition of the court of the fact that customary law is based upon consent, not coercion or “democratic rule.” “
‘democratic rule’ ? Who are you quoting? You’re twisting. QUOTE me VERBATIM.
“That a majority of states may accept something as customary does not strip a state the right to opt out of the custom by being a persistent objector. The idea of persistent objection is referenced with respect to the Fisheries Case.”
Quite. However, Israel has not chosen to opt out of the UN/UN Charter.
“You’re correct. However, nowhere in the UN Charter does it say “member states shall refrain from acquiring territory by force.”
Indeed, very correct! Get your guide dog some better spectacles then have it read you the UN Charter .. Article 2 (4).
Meanwhile, UNSC Resolutions reflect the Charter ..” it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war/force” Do you think they include this in UNSC Resolutions just for fun?
“In fact, there is no convention that Israel is party to that prohibits it from acquiring territory that is terra nullius in the midst of a war.”
Jews were killing themselves in 1920, amazing. Ever considered writing for comic books. There’s a big market for fantasy
” If this is a matter of customary international law, one would have to demonstrate sufficient state practice and opinio juris in 1967 in addition to demonstrating that Israel failed to be a persistent objector to this custom.”
Israel is still a UN Member. Obliged to adhere to the Charter IN IT’S ENTIRETY.
Comment by talknic — December 13, 2010 @ 5:52 am
“Alas there were Jewish forces outside of Israel’s newly declared boundaries. This gave the Arabs States just cause to invade Palestine in order to protect the non-state entity.”
First, Israel did not define a border when it declared itself a state de facto. That is why “final status” is an issue.
Second, when has religious bigotry ever been “just cause” for invasion? Did any “Jew” have the right to exist beyond the imaginary line you think the de facto state of Israel possessed? In other words, did any Jew, legal immigrant or natural born, have a right to live outside this undefined border you think Israel had?
Third, what part of Mandatory Palestine was off limits to Jewish immigration and settlement? If an individual Jew, legally immigrated, or the heir to a Jewish property handed down from generations, suddenly found himself outside of Israeli control on the day of May 15th did he have a right to defend himself from being brutalized by an Arab lynch mob by taking up arms and even banding together to form a militia for self defense?
Comment by ML Ames — December 12, 2010 @ 4:30 pm
“First, Israel did not define a border when it declared itself a state de facto
A) ‘Declared itself a state de facto’?
How strange…The ‘State’ of Israel was recognized de jure. The ‘Provisional Government’ was recognized de facto. See the US recognition
B) In order for the extent of an entity’s sovereignty be recognized, it must be defined.
“Second, when has religious bigotry ever been “just cause” for invasion?
Never.
The Arab States invaded the non-state entity of Palestine on legal grounds as outlined in the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine, which was accepted by the UNSC. There is no condemnation by the UNSC for the Arab States invading Israel in 1948. Israel had just been declared independent of Palestine. The other Regional Powers had a right, under the UN Charter, to attempt to expel unwanted foreign forces from a non-state entity.
They also had the right to either inter or expel folk who might have an alliance with their enemy. Happens a lot in wars. The US, UK, Australia interred and deported Germans and Japanese in ww2.
BTW Israeli Law (1948 law of entry, till current) forbade Israeli citizens and residents from entering the territory of a hostile entity from Israel. Gaza and the West Bank and the Arab States were hostile entities. Israel forbade Jewish folk who fled to Israel from returning.
” Did any “Jew” have the right to exist beyond the imaginary line you think the de facto state of Israel possessed?”
LOL Start with straw, continue with straw…
” In other words, did any Jew, legal immigrant or natural born, have a right to live outside this undefined border you think Israel had?”
LOL flog that limp straw …
A) Israel defined the extent of it’s sovereignty by accepting UNGA Res 181 without reservation.
B) Israelis, whether Jewish or non-Jewish, do not have the right to settle in territories illegally ‘acquired’ by war or in “territories occupied” and never un-occupied.
“Third, what part of Mandatory Palestine was off limits to Jewish immigration and settlement? “
None under the Mandate. However the Mandate ended, 14th May 1948. Israel was Declared independent of Palestine. Just one more in a long list of missed opportunities to live in all of Palestine
If an individual Jew, legally immigrated, or the heir to a Jewish property handed down from generations, suddenly found himself outside of Israeli control on the day of May 15th did he have a right to defend himself from being brutalized by an Arab lynch mob by taking up arms and even banding together to form a militia for self defense?”
Indeed. They would then become a military target ( a belligerent). Same rules applied to the non-Jews in Israel and in Palestine who were being dispossessed under Plan Dalet, before, during and after Israeli Declaration.
Plan Dalet however, was not comprised of such folk. What was a civil war before declaration, became a war waged by a state (Israel) on a non-state entity at “..one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time”
BTW What actual sovereign Israeli territory was attacked by the Arab States May 15th 1948?
Comment by talknic — December 12, 2010 @ 8:37 pm
You just stated that Jews outside of the borders, that the invading Arab armies did not recognize in any case, gave “just cause” for an Arab invasion. Then you cite a racist (I counted over 30 mentions of the Arab race before giving up) document, that does not mention Israel even once, to rubber stamp Jew murder (1% of the population of Jews).
Jew hating bigotry and Arab racism. Just when you think the depravity of Arab propagandists can sink no lower, you say that the UN allows expulsions and mass detentions. Ethnic cleansing. Congratualtions you and Hitler share common ideas. I hardly think dependence on oil and fear of Arab violence is “acceptance” at Geneva. In fact, along with condemnations from the free world, UN Secretary-General Trygve Lie characterized the invasion as “the first armed aggression which the world had seen since the end of the War.” He was referring to WWII. Some acceptance.
You did not answer my questions about lawful Jewish residents under attack by racist Arabs. Did any Jews have the right to live outside of the borders you pretend were declared? Jews have lived all over the region for centuries. Thousands more immigrated legally assuming Britain would fullfill its responsiblity to assist in close settlement of the land, anywhere inside of Mandatory Palestine. Are these legal immigrants the foreign forces you think the Arabs had the right to expel? Or will you now detail a list of forces that were not Jewish that you were referring to?
I didn’t ask you about Israelis. I asked you about Jews. Jews who had either lived in the region one generation after another or who were there as legal immigrants with no exclusions on where they could purchase land and live. Did they have any right to self defense in your twisted world? From the lengths of sohpistry you go to to jusitfy Arab atrocity I doubt it.
The Mandate ended at 1 minute after midnight. In other words it ended on the 15th. On the 14th it was fully in force and nothing written by a non-state Council carries any force of law on the state that was recognized on the 15th.
You ask what sovereign territory was attacked on the 15th? First, who cares? The Arabs that invaded didn’t recognize any sovereign territory. Both the Egyptians and the Syrians advanced beyond UNGA 181 suggested borders for what it is worth. Tel Aviv was bombed by Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Avivan on the night of the 14th. The bombing can be heard in a radio announcement. Israeli Air Force pilot Modi Alon shot down two Egyptian planes over Tel Aviv on June 3. Does that count as Israeli sovereign territory even in your twisted mind? The Egyptians also pushed up the coastal road towards Ashdod with an armored colum of 500 vehicles before it was routed by an inferior Jewish force. Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum. What were they doing in an international zone? Jews lived in Jerusalem by the thousands and had a right to defend themselves from an armed aggression, but what were Jordanians doing there? Killing Jews of course. Oh and ethnicaly cleansing them from the Old City where they had resided in an unbroken chain of property ownership for centuries before the first Muslim stepped foot in the city.
Comment by ML Ames — December 13, 2010 @ 3:57 am
You just stated that Jews outside of the borders, that the invading Arab armies did not recognize in any case, gave “just cause” for an Arab invasion….
Er no that is NOT what I stated. QUOTE ME. Don’t LIE. Liars only show themselves to be untrustworthy.
Never the less
it was an invasion of the non-state entity of Palestine actually. It was not condemned by the UNSC. It is customary for the UNSC to condemn UN Member states for breaches of the law. See UNSC Resolution 660 on the invasion of Kuwait for an example.
“Then you cite a racist (I counted over 30 mentions of the Arab race before giving up) document, that does not mention Israel even once….”
Why would it? It was an invasion of the non-state entity of Palestine, not Israel.
“…to rubber stamp Jew murder “
False accusations become you…. cute.
“(1% of the population of Jews)”
People, even Jewish folk, die in preemptive wars started by the preemptor. Especially if they chose to become belligerents. They do have a right to flee AND return if they maintain their refugee status by NOT accepting citizenship in a country other than that of return.
“Jew hating bigotry and Arab racism. “
Strange they offered democracy, equal rights and freedom of religion. You did actually read the Dedlaration on the Invasion of Palestine? No? It almost mirrors the Balfour Declaration
“Just when you think the depravity of Arab propagandists can sink no lower, you say that the UN allows expulsions and mass detentions.”
Indeed, in war, it does. Read the Laws of War, the GC’s. BTW Israel is permitted mass expulsions and detention but others are not?
“Ethnic cleansing.”
War and expulsion actually.
” Congratualtions you and Hitler share common ideas.”
Straw — Hitler dissed the law, I advocate adhering to it. Israel keeps breaking the law and you support it. So who is more like Hitler?
“I hardly think dependence on oil and fear of Arab violence is “acceptance” at Geneva.”
Me either. Pointless point if ever there was one. UNSC Resolutions are based in Law. The UNSC is not dominated by the Arab States. (nor is UNGA BTW)
” In fact, along with condemnations from the free world. UN Secretary-General Trygve Lie characterized the invasion as “the first armed aggression which the world had seen since the end of the War.” He was referring to WWII. Some acceptance.”
The UN Secretary-General is not the UNSC. There is no condemnation from the UNSC.
“You did not answer my questions about lawful Jewish residents under attack by racist Arabs. Did any Jews have the right to live outside of the borders you pretend were declared?”
Strange, you can read my answer…
‘pretend were declared’
Again you play with straw.. If there was no extent to the sovereignty being declared how could the extent of Israeli Sovereignty be recognized?
“Jews have lived all over the region for centuries.”
So have far more other folk. Ironically the Jews who DID live in the region for centuries, lived as PALESTINIAN Jews for far longer than the Kingdom even existed.
“Thousands more immigrated legally assuming Britain would fullfill its responsiblity to assist in close settlement of the land, anywhere inside of Mandatory Palestine. Are these legal immigrants the foreign forces you think the Arabs had the right to expel?”
Read what is written. It is in English. You do understand the word ‘forces’ yes?
“I didn’t ask you about Israelis. I asked you about Jews. Jews who had either lived in the region one generation after another or who were there as legal immigrants with no exclusions on where they could purchase land and live. Did they have any right to self defense in your twisted world? “
Uh ? What is it about “yes” that you do not understand? Or are you purposefully twisting?
“The Mandate ended at 1 minute after midnight. In other words it ended on the 15th. On the 14th it was fully in force and nothing written by a non-state Council carries any force of law on the state that was recognized on the 15th.”
Uh huh. So the Declaration for the Establishment of the state of Israel is worthless… AMAZING!! I wonder why they said it would come into effect at //”one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time”// ? Any clues?
“You ask what sovereign territory was attacked on the 15th? First, who cares? ”
The law does. Had they attacked Sovereign Israeli territory, there’d be UNSC condemnation.
“Both the Egyptians and the Syrians advanced beyond UNGA 181 suggested borders for what it is worth”
They advance through Israeli territory TO the suggested borders.
“Tel Aviv was bombed by Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed..”
Israeli military in Tel Aviv in the moments after declaration.
” Israeli Air Force pilot Modi Alon shot down two Egyptian planes over Tel Aviv on June 3.”
By June the Israeli preemptive war and the subsequent Arab defense of the territories of the non-state entity of Palestine was under way. Once a war has started, attacks on military within each others boundaries is permitted. Alas, even if there are civilians in the vicinity.
“The Egyptians also pushed up the coastal road towards Ashdod”
Isudud actually. Ashdod was not established until 1956. It sits in a different position to Isdud. Isdud was not within the extent of Israel’s declared sovereignty. Israeli Ashdod of today straddles the declared border of Israel and territories ‘acquired’ by war and never legally annexed to Israel
“:Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum. What were they doing in an international zone?”
Corpus separatum had not been instituted. The status of Jerusalem has not legally changed for centuries. What were Jewish forces doing outside of Israel?
“Jews lived in Jerusalem by the thousands and had a right to defend themselves from an armed aggression,
Indeed. They could flee, as many did or fight, becoming belligerents. Belligerents are a legitimate target, very likely to get harmed.
Comment by talknic — December 13, 2010 @ 5:49 am
I did quote you schizo. I quoted you saying that on the 12th. Here it is again Dr Jeckyl. “Alas there were Jewish forces outside of Israel’s newly declared boundaries. This gave the Arabs States just cause to invade Palestine in order to protect the non-state entity.”
“Liars only show themselves to be untrustworthy.” I suggest you stop lying then if you value your honor and other’s trust.
An invasion is aggression whether it is directed at another state or directed at just Jewish people. Religious bigotry. That is why the Secretary General condemned it. It is customary that attacks on Israel and on Jewish people are ignored by the UN. Nothing new. If it was an invasion of the non-state entity of Palestine, why were only Jews the targets?
There is no such thing as a right of return for the Arabs that chose war over living amongst Jews. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was penned after the so called refugees were formed.
There is no such thing as a Palestinian Jew. The region was not called Palestine until a Brit revived that name for political reasons only. The Ottomans divided it into Sanjuks, none of which were called the Sanjuk of Palestine.
All declarations of independence are worthless. None create binding law. Of course you will be proving me wrong when you return, right?
“I wonder why they said it would come into effect at //”one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time”// ? Any clues?”
The letter was written while the Mandate was in force, because it speaks of an event that will transpire in the future. That is your first clue that it is not binding on the state of Israel, since Israel had not yet even formed when it was written and delivered. And this may be a big shock to you, given your flat earth beliefs, but the world is round! And it rotates! When it is 6PM in Washington DC on the 14th, it is already Midnight in Tel Aviv on the 15th! When you look that up yourself, don’t forget that daylight savings time was not implimented in Israel yet, but in America the time “springs forward” in spring, then “falls back” in the fall by one hour. Seven time zones minus the day light savings time puts the state of Israel forming one minute after the Mandate expired. You really should stop confusing yourself by citing 6PM Washington time, your sophistry suffers so when you do that.
“Had they attacked Sovereign Israeli territory, there’d be UNSC condemnation.”
Are you sure? Israel is attacked almost daily on average yet there are no emergency sessions at the UN except in the case that the Jews fight back.
When I pointed out that the Syrians and the Egyptians invaded beyond the UNGA 181 suggested borders you pulled this turd directly out of your ass. “They advance through Israeli territory TO the suggested borders.” This lunacy after you cited an Arab declaration that proves beyond a doubt that the Arabs did not recognize any borders or even a state called Israel! What was that about lying you were lecturing me on? Put up the proof that the Arabs were only travelling to the suggested borders. Did they have to bomb and shell civiian neighborhoods in Tel Aviv on their way there?
Preemptive war? Defense of the non-state entity of Palestine? Your imagination has no boundaries in defending aggression against Jews.
“What were Jewish forces doing outside of Israel?” They weren’t and you havn’t proven that they were, despite your sophistry. They were, however, in Jerusalem, the largest gathering of Jewish civilians and recent Holocaust survors in the world, well, outside of a British concentration camp maybe, defending their wives and children from genocide.
Not that you care about Jewish civilians. “They could flee, as many did or fight, becoming belligerents. Belligerents are a legitimate target, very likely to get harmed.” Just to be clear, when the Arab League shelled heavily populated Jewish neighborhoods for no valid military reason the residents had two choices run or fight, and if they chose to fight they became valid targets. That makes sense in light of the rest of the drivel I have read here.
Comment by ML Ames — December 14, 2010 @ 12:41 am
“I did quote you schizo…..I quoted you saying that on the 12th.””.
Ah, you’ve started the name calling.. what kept you?
” Here it is again Dr Jeckyl” // “Alas there were Jewish forces outside of Israel’s newly declared boundaries. This gave the Arabs States just cause to invade Palestine in order to protect the non-state entity.//
‘again’ ? A stupid lie. This is what you wrote “You just stated that Jews outside of the borders, that the invading Arab armies did not recognize in any case, gave “just cause” for an Arab invasion….”
//“Liars only show themselves to be untrustworthy.”// I suggest you stop lying then if you value your honor and other’s trust.
See the previous point..
“An invasion is aggression whether it is directed at another state or directed at just Jewish people.”
…or at a non state entity or at the PALESTINIAN people. As for the Invasion of Palestine by the Arab States, where is the UNSC condemnation?
“That is why the Secretary General condemned it.”
He is not the UNSC. He said quite a few things…Only what was said during his period in office have any legal relevance.(he contradicts himself in 1954)
In office “The Egyptian Government has declared in a cablegram to the President of the Security Council on 15 May that Egyptian armed forces have entered Palestine and that it has engaged in “armed intervention” in that country. “
‘armed intervention’ Not ‘aggression’. And Israel had been declared independent of Palestine. Had the Arab states attacked Israel, why is he saying Palestine???
He goes on ..“I consider it my duty, however, to emphasise to you that this is the first time since the adoption of the Charter that Member States have openly declared that they have engaged in armed intervention outside their own territory”
Again “Armed intervention” Not ‘aggression’.
—
The Arab Declaration was, to the best of my knowledge, the last time any UN Member state legally declared war per the UN Charter, Chapters XI and Chapter VII Article 51 “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
On the 15th Israeli forces outside of Israel’s newly declared sovereignty were in the ward of the Arab States who represented the non-state entity of Palestine at the time.
The Charter goes on ” Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
There is no UNSC resolution condemning the Arab States actions because they complied with the UN Charter. The UNSC saw no reason ” to take at any time such action as it deems necessary”.
—
Back to the Secretary General (whilst in office) and his alleged condemnation of the Arab States for allegedly attacking Israel.
“this armed intervention has taken place in a territory which has been the special concern of the United Nations.”
AGAIN “Armed intervention” Not “aggression”. There is no mention of Arab ‘aggression’ until after he left office.
And can you see the word ‘state’ or ‘Israel’ anywhere? No. He says ‘territory’. Jerusalem, which, as the corpus separatum had not been instituted, was still a part of the non-state entity of Palestine. It’s status has not legally changed to this day. It was not Israeli in 1948 (nor is it today)
He was actually asking countries to prompt the UNSC into taking action per the UN Charter Chapter VII Article 51. “…until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security”. They obviously didn’t deem it necessary.
The letter does NOT condemn the Arab States for aggression against Israel. It pleads with the countries who could have prompted the UNSC into action in respect to hostilities in Jerusalem.
” It is customary that attacks on Israel and on Jewish people are ignored by the UN.”
Bullsh*te A) 1948 Israel was declared independent of Palestine. Palestine is not Israel. Jewish forces were attacking the non-state entity of Palestine even as Israel was being declared B) There are numerous UN condemnations for attacks on Jewish folk. (e.g, try the Goldstone report)
” If it was an invasion of the non-state entity of Palestine, why were only Jews the targets?”
Israeli forces were Jewish, no? Jewish folk taking up arms and becoming belligerents instead of fleeing to the safety of Israel became legitimate targets, as did non-Jews who took up arms against Jewish forces. The laws on belligerents are the same for everyone, Jewish or not.
“There is no such thing as a right of return for the Arabs that chose war over living amongst Jews.”
The preemptor chose war. What was a civil war escalated by Plan Dalet (pre-declaration), became a war waged by a state against a non-state entity at “one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”
Never the less, it is irrelevant though who starts, wins or loses a war. Civilians have a right to flee the violence and return because they are CIVILIANS who might not have voted for or even been able to vote for the regimes in power at the time war was waged. For example, had the Arab States started Israel’s preemptive war, did the Palestinians vote for the leaders of the Arab States? Wars are between belligerents, not civilians. Take up arms instead of fleeing and you are a belligerent.
“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was penned after the so called refugees were formed.”
Constitution of the International Refugee Organization, December 15, 1946
“There is no such thing as a Palestinian Jew. “
Denying the existence of Jewish folk who lived in Palestine from at least the Roman era, is rather Antisemitic.
“The region was not called Palestine until a Brit revived that name for political reasons only”
Maps from the Zionism & Israel Information Center.
“All declarations of independence are worthless. “
Israel exists by virtue of it’s declaration.
“None create binding law. Of course you will be proving me wrong when you return, right?
I have no intention of proving something I didn’t say. E.g., I didn’t say a declaration created binding law. Try reading carefully..
“The letter was written while the Mandate was in force, because it speaks of an event that will transpire in the future.”
The letter was written by the Provisional Government of ISRAEL. Care to explain how the Provisional Government of a state can exist before the state exists? This is YOURS yes? “First comes a declaration by a non-state actor. Then comes a state.”
“And this may be a big shock to you, given your flat earth beliefs, but the world is round! And it rotates! “
Your childish comments, insults and lies have no place in rational discussion. A bit like the Hasbara has no place in rational discussion.
“When it is 6PM in Washington DC on the 14th, it is already Midnight in Tel Aviv on the 15th! “
Ya don’t say.. amazing!!
//“Had they attacked Sovereign Israeli territory, there’d be UNSC condemnation.” // “Are you sure?”
I gave the example..
“When I pointed out that the Syrians and the Egyptians invaded beyond the UNGA 181 suggested borders you pulled this turd directly out of your ass. “They advance through Israeli territory TO the suggested borders.”
Map Once war has begun, belligerents may attack military within each others boundaries. Pays to check the dates to discern between the attack starting a war and attacks that followed.
“Preemptive war?”
Yes.
Defense of the non-state entity of Palestine?”
Yes
” Your imagination has no boundaries in defending aggression against Jews.
The documents are imaginary? This alleged ‘defending aggression against Jews’ care to show it. I am arguing against your distortions and the distortion used to justify the usurping of the Palestinians by successive Israeli Governments..
“What were Jewish forces doing outside of Israel?” They weren’t and you havn’t proven that they were, despite your sophistry. They were, however, in Jerusalem,
.Jewish forces were not outside of Israel but they were outside of Israel? Jerusalem was not Sovereign Israeli territory.
“Not that you care about Jewish civilians.”
Stick to the facts. Unfounded accusations have no place here.
// “They could flee, as many did or fight, becoming belligerents. Belligerents are a legitimate target, very likely to get harmed.” //Just to be clear, when the Arab League shelled heavily populated Jewish neighborhoods for no valid military reason..”
Just to be clear, Jewish forces were attacking OUTSIDE of the extent of Israel’s newly declared sovereignty, even as Israel was being declared. It is a valid military reason based in law and the UN Charter.
“…the residents had two choices run or fight, and if they chose to fight they became valid targets. That makes sense in light of the rest of the drivel”
Laws of War on belligerents actually.
Comment by talknic — December 14, 2010 @ 12:48 am
Your understand of international law reflects that you willfully have a severe dearth of knowledge of the subject. Your comments range from incorrect to outright humorous and ludicrous.
Existing International Law is binding on all Nations recognized by the majority of the International Community of Nations. Democracy at work.
The fact that you would reference democracy with respect to international law, and by proxy international relations, is laughably absurd. I do thank you, however, for giving me the laugh. International law is based on consensus and sovereignty, not democracy. Do you really think that USA would want countries like Senegal and Tuvalu dictating what is and what is not legal for it? Of course not.
The following exerts from Peter Malanczuk’s Akehurt’s Modern Introduction to International Law (7th ed.) Should make the workings of customary international law clear to anyone with a teenage reading comprehension:
“It has already been suggested that the practice followed by a small number of states is sufficient to create a customary rule, if there is no practice which conflicts with the rule. But what if some states oppose the alleged rule? Can the opposition of a single state prevent the creation of a customary rule? If so, there would be very few rules, because state practice differs from state to state on many topics. On the other hand, to allow the majority to create a rule against the wishes of the minority would lead to insuperable difficulties…(46-47) .
In the Lotus case, the Permanent Court of International Justice said: ‘The rules of law binding upon states…emanate from their own free will as expressed in convention or by usage generally accepted as expressing principles of law…(47)’
The International Court of Justice has emphasized that a claimant state which seeks to rely on a customary rule must prove that the rule has become binding in the defendant state . The obvious way of doing this is to show that the defendant state has recognized this rule in its own practice (although recognition for this purpose may amount to no more than failure to protest when other states have applied the rule in cases affecting the defendant’s interests). But it may not possible to find any evidence of the defendant’s attitude towards the rule and so there is a second – more frequently used – way of proving that the rule is binding on the defendant: by showing that the rule is accepted by other states. In these circumstances the rule in question is binding on the defendant state, unless the defendant state can show that it has expressly and consistently rejected the rule since the earliest days of the rule’s existence; dissent expressed after the rule has become well established is too late to prevent the rule binding the dissenting state. Thus in the Fisheries case, the International Court of Justice held that a particular rule was not generally recognized, but added: ‘in any event, the…rule would appear to be inapplicable as against Norway, inasmuch as she has always opposed any attempt to apply it to the Norwegian coast (47-48).”
——————————————————
From an international legal perspective, Israel is what would be referred to as a persistent objector as was Norway in the Fisheries case. Israel has persistently objected to various customs. In order for these customs to be applied to Israel, clear and unequivocal evidence must be provided that at the time of Israel’s statehood such customs existed.
Comment by Anthony — December 12, 2010 @ 4:24 pm
You obviously have a fuller grasp of international law practices than the average person. What do you make of Talknic’s claim that a unilateral declaration is binding on a state? Ie, that Israel’s border was unilaterally decided in its declaration of independence? Is there a mechanism for this?
Comment by ML Ames — December 12, 2010 @ 4:45 pm
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.” Available as PDF from the Truman Library
DETAILED Partition Map.
(dotted blue lines) Overlay for Google Earth – Including the detailed text of the recommended boundaries. The boundaries Israel declared and were acknowledged by the majority of the International Community of nations.
A declaring entity must define the extent of their sovereignty in order that the extent of the sovereign can be recognized.
The Jewish People’s Council accepted UNGA Res 181 without reservation. It is enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel.
There is no article in UNGA Res 181 requiring the parties to co-sign. Each party could declare Independence if they wished. Independence is by nature unilateral. One cannot be forced to declare independence and one entity declaring cannot depend on another also declaring as this would also be against the principles of Independence.
Comment by talknic — December 12, 2010 @ 7:42 pm
I didn’t ask for your opinion, but since you gave it. I am fully aware of the letter and the declaration by the Council. Neither establish a legal border, which leaves me wondering why you insist it does.
A) Show citation that a border can be established by a non-state actor in a unilateral declaration. A sovereign state can do what it wants, including ignoring unilateral declarations made by pre-state provisional Councils.
B) Even assuming you are correct that some border was established, you must also prove how either document is “binding” on Israel today from the stand point that both were written before the state came into existence and both are unilateral declarations.
C) Further, source the claim that, “A declaring entity must define the extent of their sovereignty in order that the extent of the sovereign can be recognized.” There are many nations with border disputes that are recognized de jure despite the issues of de facto control over border areas being unresolved. Or you can cite the rules backing your assumptions?
D) The Peoples Council did not accept the borders of UNGA 181 without reservation. They referenced it to give wieght to their cause for independence and nothing more. It is not even a binding treaty, so if they decided to change their minds do to the circumstances of the conflict they were free to do so without penalty.
Comment by ML Ames — December 13, 2010 @ 1:25 am
“I am fully aware of the letter and the declaration by the Council. Neither establish a legal border, which leaves me wondering why you insist it does.
I wonder why they included //within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947// Just filling up space? Doodling?
A) Show citation that a border can be established by a non-state actor in a unilateral declaration.
Read UNGA Res 181, it outlined the legal process and recommended borders. Israel accepted UNGA Res 181 without reservation.
“A sovereign state can do what it wants….”
Only within the extent of it’s sovereignty. Read the UN Charter.
“… including ignoring unilateral declarations made by pre-state provisional Councils
Perhaps you mean the Jewish People’s Council. Israel’s Provisional Government came after declaration.
The order of things: First comes a state, declared by a non-political body formed to represent all the people of the entity (in Israel’s case every Jewish person on the planet, regardless of where they live/d or where they held/hold citizenship)
After a state is Declared, a State Government can be elected and recognized de jure. A de facto provisional Government over sees the transition.
“B) Even assuming you are correct that some border was established, you must also prove how either document is “binding” on Israel today from the stand point that both were written before the state came into existence and both are unilateral declarations.”
All declarations of independence are unilateral. INDEPENDENCE, look the word up. All declarations of independence are written before they come into effect. Israel’s Declaration came into effect at // “one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time”// Proof? Israel exists as a Sovereign State, no?
“C) Further, source the claim that, “A declaring entity must define the extent of their sovereignty in order that the extent of the sovereign can be recognized.”
How does one recognize the extent of an entity’s sovereignty if it is not defined?
“There are many nations with border disputes that are recognized de jure despite the issues of de facto control over border areas being unresolved.”
They became nations FIRST, border disputes came after. Border disputes are over what is defined by one and/or the other.
“D) The Peoples Council did not accept the borders of UNGA 181 without reservation.”
Point out the reservations in the Declaration.
“It is not even a binding treaty…”
It’s not even a treaty. Treaties are between parties. It’s a Declaration of Sovereign Independence. A declaration of independence is by it’s very nature unilateral, binding on the entity declaring BY THE WORDS IN THE DECLARATION and binding on the International Community of States, who must have 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
“…so if they decided to change their minds do to the circumstances of the conflict they were free to do so without penalty”
Uh? It isn’t a treaty, it’s a unilateral Declaration of Independence. Never the less, you claim Israel can go back on it’s word, but Iraq couldn’t? AMAZING…
Comment by talknic — December 13, 2010 @ 2:59 am
They included the words “within frontiers” because the US State department told Epstein what to include. Doesn’t mean it is binding on Israel or prove that Israel accepted “borders”, frontiers are not borders. If they had meant to say borders that is what would have been written along with an offical survey of the land. I am still waiting for you to show where unilateral declarations are binding anyway. The challenge is for you to source that. You made a positive statement, now prove it, or remove it. Hint: UNGA 181 is not a source of law, nor is it acceptable proof that a unilateral declaration is binding in any way shape or form on a state.
I said that a sovereign state can do what it wants. You responded incorrectly, “Only within the extent of it’s sovereignty. Read the UN Charter.” A sovereign state can do what it wants on terra nullius, check your sources. When the British Mandate expired the land became free for the taking, unilateral declarations or not.
Let me amend your order of things. First comes a declaration by a non-state actor. Then comes a state. Then comes binding legislation through various acts of governance. The rest of the world has a choice to recognize or not at any point after the state is created.
All declarations of independence are unilateral? No kidding, nothing gets by you, I see. That is not what I asked for proof of, though. I asked you to provide a legal source proving your claim that Israel is “bound” by anything that was written before the state came into existence, such as declaring a frontier on terra nullius.
I also asked you to source the claim that, “A declaring entity must define the extent of their sovereignty in order that the extent of the sovereign can be recognized. You responded with a question instead of a body of law to prove your claim. “How does one recognize the extent of an entity’s sovereignty if it is not defined?” By recognizing the new state de facto on land it actually controls or de jure on land it should have. That choice is up to each state. Who cares though? The question is whether a unilateral border declaration in a declaration of independence is binding as you claim or not, not how a state recognizes another. You were lecturing about straw?
Where does Israel have reservations about UNGA 181? Here are the relevant portions of the declaration: “On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.”
Nothing about borders, just recogonition that the UN agreed that Jews have a right to establish a Jewish state.
“ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE’S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.”
A Jewish state was declared in Eretz Israel, all, none, or some of it. No borders declared.
“THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.”
Just stating that they are prepared to implement UNGA 181, not that they are bound to the borders no matter what. Not enshrined, not bound in any way, borders not declared.
“A declaration of independence is by it’s very nature unilateral, binding on the entity declaring”
Well, then you can prove this, no doubt. Put it up or take it down. It really is that simple.
Comment by ML Ames — December 13, 2010 @ 8:37 pm
” They included the words “within frontiers” because the US State department told Epstein what to include.”
Why would he tell them that? Maybe because that is what is required in order that folk know the extent of what is being declared as sovereign to the declaring party in order to be able to recognize the new independent sovereign.
“Doesn’t mean it is binding on Israel or prove that Israel accepted “borders”, frontiers are not borders.”
“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,”
“If they had meant to say borders that is what would have been written along with an offical survey of the land.”
Borders / Boundaries – Synonyms 1. Boundary, border, frontier share the sense of that which divides one entity or political unit from another.
C) They DID include an official and very detailed survey and recommendations. “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947”
” I am still waiting for you to show where unilateral declarations are binding anyway.”
Try Israel’s Declaration stating that ” it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations”
” Hint: UNGA 181 is not a source of law, nor is it acceptable proof that a unilateral declaration is binding in any way shape or form on a state.”
Like many UNGA resolutions, it cites the Law (all law is binding), the UN Charter, (” .. it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”)
“I said that a sovereign state can do what it wants. You responded incorrectly, “Only within the extent of it’s sovereignty. Read the UN Charter.” A sovereign state can do what it wants on terra nullius, check your sources.”
What terra nullius ? “WE APPEAL – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.”
“When the British Mandate expired the land became free for the taking, unilateral declarations or not.”
UN Charter Chapter XI
“Let me amend your order of things. First comes a declaration by a non-state actor. Then comes a state. Then comes binding legislation through various acts of governance.”
I thought you were going to amend what I said?
” The rest of the world has a choice to recognize or not at any point after the state is created.”
Still no amendment….
“All declarations of independence are unilateral? No kidding, nothing gets by you, I see. That is not what I asked for proof of, though. I asked you to provide a legal source proving your claim that Israel is “bound” by anything that was written before the state came into existence, such as declaring a frontier on terra nullius.”
Save your terra nullius twaddle for Hasbara classes. It doesn’t wash in the real world. The UN Charter was written before the state came into existence. (” .. it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”)
//“How does one recognize the extent of an entity’s sovereignty if it is not defined?”////
….. By recognizing the new state de facto on land it actually controls or de jure on land it should have.
The ‘state’ of Israel was recognized de jure based on the information supplied by the Provisional Israeli Government. The Provisional Government was recognized de facto. Read the US recognition.
“That choice is up to each state. Who cares though?”
The law.
“The question is whether a unilateral border declaration in a declaration of independence is binding as you claim or not”
The UNSC bases it’s resolutions on it.
“Where does Israel have reservations about UNGA 181? Here are the relevant portions of the declaration: “On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.”
Er the reservations….you forgot them..
“Nothing about borders, just recogonition that the UN agreed that Jews have a right to establish a Jewish state.”
Israel accepted UNGS Res 181 without reservations and enshrined it in the Declaration.
“…..Just stating that they are prepared to implement UNGA 181, not that they are bound to the borders no matter what. Not enshrined, not bound in any way, borders not declared.”
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.”
“A declaration of independence is by it’s very nature unilateral, binding on the entity declaring”
Well, then you can prove this, no doubt. Put it up or take it down. It really is that simple.
What was said in full “A declaration of independence is by it’s very nature unilateral, binding on the entity declaring BY THE WORDS IN THE DECLARATION ”
Try Israel’s Declaration stating that ” it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations”
Comment by talknic — December 13, 2010 @ 9:09 pm
“Why would he tell them that? Maybe because that is what is required in order that folk know the extent of what is being declared as sovereign to the declaring party in order to be able to recognize the new independent sovereign.”
You will have no problem citing a source of law then to prove your claim that a fixed border is a requirement for a state to be recognized? Are there any exceptions?
I am asking for a source of law, not straw.
I said: “If they had meant to say borders that is what would have been written along with an offical survey of the land.”
“Borders / Boundaries – Synonyms 1. Boundary, border, frontier share the sense of that which divides one entity or political unit from another.”
That is a straw man again. A border is generally considered a legal boundary. A frontier is generally considered the edge of civilization, which makes perfect sense in the case of Epstein since the Arabs were attacking Jews everywhere and the final disposition of civilized Israel was in question. No proof of a border here.
“They DID include an official and very detailed survey and recommendations.”
Actually the survey was never completed, so the so called borders you refer to are not even finalized themselves. No proof of a border, let alone proof that a state is bound to anything said by anyone before the state was created. Still waiting for that proof or you to take down the fallacy you put up.
I said: ” I am still waiting for you to show where unilateral declarations are binding anyway.”
“Try Israel’s Declaration stating that ” it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations””
It has been faithful to the Charter, but the UN has not been faithful to Israel. Once Israel is allowed to sit on the Security Council just like all the other states, maybe Israel might feel compelled to humor more of what that useless organization says and does. Besides that, you just erected another straw man. I asked you to show by QUOTING A RELEVANT BODY OF LAW that a unilateral declaration is binding on a state. Epic failure on your part so far. Bury me in straw though, most of the web site you are lord of is built on it.
“Like many UNGA resolutions, it cites the Law (all law is binding), the UN Charter, (” .. it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”)”
Chapter VI resolutions are not binding in law. They are suggestions and opinions. I suggest you learn and understand that. All law is not binding either. What a bunch of rubbish.
What terra nullius ? “WE APPEAL – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.”
Is it Israel or not? You are confused, straw boy.
“When the British Mandate expired the land became free for the taking, unilateral declarations or not.”
UN Charter Chapter XI
Nothing in Chapter XI gives the Arab states the right of armed aggression, Jew murder, or to be beyond their borders with a military force shelling civilian neighborhoods, and ethnically cleansing Jews from their homes, let alone annexing land beyond their borders. Point to the sovereign who’s land Israel is occupying. Can’t do it? Must be terra nullius.
“All declarations of independence are unilateral? No kidding, nothing gets by you, I see. That is not what I asked for proof of, though. I asked you to provide a legal source proving your claim that Israel is “bound” by anything that was written before the state came into existence, such as declaring a frontier on terra nullius.”
Save your terra nullius twaddle for Hasbara classes. It doesn’t wash in the real world. The UN Charter was written before the state came into existence. (” .. it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”)
Save your own twaddle for Arabs desperate for propaganda to give them the legitimacy they do not have or deserve, in the real world it does not wash. You are alone in your ignorant musings. No legal scholar concerned about his reputation would support any of this complete horseshit. I have asked you to source your assertion that Israel is bound by declarations made before the state was formed and that unilateral declarations are binding in any way. You can’t support your ignorant twaddle, because you fabricated this straw man and have no integrity. All you can do is threaten to ban people and erase what others write. BACK YOUR ASSERTION up with A RELEVANT SOURCE OF LAW. You can’t do it, because none exist. Israel’s legal borders are not those suggested in UNGA 181 and there is no source of law in existence that supports the myth that it is. If so, you would have posted it long ago instead of one tedious repetition that Israel must follow the UN rules after another. THAT IS NOT A SOURCE OF LAW and Israel has not violated the UN Charter, nor would it prove that Israel’s legal border is the UNGA 181 border suggestions even if it had. Put the proof up or take down the LIE.
“The ‘state’ of Israel was recognized de jure based on the information supplied by the Provisional Israeli Government. The Provisional Government was recognized de facto. Read the US recognition.”
The state of Israel was recognized de facto by the US only. This recognition and the de jure recognition that followed after elections is completely independent of final border status. Many states have border issues. Israel is not unique.
I said: “The question is whether a unilateral border declaration in a declaration of independence is binding as you claim or not”
“The UNSC bases it’s resolutions on it.”
I could care less what the UNSC bases its ignorant resolutions on. That is more straw, you are buried in the stuff. Talknic, the propagandist has made a claim…talknic the know it all has claimed that he will take down anything that is proven wrong, talknic should show some integrity to match his completely undeserved arrogance and prove that a unilateral border declaration in a declaration of independence is binding as TALKNIC CLAIMS.
I said: “Where does Israel have reservations about UNGA 181? Here are the relevant portions of the declaration: “On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.”
Er the reservations….you forgot them..”
ER no, you fail to comprehend them.. What I quoted says absolutely nothing about borders, it only mentions that the UN recognized the right of the Jewish people to establish their state. The resolution had already failed, but the fact that the UN had recognized “the right” of Jews to form their own country is all that is relevant.
“Nothing about borders, just recogonition that the UN agreed that Jews have a right to establish a Jewish state.”
Israel accepted UNGS Res 181 without reservations and enshrined it in the Declaration.
That is straw to pad NOTHING of substance. Prove that Israel enshrined 181. Prove it. You are stuffing straw again. You have yet to prove that Israel would be bound by the border suggestions even if the borders had been explicitly laid out in the declaration, THEY WERE NOT. The only thing enshrined is your ignorance in your fallacies and your refusal to prove your claims.
“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.””
More straw. Prove that a letter to a head of state from a representative of a pre-state group is of any relevance, let alone that letters between heads of state are considered treaties. Put it up if you have it. Stop running from the questions.
I quoted you saying: “A declaration of independence is by it’s very nature unilateral, binding on the entity declaring”
I said: Well, then you can prove this, no doubt. Put it up or take it down. It really is that simple.
“What was said in full “A declaration of independence is by it’s very nature unilateral, binding on the entity declaring BY THE WORDS IN THE DECLARATION ””
Put up the proof that a state is bound by THE WORDS IN A DECLARATION then, PROVE IT BY CITING A RELEVANT SOURCE OF LAW instead of running around in circles between the letter, the declaration, and Israel’s commitment to the UN. I am not asking for any of that. I know all of that and DO NOT CARE to hear you repeat it. What I need to be educated on is where the rule is codified to support talknic’s assertion that a UNILATERAL DECLARATION is binding…EVER! Either Israel is bound by a UNILATERAL DECLARATION or not? If a state is bound by a UNILATERAL DECLARATION you will show evidence of how that works. Put it up or take it down.
Comment by ML Ames — December 22, 2010 @ 2:44 am
“You will have no problem citing a source of law then to prove your claim that a fixed border is a requirement for a state to be recognized? Are there any exceptions?”
Problem….I have not claimed ” a fixed border is a requirement for a state to be recognized” I have no no intention of proving something I didn’t say. Quote me verbatim… complete sentences please
“I am asking for a source of law, not straw.”
I understand. You have enough straw of your own
Never the less evidence supporting what I DID say ….The JCPA ok?
“A border is generally considered a legal boundary. A frontier is generally considered the edge of civilization…..”
The frontier of a state is defined by boundaries. UNGA Res 181 “The eastern frontier of the Jewish State follows the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.”
“Actually the survey was never completed, so the so called borders you refer to are not even finalized themselves.”
Irrelevant. Israel informed the International Community of States of the extent of it’s declared boundaries BEFORE the Commission was disbanded. On May 22 1948, (BEFORE the Commission was disbanded) Israel confirmed the extent of it’s sovereignty in a letter to the UNSC Note especially the words “The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel”
“It has been faithful to the Charter”
What are the 223 UNSC Resolutions against Israel? Mmmm?
“…but the UN has not been faithful to Israel. Once Israel is allowed to sit on the Security Council just like all the other states, maybe Israel might feel compelled to humor more of what that useless organization says and does.”
Israel accepted the UN Charter in it’s entirety. It is not on the Security Council in accordance with the charter.
“Besides that, you just erected another straw man. I asked you to show by QUOTING A RELEVANT BODY OF LAW that a unilateral declaration is binding on a state.Epic failure on your part so far. Bury me in straw though, most of the web site you are lord of is built on it.”
Uh huh. Do a word search for “A RELEVANT BODY OF LAW” or “relevant body of law” in comments by ML Ames. You didn’t ask me to show by “QUOTING A RELEVANT BODY OF LAW” Unless you’re Michael LeFavour
//“Like many UNGA resolutions, it cites the Law (all law is binding), the UN Charter, (” .. it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”)”//
“Chapter VI resolutions are not binding in law. They are suggestions and opinions. I suggest you learn and understand that. All law is not binding either. What a bunch of rubbish.”
Can you see ‘Chapter V1 resolutions’ in the statement? WOW!!! AMAZING!! Why is it you keep seeing things?
Never the less….The law, the binding resolutions, treaties, the conventions ratified by the parties or party and anything else binding which is affirmed or re-affirmed in UNGA resolutions and/or UNSC resolutions (Chapter VI or VII) are, by their nature, binding.
YOU “When the British Mandate expired the land became free for the taking, unilateral declarations or not.”
Me – UN Charter Chapter XI
YOU again “Nothing in Chapter XI gives the Arab statesn, Jew murder, or to be beyond their borders with a military force shelling civilian neighborhoods, and ethnically cleansing Jews from their homes, let alone annexing land beyond their borders. “
B) Jordan’s annexation as a temporary trustee was in keeping with the UN Charter Chapter XI. It was requested by the Palestinians according to the JCPA.
Which is why there was no UNSC condemnation. Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem was not by consent with the Palestinians, it WAS condemned by the UNSC.
A) You are correct. However I have never claimed Chapt XI did give ‘.. the Arab statesn, Jew murder, or to be beyond their borders with a military force shelling civilian neighborhoods, and ethnically cleansing Jews from their homes, let alone annexing land beyond their borders.’
I gather though, that you consider Israel is the only country in the UN not obliged to the Chapter….and it somehow gives Israel the right of armed aggression, to be beyond their borders with a military force.. ethnically cleansing non-Jews from their homes and annexing land beyond it’s borders, illegally settling and illegally instituting Israeli civilian law in “territories occupied”.
“Point to the sovereign who’s land Israel is occupying.”
There doesn’t need to be a sovereign. Israel is occupying the territories of a non-state entity. Read the UN Charter.Chapter XI THEN Read UNSC Res 1860 of 2009. Be sure you do actually read them.
” Can’t do it? Must be terra nullius.”
“Terra nullius is a Latin term that means land belonging to no one or no man’s land. In international law, a territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty is terra nullius. “
Palestine was under the prior Sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire.
“Save your own twaddle for Arabs desperate for propaganda to give them the legitimacy they do not have or deserve, in the real world it does not wash”
I don’t do propaganda…
” No legal scholar concerned about his reputation would support any of this complete horseshit.”
Language please. Stephen M. Schwebel – ex Judge of International Court of Justice is a legal scholar…
“I have asked you to source your assertion that Israel is bound by declarations made before the state was formed and that unilateral declarations are binding in any way….
You ( ML Ames ) have not asked, Michael LeFavour has though…
Silly boy….. you forgot your place…. what a pity.
How odd … Michael LeFavour wasn’t (past tense) banned
Comment by talknic — December 22, 2010 @ 3:57 am
“Your understand of international law reflects that you willfully have a severe dearth of knowledge of the subject. Your comments range from incorrect to outright humorous and ludicrous.
Uh huh. We’ll see.
“International law is based on consensus and sovereignty, not democracy”
Nice try. Your ability to purposefully misconstrue is I guess necessary in order to build a strawman
Not all UN Members are democracies, so as a matter of course, Customary International Law is not ‘based on’ democracy, nor did I say it was. The process of conventions passing into Customary International Law is by consensus, through a majority of states ratifying conventions. Democracy at work.
‘sovereignty’ ? Customary International Law effects non-sovereign states. Non-sovereign states and even entities who’re not UN Members can ratify conventions. When a majority of states ratify a convention, it passes into Customary International Law, whether the states ratifying are sovereign or not.
———
“In the Lotus case, the Permanent Court of International Justice said: ‘The rules of law binding upon states…emanate from their own free will as expressed in convention or by usage generally accepted as expressing principles of law…(47)’
You should have read (page 190) preceding your cut and paste..//the Permanent Court of International Justice held that Lieutenant Demmons could be tried, not only by his own flag state etc etc etc// I.e., the law stands.
“The International Court of Justice has emphasized that a claimant state which seeks to rely on a customary rule must prove that the rule has become binding in the defendant state …..In order for these customs to be applied to Israel, clear and unequivocal evidence must be provided that at the time of Israel’s statehood such customs existed.”
Israel is a Member of the UN. Israel is bound, as are all UN Member states, to the UN Charter in it’s entirety. Israel didn’t know? SHEEEEEEESHKA Best re-write the Declaration for the establishment of the State of Israel.
Israel has ratified the GC’s. Israel didn’t know they were ratifying the Geneva Conventions? AMAZING!!
Whereas ..// Norway always opposed any attempt to apply it to the Norwegian coast //
Comment by talknic — December 12, 2010 @ 6:53 pm
Customary International Law applies to ALL States.
This is going to be like explaining quantum physics to an ant. Put a fork in me. I’m done.
Comment by Anthony — December 10, 2010 @ 1:23 am
“This is going to be like explaining quantum physics to an ant.”
Uh huh….. go ahead…
It seems you can’t back your claims…. What a pity….
I understand. The Hasbara is after all, full of huge holes
Comment by talknic — December 10, 2010 @ 4:37 am
Just as a matter of entertaining myself:
– Are you saying that customary international law is binding upon all states without exception. This is to say that if something is a matter of customary international law, then it cannot be the case that a state can be exempt from such a law.
Just a simple yes or no will do for clarity.
Comment by Anthony — December 12, 2010 @ 12:26 am
Yes. http://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/classes/iflr/customary.html#customary
Now about some support for your previous assertions, why don’t you just entertain yourself by providing some…. …thx…
You can put up? If not, a simple ‘no’ would indicate some intelligence…
Comment by talknic — December 12, 2010 @ 2:29 am
Now, what would you say were I to provide you with a respectable scholarship source, one of the standard international law textbooks to be exact, which makes clear in no uncertain terms that customary international is not binding without exception and more specifically is to be understood in the context of the consensual nature of international law in general?
Comment by Anthony — December 12, 2010 @ 4:07 am
Ah yes, I am to provide a hypothetical answer to something which at this point in time, is a hypothetical “respectable scholarship source”.
AMAZING!!
I don’t think I’ll bother…. You DO have it at hand? Yes? (you are building up quite a backlog)
“….customary international is not binding without exception and more specifically is to be understood in the context of the consensual nature of international law in general?”
A) Read the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel. “…. to receive the State of Israel into the comity of nations
B) Existing International Law is binding on all Nations recognized by the majority of the International Community of Nations. Democracy at work.
C) Israel was recognized according to the UNGA resolution enshrined in the Declaration by the majority of the International Community of Nations over riding the Arab States’ legal objections. More democracy at work. Neat….eh!
D) All law, by the very nature of it being law, is binding. ‘exceptions’ / caveats / reservations are contained IN THE WORD OF THE LAW. They are not contained in opinion.
E) ‘Conventions’ on the other hand, can have reservations stated by the ratifying entity
So you will be citing the actual laws and reservations in Israel’s ratification of conventions, verbatim?
Eventually I guess…..Perhaps after substantiating your former claims… Yes?
Meanwhile, where a convention has been signed and ratified by the majority of the International Community of Nations, it passes into Customary International Law. Existing Customary International Law is not ratified by new states.
Example.. Israel could have reservations in it’s ratification of the Geneva ‘Conventions’. There is no ‘reservation’ for Israel on the Laws of War which had already passed into Customary International Law prior to Israel becoming a state. As of “..one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time” Israel was bound by the UN Charter and Laws of War in their entirety.
Any reservations/exceptions/caveats can only be in Customary International Law formulated AFTER Israel became a state.
Comment by talknic — December 12, 2010 @ 9:36 am
I read every word and nothing in what you linked to implicitly says that all states are bound by customary international law without exception.
Comment by ML Ames — December 12, 2010 @ 5:25 pm
“I read every word and nothing in what you linked to implicitly says that all states are bound by customary international law without exception.” or
Mmmm. Come back when you can find EXACTLY what was said…
Meanwhile Israel’s own statements bind it. Israel’s Declaration says //”..it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations”// and in the Israeli notification of Declaration, asking for recognition, //”…the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law.”//
“A state is the highest legal authority at present regarding its own affairs”
You’re not very exacting. A SOVEREIGN State is the highest legal authority regarding its own affairs within the extent of it’s sovereignty….. However when it acts outside the extent of it’s sovereignty, it is answerable to the UN/UNSC and Regional Powers. You have read the UN Charter? No?
“There is no global state or enforcement mechanism to impose the will of the new world order, therefore no international law can be considered binding at all.
Odd theory… Read the UN Charter, the UNSC Chapters …. Iraq was booted out of Kuwait. Afghanistan was invaded. Indonesia was booted out of East Timor.
” If in the future, Islam creeps into the judiciary of every country except one, would that last free country be bound by arbitration of a Sharia court, for example?”
A Sovereign country’s Laws are it’s own business. State Law is not customary International Law. State judiciary is not the International arena.
” There is no democracy in action in international law”
Customary International Law is formed democratically, by a majority.
“nor should there be in my opinion”
You have a better idea Adolf?
Comment by talknic — December 13, 2010 @ 2:57 am
Come back when I know what was said? Huh?
Anthony asked you this question on the 12th,
“…Are you saying that customary international law is binding upon all states without exception…Just a simple yes or no will do for clarity.”
You responded “yes” and linked to a page of source material. I read every word there and did not see any evidence that supports a yes answer to the question. Clearly there is exception.
If Israel’s own statements “bind” it then you will put up the chapter and article proving that unilateral declarations of indepepndence are binding on a new state? Come back when you can find EXACTLY where that rule is codified in law.
Compliance with UN resolutions is voluntary unless it is under Chapter VII. Israel has never been the subject of a Chapter VII resolution. Prove where so called “regional powers” have any authority over other states. What were the armed forces of 7 nations doing acting outside of their sovereign borders? Oh, murdering Jews.
There is no global state. That is not a theory. Nor is there a global police force to enforce anything on any nation that does not concede its sovereignty. What is binding in that? All compliance is voluntary.
You just said that customary law becomes binding when a majority adopt a practice, Democracy in action, and all that rubbish. So, since slavery is legal in Islam, transporting human beings across international borders against their will would become legal in the example I gave. If things work the way you think they do. Which thankfully, they do not.
Comment by ML Ames — December 13, 2010 @ 7:28 pm
“Come back when I know what was said? Huh?”
Yes. Have you anything? Let’s see
Anthony asked you this question on the 12th,
“…Are you saying that customary international law is binding upon all states without exception…Just a simple yes or no will do for clarity.”
He didn’t quote the full sentence… It is truncated. A STRAW question..
“Clearly there is exception”
If Israel had objected to the UN Charter. It didn’t. It is still a UN Member state, bound by the UN Charter in it’s entirety.
“If Israel’s own statements “bind” it then you will put up the chapter and article proving that unilateral declarations of indepepndence are binding on a new state?”
Why do they make ’em? Israel made the statements per the requirements of UNGA Res 181 on making a declaration IN ORDER TO BE RECOGNIZED. “WE APPEAL to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel into the comity of nations. “
“Compliance with UN resolutions is voluntary unless it is under Chapter VII.”
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter6.shtml point out the word ‘voluntary’…thx
” Israel has never been the subject of a Chapter VII resolution.”
Veto on Chapter VII does not negate the law or the Charter. A veto only prevents action being taken. The laws do not change, the breaches of law still stand. They are often reiterated in UNSC and UNGA Resolutions. Like an unpaid bill. You get a reminder.
“Prove where so called “regional powers” have any authority over other states”
Uh? Quote me.
“What were the armed forces of 7 nations doing acting outside of their sovereign borders? “
Five actually. Acting in accordance with the UN Charter Chapter XI.
“There is no global state. That is not a theory. Nor is there a global police force to enforce anything on any nation that does not concede its sovereignty. What is binding in that? All compliance is voluntary.”
Uh huh. Iraq/Kuwait… Nazi Germany. Japan. All volunteered to behave….. right?
“You just said that customary law becomes binding when a majority adopt a practice, Democracy in action, and all that rubbish. So, since slavery is legal in Islam, transporting human beings across international borders against their will would become legal in the example I gave.”
Slavery is not ‘legal’ in Islam. Slavery is practiced in some predominantly Muslim countries and in non-Muslim countries. Hundreds of thousands of sex slaves are exploited in WESTERN countries. Yet it has not become Customary International Law. Quite the apposite. Observance of the law is anther matter.
“If things work the way you think they do. Which thankfully, they do not.”
Save your straw accusations … they’re quite pathetic. Move on to insults and false accusations
Comment by talknic — December 13, 2010 @ 10:13 pm
Quite. A state is not named until it is declared. There is only ONE country mentioned…PALESTINE.
So then we are in agreement that you are incorrect in making reference to the mandate referring to an Independent State of Palestine. If by country you mean geographical entity, then yes, Palestine was a country as it was a geographical entity
Nothing within the League of Nations Covenant or the Mandate supports your false and distorted interpretation that there was supposed to be a Jewish homeland within an independent state of Palestine rather than what any book or scholarly article on the subject has to say on the matter: that the Jewish homeland was to be an Independent Jewish state.
The fact that you fail to understand that Palestine was a British mandatory territory, or British Mandate, demonstrates an even further lack of understanding of the material on your part. From an international legal perspective, your use of the term “non-state entity of Palestine” is meaningless, pulled out of your ass, and would never be used by anyone with the least bit of academic background in the subject.
The inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war inasmuch as treaties are concerned only applies to the territorial integrity of sovereign states as per the mention of territorial integrity in the UN Charter. Nothing precludes the acquisition of terra nullius via war per the UN Charter. Inasmuch as customary international law might be concerned, Israel would have to demonstrate both opinio juris and state practice, which it has done neither. Therefore, any customary law regarding this matter would be inapplicable to Israel.
With respect to what constitutes a legal annexation of terra nullius, there are two requirements: Effective Control and the extension of domestic law unto the territory. This is basic international law 101.
With respect to the territory that became part of Israel in 1948, the “acquisition” of such territory would fall under the international law regarding emergent states, a prime example in international legal discourse in this day and age is the emergence of Eritrea.
My advice to you is pick up a textbook or two in international law. Brownlie’s book is excellent.
Comment by Anthony — December 9, 2010 @ 8:22 pm
So then we are in agreement that you are incorrect in making reference to the mandate referring to an Independent State of Palestine.”
In your dreams.
Part of the Mandate was to form a state under the tutelage of the British. The state was to be Palestine. Within Palestine was to be a homelenad for Jewish folk. The Jewish folk would be citizens of Palestine.
“If by country you mean geographical entity, then yes, Palestine was a country as it was a geographical entity
Indeed. A non-state entity. For over 2,000 years, longer than any Jewish Kingdom or State. What remains of Palestine after TransJordan (1946) and Israel (1948) declared themselves independent of Palestine, is still called Palestine and is still a non-state entity, albeit somewhat smaller than it used to be. It’s territories are defined by default by the extent of the sovereign boundaries of the States surrounding it.
“Nothing within the League of Nations Covenant or the Mandate supports …”
Read the Mandate and the documents it cites, I gave you them. And a link to the white papers. All say the same. Have your guide dog read to you
“…your false and distorted interpretation…”
A) The actual words of the Laws and documents are not an interpretation.
B) Point out an example of this alleged ‘false and distorted’ Quote me, verbatim.
“.. interpretation that there was supposed to be a Jewish homeland within an independent state of Palestine”
Read the Mandate and the documents it cites, I gave you them. And a link to the white papers. None say a Jewish State. None say Jewish folk would be citizens of a Jewish State. They say Jews would become citizens of Palestine.
“..rather than what any book or scholarly article on the subject has to say on the matter: that the Jewish homeland was to be an Independent Jewish state”
What is wrong with the actual words of the documents, Laws, Conventions, Declarations. Show me in the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate, or the White Papers where it says a Jewish state. Go ahead.
“The fact that you fail to understand that Palestine was a British mandatory territory, or British Mandate”
Read the Mandate … That is the League of Nations Mandate over Palestine.
“…demonstrates an even further lack of understanding of the material on your part. From an international legal perspective, your use of the term “non-state entity of Palestine” is meaningless, pulled out of your ass, and would never be used by anyone with the least bit of academic background in the subject.”
See UN Charter Chapter XI
“The inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war inasmuch as treaties are concerned only applies to the territorial integrity of sovereign states as per the mention of territorial integrity in the UN Charter.”
Show me the Chapter and Article….. Go ahead.
It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war regardless of any treaty. It is inadmissible before, during and after treaties hold.
Nothing precludes the acquisition of terra nullius via war per the UN Charter.”
A) Show me the Chapter and Article….. Go ahead.
B) It is illegal to acquire territory by war. ANY territory, ANY war. Otherwise show me the caveat
C) If it was terra nullus, who would the war have been with?
D) Get a new script writer.
“Inasmuch as customary international law might be concerned, Israel would have to demonstrate both opinio juris and state practice, which it has done neither. Therefore, any customary law regarding this matter would be inapplicable to Israel.”
A) Customary International Law applies to ALL States.
B) Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel // it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. // UN Charter XI… Ever read it?
“With respect to what constitutes a legal annexation of terra nullius, there are two requirements: Effective Control and the extension of domestic law unto the territory. This is basic international law 101.
Put it up…. go ahead..
A) Legal annexation requires a POPULATION who give their consensus. See the LEGAL annexation of Texas or the LEGAL annexation of the West Bank by TransJordan as a temporary trustee, per the UN Charter. It was not condemned by the UNSC. Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem was condemned by the UNSC
B) Legal annexation of terra nullus, see the British annexation of the uninhabited Falkland Islands.
“With respect to the territory that became part of Israel in 1948, the “acquisition” of such territory would fall under the international law regarding emergent states, a prime example in international legal discourse in this day and age is the emergence of Eritrea.”
How odd. Israel declared, accepting, unconditionally, the recommendations of UNGA Res 181 on the 14th May 1948. Israel captured territories outside the extent of it’s declared sovereignty AFTER it became a state. According to ISRAEL, the captured territories were not Israeli territories on the 31st of Aug 1949
My advice to you is pick up a textbook or two in international law. Brownlie’s book is excellent”
The actual word of the LAW is quite sufficient. Neither Brownlie or anyone else’s opinion changes what it actually says.
Comment by talknic — December 9, 2010 @ 11:47 pm
Not once is “The Independent State of Palestine” used.
Quite. A state is not named until it is declared. There is only ONE country mentioned…PALESTINE.
// FIRST LINE OF THE MANDATE
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, //
// Covenant of the League of Nations ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. //
” No mention whatsoever is made of an Independent Palestinian State.”
See above and // Mandate Article 3
The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
Article 4
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.//
” Not once is “Palestinian Law” used.”
//Article 9
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as well as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights.//
” Not once does it say the Jews would be Palestinians.”
//Article 7
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine. //
Get your guide dog some spectacles
” The mention of Palestinian citizenship “
Make up your mind is it mentioned or not..
“…is not a reference to an independent state, as you have wrongfully interpreted, but to a British mandatory territory whose future status as of the mandate has yet to be determined.
It was not “British mandatory territory “. It was the territory of the non-state entity of Palestinian, under occupation (the Mandate). When Israel declared it did three things. 1) It made Israel independent of the non-state entity of Palestine 2) It defined what was Israel and 3) by default, what was NOT Israel.
” If by Palestinian citizenship, you understand it to be citizenship within a mandatory region whose final status has not been resolved, then that interpretation would be correct.”
The mandate EXPIRED according to the Declaration for the establishment of the State of Israel. FIRST LINE!!
As of the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel may 14th 1948, all prior arrangements, agreements, mandates are irrelevant. Of historical interest only.
It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war and Israel has never legally annexed ANY territory. Israel was declared independent of the non-state entity of Palestine on May 14th 1948. Only territory within the extent of Israel’s declared sovereignty is Israeli.
—————
More reading for your guide dog … http://wp.me/PDB7k-Q#gratis
Comment by talknic — December 9, 2010 @ 6:54 pm
Not once is “The Independent State of Palestine” used. No mention whatsoever is made of an Independent Palestinian State. Not once is “Palestinian Law” used. Not once does it say the Jews would be Palestinians. The mention of Palestinian citizenship is not a reference to an independent state, as you have wrongfully interpreted, but to a British mandatory territory whose future status as of the mandate has yet to be determined. If by Palestinian citizenship, you understand it to be citizenship within a mandatory region whose final status has not been resolved, then that interpretation would be correct.
Comment by Anthony — December 9, 2010 @ 2:59 pm
You claim “The mandate stipulated that they were to foster the conditions leading to an Independent State of Palestine wherein the Jews could establish a homeland amongst the other inhabitants, as Palestinians, under democratic Palestinian law.”.
1. Where exactly in the mandate are the words “Independent State of Palestine used?
2. Where exactly in the mandate does it say the Jews would be Palestinians?
3. Where exactly does it say Palestinian law would govern the territory.
Comment by Anthony — December 9, 2010 @ 1:18 am
Hi Anthony,
From the Mandate :
You really ought read it….
Comment by talknic — December 9, 2010 @ 7:56 am
Thanks CJ!
Comment by William — November 6, 2010 @ 10:49 pm
OK… Questions help me hone clearer ways of explaining this stuff. It can be quite confusing.
Comment by talknic — November 7, 2010 @ 10:56 am
CJ:
Would you kindly tell me what the legal requirements are in order to annex territory that is open to annexation. I would appreciate acceptable legal sources.
Additionally, would you kindly provide me a scholarly source presenting the legal protections that a “non-state entity” have?
Comment by William — November 5, 2010 @ 8:00 pm
Hi William.
How about an example? Reason being, it was legal, it exists (despite all the confusing pro-con legalese, which can be overwhelming)
The US annexation of Texas. Simply put here http://www.sonofthesouth.net/texas/
Although this was prior to the existence of the UN, the US annexation of Texas followed laws slowly formulated over centuries, leading to the present day where it is basically covered by the UN Charter.
In essence there are two steps to legal annexation.
1) the population of the region being annexed, must agree to it. Today, under the UN, it falls under self determination. This includes your query on a “non-state entity”
UN Charter Article 2. 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. (see UN Charter chapter xi DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES Article 73 b ) AND Articles 75 thru 77 In Particular Article 77. 1. a & b
2) the act of annexation occurs AFTER agreement: The territory being annexed is about to become independent of it’s former status/control/ownership/sovereignty/dependence, so the actual act of annexation itself is unilateral. (Unilateral is a notion independent of any other control or claim) The territory being annexed becomes a part of the independent territories of the annexing entity.
The above 1) & 2) apply in respect to Israel/Palestine. Israel has never legally annexed ANY territories to it’s Declared and Internationally acknowledged Sovereignty. … Israel occupies Palestinian territories according to UNSC Res 1860 Jan 2009.
Another example of legal annexation was the annexation of the West Bank by Jordan, as a temporary Trustee.
A) The Palestinians requested Jordan annex, basically so there would be a rule of law, judicial system etc.
B) The Arab states ensured Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only (Session: 12-I Date: May 1950) in order that it comply with the UN Charter.
C) Unlike Israel’s illegal unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem, condemned by UNSC Resolutions 252, 267, 271, 298, 465, 476, there is no UNSC condemnation of Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank as a temporary trustee. It was in accordance with the UN Charter, even though Jordan was not a member of the UN at the time, it was never the less a Regional Power.
Also interesting to note that Jordan’s military did not engage beyond Jordan’s borders in the wars of 1948/50. Jordan was not a UN Member State. Iraq was. Iraqi forces, under Jordanian control, engaged Israeli forces in the territories of the non-state entity of Palestine. This appears to have been in order to ensure that the UN Charter was observed and to ensure the troops of the Arab States were all forces from UN Member states.
Just point out here that the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel was unilateral, independent of there being another party, no call for co-signing, it would have defeated the notion of independence. Nor was either party obliged to accept the partition or declare independence as this too would have defeated the notion of independence. Israel became independent of the non-state entity of Palestine, despite the legal objections of the Arab States.
Alas there were Jewish forces outside of Israel’s newly declared boundaries. This gave the Arabs States just cause to invade Palestine in order to protect the non-state entity.
Hope this helps.
Comment by talknic — November 6, 2010 @ 6:10 am
Sorry, talnic, but your information is incorrect. We Palestinian Christians well remember Transjordanian legionaires inside Mandate Palestine slaughtering the brave Arab militias in Bethlehem and countless other villages.
Your other twaddle is also tedious. The US Declaration of Independence was also unilateral – so what? Did you want the British imperialists to give George Washington their prior blessing?
And what’s with this stupidity that you claim the Palestinians begged the Jordanians to annex them? Do you think we Christian Arabs of Palestine are fools? As a matter of fact ( which you hide under a mountain of rugs ), the Palestinians went over to the Jordanian monarch of Jordan and assassinated him with several shots of a pistol on the site of the third holiest shrine of Islam.
Please spare us your lying propaganda!
Comment by waleed abu ish — November 21, 2010 @ 4:53 pm
Hurray Waleed for telling the truth. We Christians must unmask Talknic. He is an agent of the Palestine Lobby backed by u no hu.
Comment by honey bee — November 21, 2010 @ 8:44 pm
Uh huh. So begin…. or are shall we wait for waleed
Comment by talknic — November 22, 2010 @ 4:16 am
“your information is incorrect”
Refute it with something of substance and I’ll take it down.
“…you claim the Palestinians begged the Jordanians to annex them?”
the JCPA claims…Take it up with them
….’begged’? Quote me…
Comment by talknic — November 22, 2010 @ 4:13 am
Hi there….nope, haven’t looked. They do have a Peace Agreement. As such, Egypt is obliged to comply with Israel’s wishes in respect to hostile entities. Israel declared Palestine (Gaza is a part of Palestine) a hostile entity.
Israel needs Egypt in order to take a short cut from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea or Persian Gulf (and back) if they have a need.
The US for instance, through the Department of Energy (http://www.energy.gov/) gives figures for imports exports. Israel might do the same. Could try digging there somewhere..
Comment by talknic — August 28, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
Hi CJ,
I have a question.
Does Egypt supplies all the oil to fill israeli tanks and planes?
Any credible source on this?
Thanks.
Comment by Anonymous — August 28, 2010 @ 6:32 am
Hi,
Gawks…. It’s hugely complex and something I haven’t visited for a while.
Iraq Body Count….base their information on News reports. Not all deaths are reported in the news, not all news reports are accurate. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ I’m not sure if they’re all that accurate given the news report criteria. Never the less their motive is genuine.
The John Hopgood University study (Lancet) was for ALL deaths natural and violent, car accidents, etc etc. Not just deaths caused by war violence. (a point always missed by their detractors) http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606694919/fulltext 2nd survey results
I doubt we will ever know. There’s a lot of confusion and bullsh*te generated in the fog of war. There’s collateral on both sides. A collaborator targeted in a market place, will generate collateral just as much as a US bomb dropped on a village.
It’s all so sad that folk allowed themselves to be duped by the pre war WMDs WMDs rhetoric which as we now know, turned out to be mere propaganda.
Can’t really help with firm figures.
Sorry
Comment by talknic — July 5, 2010 @ 3:08 am
Hi CJ,
This is about Iraq War.
Would you please find me a good source on number of Iraqi deaths due to U.S action V.S number of Iraqi deaths due to Iraqis. I was looking through it but I am getting all puzzled by all this figures and numbers.
Thanks in advance.
Comment by Anonymous — July 4, 2010 @ 7:50 pm
talknic
I haven’t found any email adress here, so I’ll just let you this link. It’s a photo of the “famous” letter by Eliahu Epstein to Truman. The link you give (yale.edu) is good, but I think this one is another proof that this letter is indeed true and exists :
Click to access 12.pdf
As you can see, it’s coming from trumanlibrary.org, site administered by the National Archives and Records Administration. It would be hard to claim this document is a fake :)
And the response by President Truman :
Kind regards
Comment by melka — June 21, 2010 @ 4:09 am
Hi Melka,
No email here, I long ago tired of the threats.
Thanks have included the information. Rather indisputable.
The US letter is the press release.. Actual document of recognition http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/1-23.pdf – shown here
Cheers
Comment by talknic — June 21, 2010 @ 4:43 am
“Yes. There’s quite a few I’ve come across. You show them the evidence. They just go somewhere else and repeat the same tired olde BS.”
You have not shown me a single bit of evidence other than that you are an ignorant fool. That I am completely convinced of.
Comment by Michael LeFavour — May 19, 2010 @ 2:24 am
Resorting to insults is not very convincing at all… Bye bye
Comment by talknic — May 21, 2010 @ 1:03 pm
LeFavour often insults people as he’s debating them. It’s just to distract and rile up his opposition, because he knows he’s full of shit.
His crowd is usually uninformed, easy targets.
It’s been fun watching you demolish him, talknic.
The guy trolled Mondoweiss awhile back, and if you google his name, you’ll see the douchebag posts the same lies and dishonest garbage everywhere on I-P related blogs/etc.
Oh and he says he’s Native American or some such nonsense – meanwhile his elementary school daughter wrote something about Zionism? Get the fuck outta here.
Probably some paid hasbara loser.
Comment by Cliff — March 19, 2010 @ 9:16 pm
Hi Cliff
Yes. There’s quite a few I’ve come across. You show them the evidence. They just go somewhere else and repeat the same tired olde BS.
I doubt snr LeFavour needs paying, his insults and abuse are straight out of abusers 101 handbook.
Israel has been the frog in a pan of tepid veto water while International community dithered about how to handle the new kid, who simply refused to cooperate.
Now the Israeli government is squirming at the thought of the current US admin turning up the heat. I dare say the fear of the major powers is, how much boiling water will the frog splash around.
Likely the reason they’re sanctioning Iran in order to get it to stop it’s Nuclear work, is so Israel has no reason to set M E ablaze.
The craziest thing of all in my books, is that the zionist movement even didn’t start in Palestine, wasn’t based in Palestine until 1936. It was started by a person who could have gone and lived in Palestine when he was alive but didn’t and only one of his family ever went there…. For a visit.
Weird.
Comment by talknic — March 21, 2010 @ 1:13 am
Cliff, are you going to presume everyone else is a liar because you are? None of the slugs caressing and slithering all over each other at Mondoweiss have been able to prove a single thing I have to say is wrong.
“Probably some paid hasbara loser.”
Dealing with the likes of you is equivalent to scraping used chewing gum off of the undersides of tables and desks. I wish I were paid, but you just gave away your hand, loser. I own you now.
Comment by Michael LeFavour — May 19, 2010 @ 2:22 am
“When I make mistakes I quickly admit to them and move on”
My first mistake was giving a liar the benefit of the doubt. My second mistake was hoping you were going to be honorable.
“The transfer of authority over the Mandate went to Israel a few hours before it ended with a declaration of independence.”
When I made that statement I admitted it was wrong. I knew it was wrong after I had posted it and caught it when I proof read what I had already wrote and posted. I did not feel like editing my post for one small error. I was pleased you caught it, as it gave me proof that you were reading what I write. Did you accept my explanation with grace, though? No. You seized on the error like a starving dog on a discarded chicken bone.
——————————
I have seen some interesting sophistry, but this is right up there with some of the more ironic ones. You did not give me anything other than a link to MUNOC, which is involved in the Second Congo War, which has absolutely NOTHING to do with ONUC in 1961 when the UN was in the Congo with authorization to use force in preventing CIVIL WAR. Being involved in civil wars does not mean taking sides in a civil war, it simply means involvement in one or being ready to use force to prevent a country from fracturing, like I have said, and like you are denying. Of course to avoid admitting you are wrong you are now moving the goal posts just a wee bit by suddenly claiming there is a civil war, but that the UN was not involved with a civil war if it is only the prevention of a civil war….yeah, OK. Maybe I am confused, but after I pointed out that the Security Council DOES get involved with civil wars, the one in Congo for example, you link to the Second Congo War mission (MUNOC) and proclaim that it is a war between Congo and 5 states. Whoopee…? Before I bitch slapped you with quotes from relevant SECURITY COUNCIL documents, you were quite certain it was “not a civil war!”. Whoopee! Not a civil war, nope, certain of it, not a civil war, not a civil war….uhhh errr, ahem, I mean I did not say there was no civil war, I just said it was not a civil war! there is a difference…a big one…errr, I said the conflict was between five regional states and that is not a civil war, nope I did not say that either, I just said there was no civil war…but now I am saying there was a civil war, but the UN was not involving itself in it….errr never mind the authorization to use force ONUC for “preventing civil war”….that is just a statement, yeah, yeah, just a statement, screw the UN. I am Talknic…and that means there was no civil war, see…not that I am saying there was no civil war, just no civil war in the Congo with the other five regional states…got it? I win the debate, you are stupid, I am always right about everything…now quote me verbatim, verbatim mind you…all these fucking Zios trying their hasbara on me…yeah it has to be hasbara, yeah, because my head is fucking spinning. Guy is trying to quote UN docs, I’ll show him, I’ll delete his fucking posts…yeah, then I will be last man standing, sure, hell yeah, nobody messes with Talknic.
So just to be clear, you are now admitting there was a civil war, but the UN was not there because of the civil war at all? Right?…OK. Just what does a threat to use force to prevent secession mean anyway? Is secession by force of arms the same thing as a civil war to Talknic or not? When the southern states of America tried to secede from the Union was it a civil war or something else that will make Talknic look better than a jack ass that can’t admit when he/she is wrong? Does what Dag Hammarskjold wrote to the President of the Congo less than a month after Resolution 161 was drafted agree with the head in the ass conclusions Talknic comes to concerning what the Security Council actually authorized in regards to civil war in the Congo?
By the way, this humorous tangent started when I made this comment and you responded with an ignorant claim.
Does that include preventing one or using force against provinces declaring themselves to be sovereign states, Mr Wizard? Or is it just the Jews that get hung out to dry?
I have never denied an international component, nor have I denied that the UN was asked by the government of Congo for help. The situation at the beginning though was that the government only controlled 2 of 6 provinces and factions were fighting for secession and there were actually 4 different governments. As John F. Kennedy prepared to assume office in January 1961, the Congo seemed to be disintegrating. The Congolese Government in Leopoldville controlled only two of six provinces. The Gizenga regime controlled two provinces, Tshombe was consolidating his power in Elisabethville by creating a European mercenary force, and there was still another regime with separatist pretensions in Kasai. U.S. predictions of the outlook for the Congo were uniformly bleak. A Special National Intelligence Estimate on January 10 declared that “political instability on a grand scale” was the most likely prospect. A state of civil war existed and ONUC forces became involved in the fighting. I provided the relevant UN link, which you seemed to have dismissed, that states this very claim I am making. The mission morphed into involvement with fighting civil factions that were trying to secede, in Katanga province for example. Over 200 UN soldiers died, mostly at the hands of factions of Congolese vying for secession, which the UN involved itself in preventing, by force. Now if you mean they were not asked to take sides, even that is wrong. They sided with the government that the UN chose to recognize, (there were 4…source: Public Papers of the Secretaries-General of the United Nations, page 320) which does not mean no other faction had a legitimate grievance. Had the UN shown the same territorial zealotry in Israel, the Jewish homeland would be straddling both sides of the Jordan as it was intended and I wouldn’t be here laughing at your lame sophistry.
I meant Resolution 161. The Security Council knew that there was a civil war going on in Congo.
and authorized force to stop it…
Resolution 169 was to prevent civil factions from seceding.
The UN Security Council took the side or one faction
And offered force of arms to prevent the thing you deny the UN has anything to do with.
Whether the people of Katanga wanted to be free from the UN’s chosen faction or not the UN was there to prevent the civil faction from gaining independence. Violent secession is CIVIL WAR where I was taught. And sending UN forces to put down the insurrection is involvement in civil war where I was taught also.
You are back to the Second Congo War and doing research on the fly. You obviously do not know this subject. Don’t pretend. You are demeaning yourself. Read what ONUC actually did in the 60s, not what the charter says, or what MUNOC is doing.
Go back and read Resolution 161. It authorizes the use of force. History proves that force was used against a civil faction at war with another faction claiming to represent the government of Congo. The link I gave to ONUC states that the mission changed to preventing civil war. No matter how you twist this Rubik’s cube, that is involvement. Over 200 UN soldiers lost there lives fighting in a civil war on the side of the faction the Secretary-General chose to recognize as the central government of Congo, largely to prevent secession. Nobody is denying an international component, but you can’t ignore the fact that it was a civil war just because there was an international component to the conflict or that the UN Security Council was involved in the civil war in some capacity.
I asked you to Quote the relevant portion of Lise Howard’s paper to support your position. Your imbecilic response was.
Can you make a better effort at pretending you read anything she has written, LIAR?
—————————–
Now this is the gem of all gems. I have asked you to source your assertion, over and over…..”quote the relevant body of law that proves Israel is “bound” by a declaration of sovereignty.”
Your relevant response should have included a body of law I can read through. Did it?
Why bother making a Declaration if one isn’t going to abide by it?
I don’t know? You declared you would take down any portion of your inormation proven to be wrong. Why don’t you abide by your own declaration? The US declared 13 colonies. I declared that I was tougher than any four sailors once and had to prove it. Things change and things don’t work out sometimes, but who cares? I asked you to prove that Israel is bound by a declaration of sovereignty. I asked to be directed to a relevant test of law to support that ridiculous claim. You failed to provide it on an epic scale and your continued avoidance can only mean that you can’t prove it, because it does not exist, meaning the cornerstone of your big assumption is big lie.
How is recognition given if one doesn’t know what is being recognized?
You do realize that there are dozens of boundary disputes all over the world with little effect on recognition between states? Fixed borders are not a criteria in “recognition”.
Why were boundaries PURPOSEFULLY left out of the Declaration, yet included in the notification of the declaration?
Boundaries were not included in the notification as you call it. That is more Talknic fallacy.
Maybe you can bother to answer the question I ask now. Can you quote the relevant body of law that proves Israel is “bound” by a declaration of sovereignty? yes or no, put up or shut up….
So you are changing your tune now? Because you seem certain that “Res 181 is still enshrined in the preamble of the Declaration of a Jewish State.”
According to the Harvard gentleman I quoted, the one that is unafraid to put his real name on the line, like I do, and you are afraid to do, the reference to UN 181 in the declaration was a rejection of UN authority. Hardly an appropriate use of the term “enshrine” that you misuse in your propaganda fodder for genocidal bigots.
What “Israeli” declaration? The declaration you think applies to the state was made before the state was formed and although I have exhaustingly been asking for you to prove that a state is bound by a declaration of sovereignty you continue to look confused and stupid every time I ask. A single letter to a single head of state is not exactly an announcement to the international community either. Nor is the state of Israel bound by a letter between heads of state at any rate. You are grasping for straws.
I asked….“Where is the official declaration of borders from the “state of Israel”?”
Try answering my question now. Where is the official declaration of borders from the “state of Israel”? A pre-state document is not the state of Israel and the document you seem to base your big lie on does not accept the borders of UN 181 at any rate if you read it exactly as it is written. Further the questions you ask are irrelevant and unanswerable because they assume that UNGA 181 is enshrined in the declaration and that is a patently false claim. So again, try answering the question. Where is the official declaration of borders from the “state of Israel”?
Because it does not exist, smart boy/girl.
This is another question that can’t be answered, because it is based on the false premise that “Israel” acquired territory by war in 1949. “Israel” was not bound by UN 181 border suggestions and there is no borders proclaimed in any document “Israel” has created and ratified. The simple fact is, Israel did not have defined borders because of the war the Arabs waged against the Jews disputing any amount of Jewish sovereignty. Regardless of the red herring you constantly throw out about “Palestine” being mentioned in agreements, “The Israeli delegation proposed that the political frontier between Israel and Egypt and Lebanon respectively should be the same as that which separated the latter countries from Palestine under the British Mandate.” Further Israel offered “that Israel would be prepared to accept and be responsible for all Arabs at present located in the Gaza area, whether inhabitants or refugees, as citizens of Israel”. Israel asked for formal recognition of territory under it’s control because Israel is the lawful sovereign of all of Palestine under the Mandate, but the world was more than willing to throw the Jews under the bus for political expedience with the oil rich Muslim bigots at war with the Jews. It was a redundant request. Kind of like asking a gang of prison rapists to recognize you are a man. Of course you may be a man, but they can take your manhood from you if they want to.
How old are you, exactly? Since when does a majority make something right? If a dozen people were stranded on an island and 11 of them voted to eat the 12th, would that make their decision just? I want you to give citation to a relevant body of law showing that border disputes are settled by majorities. I see how this concept fits in the fantasy world you have created, where rules are made up to fill in gaping holes in your tapestry, but the real world just doesn’t work that way. And the UN Charter is not binding on member states. Compliance is voluntary unless you are subject to a chapter VII resolution, something Israel has never been subject to.
Remember, loser, you need to source your foolish statement that Israel is bound by a declaration of sovereignty. No blabbering on, just quote a text of relevant law.
Comment by Michael LeFavour — March 10, 2010 @ 1:20 am
Back with more abuse, Mr LeFavour? I’ve not bothered to answer to the idiotic drivel you’re so good at generating.
A) You’ve not shown where I have lied. B) Nor is there any dis-honour in presenting factual information, much of which comes from Jewish/Israeli sources.
No, you made excuses AFTER it was pointed out. It’s on YOUR website!! You ‘felt like’ writing a post of some 6,390 or so words (incl C&P’s), but didn’t feel like editing an error you’d seen when you ‘proof read it’?
As I explained, it was to show WHY the UNSC was involved. It’s irrelevant which period, because UNSC involvement was and still is governed by the UN Charter ALL THE TIME, regardless of what conflict. Civil Wars are the business and only the business of the State in which the civil war is taking place. Civil wars are wars contained within the jurisdiction of a state, no matter which Government is in power at the time. When two or more states are involved, it is not a Civil War, even though a Civil War might also be in progress between the factions in jurisdiction of a state.
//UN Charter Chapter I : PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES Article: 2 Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.//
Strange, authorization was to use FORCE against FOREIGN forces and military personnel and in protecting itself, (UN forces and personnel) against mercenaries. It was authorized to give ASSISTANCE in PREVENTING civil war. ASSISTANCE is in one section. FORCE in another. Read the resolutions CARE FULLY!
……to prevent the occurrence of civil war I quoted Res 161. Why do you want to be dis-proven all over again?
The UN/UNSC can render military ASSISTANCE to a Government, so that the GOVERNMENT can control it’s civil factions in a Civil War. There is a difference between ASSISTANCE and FORCE. The two are dealt with SPECIFICALLY in different parts of the resolutions.
Strange, I didn’t deny there was a civil war. I gave the reasons WHY the UNSC was involved, which are contained in the UNSC Resolutions and governed by the UN Charter. Read them CAREFULLY!
Indeed. Or incapable of reading your own sources or even what you cut and paste
…which proved my points. Some ‘bitch slapping’ there butch baby….
Nail this to your head. ASSISTANCE and FORCE are in different sections. FORCE was authorized against FOREIGN parties and to protect UN personnel and forces. (the UN forces being there, as authorized, against FOREIGN parties, to protect UN personnel and of course themselves if they were to be attacked)
No my friend, THIS is what you challenged.//…why the UNSC was in in the Congo (a stoush between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and five regional States), not a civil war!// I did not say there was no civil war.
Authorization for ASSISTANCE in preventing a Civil War. FORCE in handling FOREIGN parties and protecting themselves.
Let’s see.
Uh huh…. “legitimate and protective tasks” They’d be the legitimate and protective tasks governed by the UN Charter and iterated in the UNSC resolutions in separate sections. Read them CARE FULLY.
They were attacked and under the resolutions (Read them CAREFULLY), had the authority to use force to protect themselves and UN Personnel.
The ignorance is yours. I base my assertions and opinions on what is contained, word for word, in the UN Charter and, word for word, in the UNSC resolutions.
Until such time as states were declared in Palestine, fighting between the civil factions in Palestine, constituted a Civil War. Now. Refer to the UN Charter as to why the UNSC did not become involved. It applied to the situation in Palestine, pre-Israel, just as it did to the Congo and anywhere else.
It says the same as last time I read it.
Tch tch tch….The whole work is about the failure of the principals contained in the UN Charter Chapter I : Article: 2. to be fully effective. You’re asking me to quote Howard’s paper to show an article exists in the UN Charter? Why? IT’S IN THE CHARTER!! (I don’t necessarily agree entirely with those principals, they are however what Governs the UNSC’s involvement). Now if you’d like to prove it’s not in the charter by citing a relevant part of Howard’s work, YOU can scan it and post it, good luck.
—————————–
How strange… HERE is what it says : 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.”
Changed my tune? No Mr pants on backwards.
Here //ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE’S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL//
Afraid? No my little pet. I tired of the insane threats to my person, family, business and the ghastly graffiti on my walls from ugly bigots and criminals who support illegal acquisition, illegal annexation and illegal settlements. The information is more important than the identity of the person collecting it and my home & family’s well being takes precedence.
Uh huh.
A) “ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY” Some rejection. Do you also wear your shoes and pants on backwards?
B) Try reading
Strange, HERE is the document referred to. It EXISTS. In the Yale law repository
Now, again, why is such an important document not on the Israeli Government website? Unless of course, they don’t want it cited.
This one http://www.google.com/search?q=Israeli+declaration The Israeli Govt website comes up at the top. I guess they have their Meta Tags tuned to what might be logically meant.
But it can be and was answered. HERE
AFTER Israeli Sovereignty was unilaterally declared, the Arab States attacked Jewish forces already outside of Israel’s newly declared Sovereignty at the time the Declaration was made.. The fact that Jewish Israeli forces were outside of Israel’s newly declared Sovereignty is why there is no UNSC resolution condemning the Arab States invasion of Palestine. (Israel was an Independent Sovereign State & no longer a part of Palestine on the 15th May 1948) All you’ll find are resolutions calling for both sides to stop fighting.
If it’s not in the Lebanese/Israeli armistice agreement, I wonder what’s doing in the Lebanese/Israeli Armistice Agreement? Tell me Mr pants on backwards, was Israel an Independent Sovereign State by 1949/50, or was it still part of the non-state entity of Palestine?
Now let’s look at what you’ve Ziofied here…( not an agreement BTW it’s a proposal which was refused) Not acknowledged by the UK in their recognition of Israel. Not recognized by ANYONE. (US recognition of the State of Israel was given 15th May 1948 BEFORE Israel’s refused proposal)
A) The Mandate ended May 14th 1948 REMEMBER (you didn’t feel like editing your post).
B) The Mandate did not give Israel Sovereignty over ANY of Palestine. Jewish folk could settle anywhere in PALESTINE, under Palestinian Law, as Palestinian civilians. NOTE: Article 7. Read it CARE FULLY
No. Because it was not Sovereign Israeli territory. Your analogy is quite amusing, perhaps even revealing.
It doesn’t necessarily. It is however a cornerstone of democracy. Never the less if you wish to argue that the majority of states recognizing Israel was wrong, go right ahead…. (weird)
It wasn’t the settling of a border dispute. It was recognition of a Sovereign state.
The Arab States objection BTW was based on the LEGALITY 1st under the League of Nations Charter and later on the UN Charter in respect to self determination by the people of Palestine, Jewish and Arab alike. Balfour himself seemed to agree with them on this point.
Uh huh. The UN Charter, the Declaration of a Jewish State, the lack of a UNSC resolution condemning the Arab States invasion of Palestine are fantasies? WOW!!!
A) UN Charter Chapter I : PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES Article: 2 The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
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.
UN Charter Chapter II: MEMBERSHIP Article: 4
1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
B) Declaration of a Jewish State: THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
You really are quite adept at abusing people, but inept when it comes to reading and comprehension. You keep asking for ‘law’. Why? The Declaration of a Jewish state says quite clearly “will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations” An undertaking, to abide by the OBLIGATIONS pledged in the Declaration of a Jewish State, in order to be admitted to the UN, as a Sovereign State.
Israel is bound by the obligations it assumed in the Declaration of a Jewish state, by the information it supplied in order to be granted recognition and by it’s subsequent acceptance into the United Nations.
Comment by talknic — March 10, 2010 @ 2:50 pm
I think I missed this gem in my response.
“You really are quite adept at abusing people, but inept when it comes to reading and comprehension.”
Opinions vary. Yours has been proven to be quite flawed.
“You keep asking for ‘law’. Why?”
Because you keep making the unfounded claim that Israel is doing something illegal. Prove it by sourcing the law that is broken. The UN is not a source of international law either. You also said you would remove any statement if proven to be incorrect. I have repeatedly requested you prove that a “declaration of sovereignty” is binding by pointing me to a relevant body of law. Since you have failed on multiple occasions to do so (because it does not exist) and it would be impossible for me to prove a negative, the honorable thing would be to admit you are wrong.
“The Declaration of a Jewish state says quite clearly “will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations” An undertaking, to abide by the OBLIGATIONS pledged in the Declaration of a Jewish State, in order to be admitted to the UN, as a Sovereign State.”
A) The declaration is not binding on the state. Another false claim I have repeatedly asked you to prove with a relevant body of law.
B) There are no obligations pledged in the declaration that can be construed as a border definition, NONE, and admittance to the UN was not contingent upon fulfilling any obligation in the declaration in either case, NONE.
“Israel is bound by the obligations it assumed in the Declaration of a Jewish state, by the information it supplied in order to be granted recognition and by it’s subsequent acceptance into the United Nations.”
Israel is not bound by anything written in the Declaration of Independence. If it were, someone clever would have made a fuss over it by now. You are a nobody. And again, NOTHING in the Declaration of Independence was an obligation binding on the state or a prerequisite to membership in the UN. NOTHING. States are not bound by unilateral declarations even when made by heads of state, let alone a pre-state council, that concept does not exist outside of the empty confines of your swollen head.
For the rest of my belated response:
http://informationdominancecubed.blogspot.com/2010/03/fifth-response-to-talknic.html
Comment by Michael LeFavour — May 19, 2010 @ 2:14 am
“..you keep making the unfounded claim that Israel is doing something illegal. Prove it by sourcing the law that is broken.”
Read the UNSC resolutions. They’re based in law.
” The UN is not a source of international law either. ”
You have really lost the plot.
“You also said you would remove any statement if proven to be incorrect.”
Correct
” I have repeatedly requested you prove that a “declaration of sovereignty” is binding by pointing me to a relevant body of law.”
See UNSC Resolution 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… ALL condemning Israel’s illegal unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem. Resolutions made on the basis that “territories occupied” are NOT Sovereign to Israel. unless of course you actually believe one can militarily occupy one’s own Sovereign territory.
//“The Declaration of a Jewish state says quite clearly “will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations” An undertaking, to abide by the OBLIGATIONS pledged in the Declaration of a Jewish State, in order to be admitted to the UN, as a Sovereign State.”//
“A) The declaration is not binding on the state. Another false claim I have repeatedly asked you to prove with a relevant body of law.”
Er… it’s a declaration to the rest of the world as to what it will and/or will not abide by. It sets it’s own obligations in order to be recognized. You do know what an obligation is? Yes?
“B) There are no obligations pledged in the declaration that can be construed as a border definition, NONE, and admittance to the UN was not contingent upon fulfilling any obligation in the declaration in either case, NONE.”
Point out the reservations expressed for accepting and enshrining Res 181 in the Declaration….thx
//Israel is bound by the obligations it assumed in the Declaration of a Jewish state, by the information it supplied in order to be granted recognition and by it’s subsequent acceptance into the United Nations.//
“Israel is not bound by anything written in the Declaration of Independence”
I see, it doesn’t mean what it says. Very interesting theory.
“If it were, someone clever would have made a fuss over it by now.”
See UNSC resolutions, esp “It is inadmissible to ACQUIRE territory by war” Then refer to Stephen M. Schwebel, esp what he says of the Sovereign.
“For the rest of my belated response:”
Where you blatantly LIE? LOL. Bye Bye big boy.
Comment by talknic — May 21, 2010 @ 6:54 pm
What a coward. if you can’t win with logic, just delete your opponents out of your tiny, tiny world. What a loser.
Comment by Michael LeFavour — May 25, 2010 @ 12:04 am
You were warned Snr LeFavour, lies and insults have no place in rational discussion….
You clicked on the link I gave. It was not Wiki. In fact, there is nothing cited on this site from Wiki. Furthermore you’ve completely ignored the very exacting wording of the UNSC resolutions surrounding the matter in question….where and how military force can be used by the UN in a civil war.
Every one of your ‘points’ have been addressed, either in these pages or in my replies.
Until such time as you can answer to points HONESTLY, (look it up) without without LYING, without the stupid INSULTS, without the false accusations so common to those who support the ILLEGAL acquisition of Palestinian territories, you’re simply not welcome….
Comment by talknic — May 25, 2010 @ 3:48 am
“When I make mistakes I quickly admit to them and move on”
Alas your biggest mistake Mr LeFavour, was coming here and trying the usual Hasbara crappolla 101. As for admitting mistakes, I’ve seen obfuscation, lies, misrepresentation, denial and everything and anything BUT an admission of any mistake on your part.
Never the less, you’ll be ‘moving on’ now with your latest effort…perhaps to try it on elsewhere, I’m sure there are plenty of suckers in the world.
————
This is what you challenged.//…why the UNSC was in in the Congo (a stoush between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and five regional States, not a civil war!//
I did not say there was no civil war, I gave the reasons why the UNSC was in the Congo.
The basic premise of my argument is proven by your own sources. YOUR OWN citations. The UNSC cannot become involved in a civil war. It can however assist in preventing(look at your citations) civil war, with military assistance if it is asked so that the Government can maintain control. Not military force, military assistance. It cannot become involved in fighting the civil factions, that is the job of the Government. It can protect it’s own forces against those factions.
Otherwise the issue must either be between states or threaten International Peace (between Internationals/states). Read the UN Charter CAREFULLY. The UNSC involvement was because of the A) International nature B) They were asked for and provided military assistance for the Government to control, they were not asked to provide force against the civil factions fighting.
UNSC Res 169 is a statement. It opens thus:
REAFFIRMING the policies and purposes of the United nations with respect to the Congo (Leopoldville) as set out in the aforesaid resolutions…. It then goes on based on the premise of re-affirming, wherein it re-iterates what had gone before. REAFFIRMING all the UNSC Resolutions from 143. Where the call for military assistance was granted in order to prevent a civil war and maintain International Peace. (International = between nationals)
“Resolution 169 authorized the use of force “
Indeed, but on what or who? You really must learn to read carefully. There is a difference between assistance and force AND who force was authorized to be used on.
UNSC Res 169 4) Authorizes the Secretary General to take vigorous action, including the use of the requisite measure of force, where necessary, for the immediate apprehension, detention pending legal action and/or the deportation of all foreign military and paramilitary personnel and political advisors not the United Nations command, and mercenaries, as laid down in paragraph 2.
Force was authorized on FOREIGNERS! And mercenaries, as laid down in paragraph 2
Paragraph 2 Further depreciates the armed action against United Nations forces and personnel in the pursuit of such activities
Force was authorized against mercenaries attacking UN forces and personnel.
BYE BYE.
—-
You want to start at UNSC Res 143. Good…
UNSC Res 143 Considering the request for military assistance addressed to the Secretary General by the President and Prime minister of the Republic of Congo
Gives the first reason the UNSC could become involved according the the UN Charter. They were requested to 1) intervene in an International issue. 2) In order to assist the Government to “meet fully their tasks”. Assistance, not the use of force.
UNSC Res 143 1. Calls upon the Government of BELGIUM to withdraw it’s troops….
There is second reason the UNSC could become involved according the the UN Charter. Again, not involvement in a ‘civil war’ Belgium was a STATE, the Congo was a state awaiting recognition, under consideration for UN Membership. Declaring statehood and recognition are two different matters. Some states take years to be recognized, they are never the less, states.
Neither reason gives the UN authority to provide military force in civil war.
Try this http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22UN+peacekeepers+stood+by+as%22+civilians+slaughtered+congo
For the reasons, READ THE UN CHARTER CAREFULLY. The UNSC cannot become involved in civil war.
“You, on the other hand, linked to MUNOC, which is something completely irrelevant”
Irrelevant?
A) MUNOC Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Irrelevant?
B) No, the point being made was to show the International Character of the UNSC’s involvement, not IN a civil war, but A) in order to keep International Peace. The clue is in the word International, i.e., between Internationals/states. When we follow your sources back to UNSC res 143 we find their involvement was B) because they were asked for assistance C) to help PREVENT a civil war.
“They both contain language recognizing the CIVIL WAR in the Congo”
They all speak of assistance, not force, in preventing civil war. Read your own citations.
Res 169 C) To prevent the occurrence of civil war in the Congo
Res 161 …and the danger of civil war and bloodshed in the Congo and the threat to International Peace and Security
Res 161 …bringing to light the development of a serious civil war situation and preparations therefore
1. Urges that the United Nations take immediate all measures to prevent the occurrence of a civil war in the Congo.
Threats to International Security. States. Requested military assistance. Prevent civil war. They’re the reasons given. Reasons without which, according to the UN Charter, the UNSC could not have become involved.
BYE BYE.
————
Lise Howard
“Quote the relevant portion of her work then”
It’s the whole work.
“I doubt you have read what she has written. Quote where she explains the error in the title of her paper”
What error?
————-
Israel:
“Well, this is what I have been asking for proof of. As someone claiming to be interested in international law, quote the relevant body of law that proves Israel is “bound” by a declaration of sovereignty.”
Why bother making a Declaration if one isn’t going to abide by it? It is by it’s very nature an undertaking to the International Community. How is recognition given if one doesn’t know what is being recognized? Why were boundaries PURPOSEFULLY left out of the Declaration, yet included in the notification of the declaration?
“… it does not “enshrine” 181. It refers to 181 and nothing else.”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enshrine IT’S IN THE DECLARATION!
“The Council voted to reject 181 border suggestions
Ahem. It chose not to mention them in the Declaration. Unfortunately, it informed the International Community of States that it had accepted them.
“We are going over the same tired ground here without the proof I requested”
The Israeli declaration (without reservations) and the subsequent announcement to the International Community of States is the proof.
“Where is the official declaration of borders from the “state of Israel”?”
A) (1) What reservations are there pertaining to the UNGA resolution enshrined in the Declaration of a Jewish State? Did they not accept it in total? Where does it say ‘in part’? (2) The official announcement to the wider International Community of States. http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y#the-big-lie
B) Why does the Israeli Govt web site NOT reference such an important document?
C) Why did Israel request that the territories acquired by war by 1949 ” be formally recognized” as Israeli if they were already Israeli? http://wp.me/pDB7k-l5
D) The British recognition tells us http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1950/apr/27/jordan-and-israel-government-decision
“How exactly do states over rule other states’ objections?”
By majority. (International democracy at work)
” Where is the legal source of this mechanism?”
The UN Charter! Why do you bother if you’re not willing to learn?
Comment by talknic — March 8, 2010 @ 7:47 am
Your head must be buried in a trough of ego preservative. When I make mistakes I quickly admit to them and move on. You, on the other hand, linked to MUNOC, which is something completely irrelevant. Coincidentally, it is the only external link in the Wikipedia article on the subject….coincidentally. I did not need to read through the link though, because MUNOC is not the first UN mission to the Congo that was authorized to use force. The intervention you link to is a reaction to what is generally called the Second Congo War. UN forces had been deployed there long before that preventing the occurrence of civil war.
Except the pesky little fact that Resolution 169 authorized the use of force while UN forces were on the ground being shot at, huh? They both contain language recognizing the CIVIL WAR in the Congo, which is all that I was interested in showing you. I could have started with Resolution 143 or some of the many reports, but why bother? I am not going to give a history lesson on something tangential to what your are trying to avoid. To normal people, with a normal aversion to shame, what I linked to and quoted from should have been enough to end the conversation in a retraction. It could have been graceful at one point, since no one person can know everything there is to know about every subject under the sun. Your petty denial makes the doubling down you did that much more embarrassing. Regardless of the Charter of the UN, the UN Security Council has involved itself in civil war.
You sure did. Of course the information YOU GAVE was incomplete…as usual. An error of omission is either a lie or ignorance. Which is it for you, Talknic?
Quote the relevant portion of her work then. I doubt you have read what she has written. Quote where she explains the error in the title of her paper.
Well, this is what I have been asking for proof of. As someone claiming to be interested in international law, quote the relevant body of law that proves Israel is “bound” by a declaration of sovereignty.
No, it does not “enshrine” 181. It refers to 181 and nothing else. The Council voted to reject 181 border suggestions.
We are going over the same tired ground here without the proof I requested, which you ignored out of hand. Where is the official declaration of borders from the “state of Israel”? How exactly do states over rule other states’ objections? Where is the legal source of this mechanism?
Comment by Michael LeFavour — March 7, 2010 @ 1:47 pm
I had intended to spend some time in a detailed rebuttal (tedious as that is), but you have proven that you are incapable of defending your patchwork of sophistry from any response that is beyond your apparently meager attention span. Let’s just break this down to a simpler forum scrimmage and see if you have the intellect to answer brief questions, shall we? Not that I wouldn’t love to reinforce the already obvious fact that you are ignorant of nearly every relevant issue you opine on, but…well, on second thought, it is tempting (for the fun of it) to expose you yet again as either a liar or an ignoramus….for example; you first made a statement that the UNSC does not get involved with civil wars (though I can count at least 9 that it has), In response I reminded you of one or two obvious ones that any high school student could point to, including the one in the Congo. For anyone with a modest grasp of history that would have been a case closed, but in your obsessive compulsion to preserve your self esteem you had to exclaim with certainty that the conflict in the Congo as it pertains to the UNSC was “not a civil war!”. Wow, you are so sure of your statement that you added an exclamation point to reinforce it? This begs a question concerning your accuracy. To me, this represents the quality in a nut shell of your entire website and lack of scholarship…in one ignorant assertion.
To show that you are a person that is prone to grand mistakes in the face of irrefutable evidence I am going to take your exact words and make you eat them. Here is what you stated….When you look look up why the UNSC was in in the Congo (a stoush between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and five regional States, not a civil war! http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/monuc/index.shtml )…blah, blah, blah
Now here is a much more relevant link to prove that the Security Council does get involved with civil wars and that you are an idiot for pulling platitudes out of your ass as if you know what you are talking about, emphasis mine…United Nations Security Council Resolution 161
And…United Nations Security Council Resolution 169
Go ahead and deny that the UN Security Council was not involving itself in a civil war in the Congo now…
You might educate yourself as to the role the Security Council plays in attempting to resolve civil wars by reading papers like this one by Lise Howard, “UN Peacekeeping in Civil Wars: Success, Failure, and Organizational Learning”, preferably before you place exclamation points after ignorant statements that you are just certain are true. The paper uses case study in two countries I did not even mention where the UN involved itself in civil war, Mozambique and Angola.
This is where I clip the amply deserved ridicule. I addressed just one of your empty statements, but I can just as easily address all of the rest if I desire. Forget it, though. I wish to focus on UN 181 and your claim that Israel did not annex some vague portion of land you claim they must.
At the top of this page you cross out the statement that UNGA res 181 is irrelevant, Israel’s borders have never been defined If that does not mean that according to you Israel is “bound” to UN 181 borders, what does it mean? And why the convoluted avoidance of my questions on the matter? And why the humorous maps stating that Israel never legally annexed portions beyond UN 181 general guidelines? If you are not trying to state that Israel is bound to UN 181, you are suffering from a personality disorder along the lines of Sybil, or you are doing a poor job of communicating what you really mean, because according to you over and over you have stated that a declaration of sovereignty is binding. My simple challenge for you is to source that single claim with a work of international law. Your blog profile claims you are interested in international law, you have made positive assertions about what is binding…I am challenging you, it is time for you to put up or shut up.
Comment by Michael LeFavour — March 6, 2010 @ 6:46 pm
Great opening there Mr LeFavour …completely devoid of fact. Whimpering about what you could do, but haven’t. Bizarre to say the least.
To the actual points:
A) BOTH UNSC resolutions you’ve put up are STATEMENTS. They neither recommend or offer any active involvement by the UNSC, for the simple reasons given in the UN CHARTER. I gave the ACTUAL information from MONUC as to when and why the UNSC did become actively involved.
You chose to ignore, ( here again: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/monuc/index.shtml ) and instead embarked on a silly attempt to prove …something? ….anything? ….yourself? … what exactly? …achieving nothing except to show your in-ability to either accept fact or an amazing ability to deny it.
B) Israel is not bound by UNGA res 181. I’ve never claimed it was. It is a non-binding resolution.
Israel is bound by it’s declaration of sovereign independence, (in order to gain recognition as a Independent Sovereign State). The Declaration of a Jewish State enshrines UNGA res 181, without conditions or reservations.
Israel’s advisory to the International Community of States, (in order to gain recognition,stating it’s Declared Sovereign boundaries and under which the International Community of States recognized Israel, over riding the Arab States’ objections).
Israel’s subsequent admission to the UN, taking upon itself obligations to adhere to International Law, the UN Charter, the Laws of War and the Conventions it has ratified.
“Your blog profile claims you are interested in international law, you have made positive assertions about what is binding…I am challenging you, it is time for you to put up or shut up.”
It was ‘put up’, well before your arrival. Your denial, insults, accusations & abuse haven’t disproved anything and are common to folk spouting the learned Hasbara line, blindly defensive of Israel’s illegal behaviour.
Lise Howard’s papers confirm what is contained in the UN Charter.
“convoluted avoidance of my questions on the matter”Uh? Your questions have been answered
A) on these pages. They can be seen by anyone reading.
B) by my answers. Which can also be seen by anyone reading.
C) in the UN Charter. Also easily read by anyone.
D) Oddly enough, in your own references.
Comment by talknic — March 6, 2010 @ 10:51 pm
Michael LeFavour is just your run of the mill ZioNutcase. He also claims to not be Jewish, but being practical, what kind of a person talks the way he does? With that kind of insane ultra-religious/nationalist rhetoric? He’s a Zionist Jew. Not a Christian Fundie, and not a ‘Native American’ as he claims to be.
Just another supremacist ass-wipe.
Looks like you got owned, yet again, douchebag.
Comment by Cliff — February 25, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
Hi Cliff,
A) I’d rather not have bad language here..(even though I agree with the essence of what you’re saying)…thx
B) Yes, they’re all pretty much the same. Brainwashed. 61 years of it. Their problem is, once you start pulling at the thread…. so they steadfastly refuse to admit ANYTHING.
C) I don’t actually care what he is, fundie, loonie, Zionista, I’m only interested in showing the gaping great holes and lack of logic in his arguments.
Comment by talknic — February 25, 2010 @ 2:05 pm
Cliff,
Bring a single idea to a place where I will not be banned and you will end up with every tooth knocked out of the Totenkopf sitting on your shoulders, coward. Slither back to Mondoweiss where you can squirm, writhe, and caress the rest of the spineless sycophants locked in a orgiastic embrace of hatred there.
Comment by Michael LeFavour — March 6, 2010 @ 7:06 pm
snr LeFavour
You’re not banned here, despite your un-welcome name calling and stupid insults.
Comment by talknic — March 6, 2010 @ 8:23 pm
I am banned at Mondoweiss (among other detritus filled websites that serve no other purpose than to provide fodder for genocide and anti-Semitism). Cliff is a fan of mine because he has felt the clenched fist of my words across the jaw bone of his fragile ego.
Just as he did on your site, he throws in his “two cents worth” without adding any substance to the conversation and hurls banal insults without a “gotcha” piece of evidence to support his triumphal declarations, which leaves one with an empty feeling in the pit of the stomach. When intertwined in a heaving mass of mucus covered, slithering hate you get the Mondoweiss forum and Philip Weiss’ fan boy club, ala Cliff.
As to insults, if I see you have any honor I might drop them. The further this farce goes on, the more convinced I am that you have none, the more likely I will use stronger ones. I actually like exchanging insults, to be honest. By the same token, on a scale of Cliff to 10 I do give you credit for making at least mild effort at presenting some sort of evidence to go along with your sophistry, protestations, and denial.
I await your sourcing of international law and binding declarations of sovereignty, as it relates to defining borders of a future state.
Comment by Michael LeFavour — March 6, 2010 @ 9:12 pm
Little wonder you’re banned. Here’s the valid content of your post after removing the un-necessary, unsubstantiated claims about ‘fodder for genocide and anti-Semitism’, the abuse, the insults and the lies:
“…”
Nothing.
You’re not waiting for anything, YOU’RE IGNORING.
The only truth in your posts thus far is this : “I actually like exchanging insults, to be honest. “
Which of course is rather obvious.
Comment by talknic — March 7, 2010 @ 3:49 am
If you are asking me to support a statement all you need to do is ask…
The demonization of a people, like Israelis for example, has been a proven precursor to genocide Web sites using propaganda, fallacies, mis-conceptions, myths and lies, like yours, Norman Finkelstein’s, Phillip Weiss’, and others’ does, give sustenance to anti-Semites and those seeking genocide. The Anti-Israel hysteria, as presented by you, is meant to illicit what sort of reaction? If Israel is guilty of the evil you charge then the obvious next step is to intervene, right, Talknic?
Comment by Michael LeFavour — March 7, 2010 @ 2:51 pm
If you are asking me to support a statement all you need to do is ask… “
Mmmmm I wonder what you’re answering to?
“The demonization of a people, like Israelis for example, has been a proven precursor to genocide”
Yes. Not only Israelis. Even the Palestinians for example, who according to many of your your ilk, do not exist at all. Your website proves nothing against those you accused. In fact, it highlights those who’d deny the Palestinians any existence at all.
Web sites using propaganda, fallacies, mis-conceptions, myths and lies, like yours”
Don’t make empty accusations……. point out the lies and refute them. Not with your Hasbara informed opinion, but with fact… Put up dear fellow, you said you would, now come on, be true to your word.
“Norman Finkelstein’s, Phillip Weiss’, and others’ ..”
Evidence against them. I have asked… Put up.
…does, give sustenance to anti-Semites
Another link which doesn’t prove anything against those you accused….put up.
.. and those seeking genocide”
Another link which doesn’t prove anything against those you accused….put up.
BTW from the Hamas charter // “As to those who have not borne arms against you on account of religion, nor turned you out of your dwellings, Allah forbiddeth you not to deal kindly with them, and to behave justly towards them; for Allah loveth those who act justly.” (The Tried – verse 8).//
Hope you read the caveats and fine print on your home loan.
Say, ever read the Lukid charter? No caveats there. In know you’ve read the deceitful goings on behind the Israeli declaration, purposefully omitting the boundaries in order to deceive. tch tch tch.
“The Anti-Israel hysteria, as presented by you, is meant to illicit what sort of reaction?”
Sorry I don’t do hysteria, just facts. In order that people can have well informed opinion, instead of opinions fed by the busllsh*te used to justify the illegal acquisition of other folk’s territories.
“If Israel is guilty of the evil you charge..”
Making false accusations isn’t nice. ‘evil’? Care either cite or retract….there’s a good chap.
Now, about the support for your prior statements…nothing?
Next post of yours that comes with nothing will be deleted…. so hop to.
Comment by talknic — March 8, 2010 @ 8:29 am
The website I linked to showed a guideline to the steps of genocide. The genocidal people you champion are guilty of most of them. After we get past the one challenge I want to focus on we can discuss it in depth. Prepare a list of culture traits of Palestinians that separate them from the rest of the Arab world while you are looking up the information I have requested too. Jew hatred will not be an acceptable cultural identifier either. To continue, I need you to prove Israel is bound by a declaration of sovereignty as you claim. They are not, because no such concept in international law exists and you look like an ass hat making this allegation over and over without proof.
I have put up facts from day one, you have simply ignored them.
Is this the fig leaf you cover your craven support for genocidal intent with? It is truly revolting that you side with murderous terrorists over a freedom loving state, but we can get into details of your shameful behavior after you have proven Israel is bound by a declaration of sovereignty.
Your web site is full of unsubstantiated bull shit and hysteria. You have unjustly demonized Israelis as thieves, liars, war mongers, aggressors, human rights violators, war criminals, and more, all with propaganda and lies. You can’t even link me to a body of law to prove the first ignorant claim on this page, which I am challenging.
So war criminals, thieves, and liars are the good guys in Talknic’s flat earth? These are false allegations you have classified Israel with.
So linking and quoting UN docs is nothing, huh? Linking an article written by Norman Frankenstein that is praised by a supremacist anti-Semite on Storm Front is nothing, right? I suppose it depends on the bias of the judge then, and you have shown precious little good judgment or neutrality. Where does that leave us?
I am shocked, stunned, gob smacked…no you wouldn’t, a man/woman of your integrity? of course, if you can’t dispute what I am saying with logic and facts you can always delete what I have to say to make yourself feel better. What a coward…
Comment by Michael LeFavour — March 10, 2010 @ 1:46 am
I have no intention of going over the Declaration of a Jewish state again Mr LeFavour .
If you wish to keep denying what it, the UN Charter and the notification of the declaration contain, so be it. All it does is confirm YOUR inability to accept what IS there. What has been written. What Israel’s voluntary OBLIGATIONS are. If you don’t understand the binding nature of obligations within the context of the UN, I doubt you’d understand them on a personal level either, I suggest perhaps a shrink. I also suggest you read very care fully what you challenged.
A) Show the evidence from the people you originally accused…thx
B) Where have I championed the people you originally accused? I have never mentioned them. I do not use any of their information, I have not even read what they write about. There is nothing of theirs on this site. NIL, NADA, NOUGHT, NO THING! So stop making false accusations.
You made a claim, YOU Back it.
After you provide evidence for your accusations… third request..
The Palestinians:mostly live either in the non-state entity of Palestine, “territories occupied” or in refugee camps, for the most part generously hosted for 62 years by the Arab States at great financial and social cost, because Israel has refused to acknowledge RoR, citing an imaginary threat that non partisan mathematics can prove does not exist. Citing the UNRA defintion, which DOES NOT extend to RoR or final status negotiations.
Many Palestinians have been Palestine refugees for their entire lives. Some have been dispossessed twice, by the same ‘peace loving’ neighbour, as it illegally acquired their land, citing it as defense, but claiming it for it’s own, illegally instituting it’s own civilian law and illegally settling it’s own civilians. Illegally building civilian infrastructure and illegally selling illegally acquired territory to it’s illegal settlers.
The Palestinians are not Lebanese. They are not Syrian. They are not Jordanian. They are not Egyptian. Approximately 50% of their non-state territories have been illegally acquired by war since the 14th May 1948, by a ‘peace loving’ neighbour who has been slowly, but surely, ‘wiping them off the map’ for the past 62 years.
The Palestinians are for the most part, civilians, who for the most part, have never lifted a finger towards ANYONE. The majority were only children in 1947/48. The majority weren’t even born on 1920. NONE voted the Grand Mufti into office he was put into power by a Jewish chap. By the time he was photographed with Hitler, he was not even representing the Palestinians and he wasn’t the grand Mufti of anywhere because he’d been ousted.
The Palestinians do not have anything that belongs to Israel. They do not have any road blocks in Israeli territory, they have never built a separation barrier across Israeli farms. The majority have never been suicide bombers, have not used fletchettes, have not even picked up a gun or a stone remaining from one of their razed homes.
No, my dear chap, I have gone to great lengths to address your ‘facts’. Dis-proving them. Not with opinion, but with verifiable INFORMATION from primary sources and reputable repositories. By care fully going through the resolutions and showing what they actually say and why they say it.
No. It’s in their charter. FACT. A small but significant caveat, which shows their intent is not genocidal, but a stoush over territory.
Two points:
A) I have never sided with any murderous terrorists. I’m merely pointing out what the Hasbarbarians dare not cite when they cite the Hamas charter. It is there, is it not?
B) This ‘freedom loving state’ has 223 UNSC resolutions against it. It has illegally acquired 50% of the territories NOT slated for the Jewish state. Territories it has never legally annexed.
Disprove the Armistice Agreements. Disprove the UN Charter. Disprove the Declaration of a Jewish state. Disprove the notification of the Declaration of a Jewish State. Show the UNSC resolution condemning the Arab States invasion of Palestine. Disprove something, anything….
See, there you go again. Where have I mentioned ‘Israelis’?
No, my dear little pet. They’re the good guys in YOUR flat earth. YOU are defending the illegal acquisition of territory. I’ve not defended anyone. All I have done is point out the fallacies that have been propagated. Fallacies YOU need to believe in order to satisfy your own overblown ego or whatever it is that stops you from admitting what you KNOW is being perpetuated against the Palestinians.
A) Suddenly it’s ‘Israel’, not ‘israelis’. Make up your mind.
B) You’ll be able to point out where I have used the classifications YOU just listed…..right?
Nothing in it citing the people you originally accused.
Praise from a ‘supremacist anti-Semite’ for an article, is not evidence that the article is actually anti-semitic.
I asked you to show evidence against those you originally accused. So go ahead, quote them… cite THEIR website or what THEY actually said, IN CONTEXT, verbatim. Not what some schmuck thinks of what they’ve said.
Uh huh…. Typical Hasbara twaddle speil. The notion of banning you is because of your abuse, insults and empty accusations. Not because of any ‘facts’ you may think you have posted.
I was indoctrinated with your arguments for the better part of my life. I know them intimately. I recognize you, your kind, your pathetic excuses, your tactics. You’ll deny, lie, cheat, smear, slur, falsely accuse, pretend not to understand, mis-quote, cherry pick, post the most ridiculous notion, proof read it, then inexplicably won’t feel like editing it, even though you know it’s there, on YOUR web site, WRONG. Tell me another one sonny boy…
Comment by talknic — March 10, 2010 @ 6:40 pm
If, Mr LeFavour, when you post your next reply here, removing the false assertions as to what I have allegedly claimed and QUOTE me verbatim instead, rather than building little legless strawmen and when you remove the outright lies such as “The wording “in Eretz Israel” is not stated in the voice of the council” (it’s in the Declaration they wrote, perhaps some new spectacles would help? ).
When you actually read UNRWA’s mandate (which doesn’t extend to final status or RoR and only exists in order to assist refugees whilst they are refugees http://wp.me/PDB7k-W & http://wp.me/pDB7k-jS )
When you stop conflating the Civil War (pre-14th May ’48) with the Arab States Invasion of Palestine (post 14th May 1948 http://wp.me/pDB7k-ki )
When you look look up why the UNSC was in in the Congo (a stoush between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and five regional States, not a civil war! http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/monuc/index.shtml ) and why the UNSC was involved in North and South of Korea ( North Korean People’s Army invades the Republic of Korea (South Korea), also not a civil war! http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/korea/large/koreav1.htm )
When you stop denying there is such a country as Palestine, albeit a non-state entity. ( how could there have ever been a Mandate over Palestine, Palestinian currency, Palestinian papers http://wp.me/pDB7k-il )
When you stop lying by saying Palestine was named by a Brit. When you stop citing things like the Memorandum by Mr. Charles P. Noyes, which DOESN’T prove the Arab states acted illegally only what tactics were to be taken.
When you stop posting things that can’t be referenced online…No results found for “A decision on the part of the United Nations that the Arab States, by invading Palestine, were guilty of aggression”. No results found for “Such intervention might eventually lead to a breaking up of the present political structure of the Middle East” (this is an online discussion).
When you refrain from abuse “you can’t get past a fucking moron of a Brit, for political purposes, misnaming a land that had been called Judea or Israel for thousands of years” When it wasn’t a Brit who named Palestine.
When you stop making bigoted, abusive remarks like “There is no such thing as a Palestinian, because Palestine has never been a country or a culturally unique people and all the sophistry Talknic and friends can muster won’t change a lump of shit into a people” When a place of origin is all that is needed to be an American (the only common thing is that they are from the USA), a Brit, a Palestinian, an Italian, but a Jew can come from anywhere and be an Israeli. You can’t even admit that where Israel now stands, was once a part of the non-state entity of Palestine.
When you can read ALL of UNGA res 181 including the 2,300 words or so clarifying the boundaries of the two areas.
When you can stop conflating the Jewish National home IN Palestine of the Balfour Declaration and the White papers, with a separate Jewish State http://wp.me/PDB7k-Q#jews-can-live-anywhere
When you can accept the FACT that the Declaration of a Jewish State itself says the British Mandate ENDED http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Declaration+of+Establishment+of+State+of+Israel.htm .
When I say ‘Care to name a few borders that have been formed by war in the last 65 years’ and you can reply without changing ‘formed’ into ‘changes’ (“Kosovo, Bosnia, Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Eritrea, Namibia, China, Korea, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, East Timor, South Ossetia, Georgia, and I am sure I missed others, all had border changes due to war in the last 65 years.”)
When, instead of waffling on about it being illegal, you actually read the Armistice AGREEMENT between Israel and TransJordan, AGREEING that the Hashemite Kingdom would occupy the West Bank http://tinyurl.com/y8ewves/myths-mis-conceptions-propaganda/#Jordans-occupation-of-the-WestBank-was-illegal
When you can tell me which actual Sovereign Israeli territory the Arab States invaded 15th May 1948 http://wp.me/pDB7k-ki .
When you can stop CRAP statements like The telegram was delivered before the Mandate expired (the Declaration of a Jewish State tells us the Mandate ended on the 14th May http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Declaration+of+Establishment+of+State+of+Israel.htm The telegram/letter was on the 15th May http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad169.asp )
When you can stop making strawman assertions like this little cripple “The world is not flat, Talknic. If you refuse to accept that it is round you will be a lonely fool, but you will still have your inflated ego that seems to encompass your entire perspective for company I suppose.”
When you can stop conflating an INDEPENDENT UNILATERAL Declaration with an International agreement or at least realize the difference.
When you can stop spouting tripe like “The declaration was on the 14th and spoke in future tense of the Mandate expiring. “ (the Declarations says this: //On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired, the Jewish People’s Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved the following proclamation, declaring the establishment of the State of Israel. // The Declaration (i.e., ‘the following proclamation’) says //WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight…// From the moment….
When you can stop conflating TransJordan’s OCCUPATION of the West Bank as agreed in the armistice agreement, with it’s later legal temporary annexation as a trustee. (of course it isn’t mentioned in the Armistice agreement, it happened AFTER the armistice agreement and was not condemned by the UNSC, because it was not unilateral, but by agreement with the Palestinians http://tinyurl.com/y8ewves/myths-mis-conceptions-propaganda/#Gaza-part-of-Egypt-West-Bank-part-of-Jordan )
When you finally realize that the Conventions do apply, as confirmed by the UN, UNSC, ICRC, because the High Contracting Parties were the parties to the ceasefires, armistices and peace agreements after the wars. I.e., Israel and the various Arab States. NOT the Palestinians.
When you can hold back from making assertions like “They were not UN members in WWII. The UN did not exist. Yet again you seem to be plagued with the virus of inaccuracy and ignorance. “ When we were talking about the War of Independence.
When you can stop changing ‘discussed in the UN’ (res 242), which Israel was a member of in 1967, to ‘passed’ by the UNSC.
When you cease making false assertions like “You claim it says that Israel and Jordan “agreed” to share the Jewish Homeland. “ Yet it is is NOWHERE to be seen in any of my posts or replies to you.
When you realize that territory can only be taken back by war IF it was the sovereign territory of the party (and it’s allies), doing the taking back http://middleeastfacts.org/content/schwebel/what-weight-to-conquest.htm (bottom of the page)
Like wise a non-state entity and it’s allies may take back by war from an entity who has illegally acquired it by war.
When you actually understand what Robert A. Lovett wrote. (it fits Hitler quite well)
When you read and actually understand the US recognition of Israel http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/1-23.pdf and when you read and understand the British recognition http://wp.me/pDB7k-ki#defacto-dejure
When you work out that the USA recognized Israel ON the 15th May 1948, which is BEFORE the 17th and when you can answer A) By what means other than the telegram/letter to Truman was the US informed? B) Does your reasoning mean the US’s recognition was invalid? If so on what date did they rescind recognition and/or re-recognize Israel?
You’re so corrupted by Hasbara shite, you don’t even realize that purposefully not including the boundaries in the Declaration in order to later acquire territory, was a purposeful attempt at deception. Not that any Sovereign State’s Declaration details boundaries. ( they have either been pre-determined (UNGA Res 181) or by agreement with neighbouring Sovereign States) E.g., http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/bo02000_.html
When you can accept the fact, that as a UN Member State, Israel IS actually obliged to adhere to the UN Charter, the Conventions it has ratified and International Law.
So when, instead of changing words, misrepresenting what I have actually claimed, (e.g., I have never insisted ” that Israel is bound by UN 181 ” ), fabricating, lying, abusing, denying the ACTUAL wording of the Declaration of a Jewish State, dribbling on about US Civil Law, when the matter is one of International Law, I might consider answering you.
However, if you continue to be deceitful, abusive, insulting, irrelevant etc, you might be simply ignored.
Comment by talknic — February 23, 2010 @ 2:26 pm
In case you missed it, my fourth response to your nonsense is here.
Comment by Michael LeFavour — February 22, 2010 @ 4:33 pm
[…] what exactly is he talking about? What Israel has illegally taken, that which is not it's own! Illegally acquired territory in the north, never annexed Illegally acquired territory in the […]
Pingback by A comparison of UN speeches Netinyahu / Ahmadjinedad. Lies and Fear vs Common Sense! « Talknic – First, find out what isn't true…. — January 29, 2010 @ 7:32 am