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... 
[…] response recognizing Israel, was released to the world press in Washington on May 15, 1948. Talknic’s website and my own list several occasions on which Israel publicly acknowledged the existence of these […]
Pingback by The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine (Updated) – Mondoweiss — November 5, 2014 @ 2:42 pm
[…] response recognizing Israel, was released to the world press in Washington on May 15, 1948. Talknic’s website and my own list several occasions on which Israel publicly acknowledged the existence of these […]
Pingback by The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine! | | truthaholics — October 25, 2014 @ 4:13 pm
[…] response recognizing Israel, was released to the world pressin Washington on May 15, 1948. Talknic’s website and my own list several occasions on which Israel publicly acknowledged the existence of these […]
Pingback by The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine | Ahaa — October 24, 2014 @ 1:40 pm
[…] response recognizing Israel, was released to the world press in Washington on May 15, 1948. Talknic’s website and my own list several occasions on which Israel publicly acknowledged the existence of these […]
Pingback by The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine | الحرب الطائفية في المملكة — October 23, 2014 @ 3:32 pm
[…] response recognizing Israel, was released to the world press in Washington on May 15, 1948. Talknic’s website and my own list several occasions on which Israel publicly acknowledged the existence of these […]
Pingback by The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine | NOFrack.co — October 23, 2014 @ 2:59 pm
[…] response recognizing Israel, was released to the world press in Washington on May 15, 1948. Talknic’s website and my own list several occasions on which Israel publicly acknowledged the existence of these […]
Pingback by The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine – Mondoweiss — October 23, 2014 @ 2:10 pm
Where does UN Security Council Resolution 42 of 5th March 1948 fit into all of this?
Para 1 says “Resolves to call on the permanent members of the Council to consult and to inform the Security Council regarding the situation” etc etc
Then it says:
Para 2 then says: “Appeals to all Governments and peoples, particularly in and around Palestine, to take all possible action to prevent or reduce such disorders as are now occurring in Palestine.” http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_42 – passed by 8 votes to 0.
That reads to me like an instruction to the neighbouring states to send in armies. And send them into the Israeli section, not just the remaining section.
Comment by William Smart — January 10, 2013 @ 12:53 pm
Hi WIlliam,
UNSC 46 (1948). Resolution of 17 April 1948 [S/723] clearly dispels that notion.
All resolutions from here can’t link directly to the resolutions on this Internet pathway into the UN
UNSC resolutions are written as precisely and concisely as possible so there is no misunderstanding. The status of the situation and parties are taken into account. No UN Member states were at war and; the British Mandate was still in force.
UNSC res 42 5 March 1948 (S/691) didn’t cite/reaffirm any binding laws or actions that would be taken. It “appeals” to the parties to resolve the issue per the UN Charter Chapt VI
It 2. Appeals to all Governments and peoples, particularly in and around Palestine, to take all possible action to prevent or reduce such disorders as are now occurring in Palestine
The only “government” “in” Palestine was, until 14th May 1948, the British. However the Mandatory could only act as “the administration of the territory of Palestine”, not as the British “Government” ‘in Palestine’. Nor was the British Government or the British as Mandatory ‘around Palestine’
The Arab Higher Committee was not a ‘government’. The “governments” ‘around Palestine’, were Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, Egypt, Iraq. All but Transjordan were UN Member States at the time, bound respect the Mandate for Palestine as it stood under the UN Charter. The other Arab States threatened Transjordan with sanctions unless it fell in line.
For example, the West Bank as it was officially renamed, was legally annexed at the request of the Palestinians (bilaterally) and as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950) The Arab States forced Transjordan to comply with the UN Charter’s notions of self determination per Chapt XI and “to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;” The bilateral annexation as trustee saw a rule of civil law, which was preferable to living under the laws of Military Occupation. It was not condemned by the UNSC because A) Transjordan wasn’t a UN Member B) it complied with the UN Charter. Nor was Egypt condemned by the UNSC for any illegal activities as the Occupying Power over Gaza. Furthermore, it is quite NORMAL and not illegal in war, to expel or inter potential allies of the enemy. Contrary to the Hasbara, Israel also prevented Jews (and Arabs) from worshiping by enacting the 1948 emergency law stopping Israeli citizens and residents from entering territory of a hostile State.
Only after the Mandate had expired and Israel had declared, with Jewish forces under Plan Dalet already “outside the territory of the State of Israel”, that the Arab states invaded “Palestine”. There was no UNSC resolution condemning the Arab States for invading Palestine. Contrary to the Hasbara, the Arab States complied with the UN Charter.
Comment by talknic — January 10, 2013 @ 3:58 pm
First of all, I don’t know what UNSC 42 was supposed to achieve.
Then I’m puzzled by the phrase “all possible action”. What does it mean? Is it not the international code for war? Or at least, sending troops with orders to arrest or kill those causing the objectionable “disturbance”?
Lastly, I cannot see that the British would have objected to the entry of these neighbouring governments, offering to take over the security things that, basically, were not being done. If the British would have objected then they had the option of vetoing the UNSC resolution, or holding it over another 2 months until May 15th.
Comment by William Smart — January 14, 2013 @ 8:39 pm
Britain abstained from voting on UNSC res 42.
“all possible action” is not the entire phrase… “to take all possible action to prevent or reduce such disorders as are now occurring in Palestine”
You might find some answers here — http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/sittings/1948/mar/ — either side of the 5th — I’m otherwise engaged at the moment.
Comment by talknic — January 15, 2013 @ 6:31 am
I searched Hansard around those dates but couldn’t find anything. And, while I have great respect for your knowledge and logic, the phrase “all possible action” is, I think, code for war.
Its certainly a UNSC instruction/mandate to invade Palestine, presumably up to and including the “Jewish Portion”.
Note that this is prior to the end of the British Mandate but not protested by the UK. They’re not offering encouragement, but they’re certainly not protesting either.
Comment by William Smart — June 27, 2015 @ 8:54 am
William, the first clause of 242 is asking for advice and instructions to be given to the Palestine Commission. Their job was to implement the partition plan. Since the Arabs were implacably opposed to the plan, the SC certainly could not have intended an Arab invasion. It is much more likely that they were hoping that the Arab states would discourage the irregular Arab Liberation Army who were already operating in Palestine at the time (March 1948) and certainly contributing to the disorder.
Comment by dgfincham — June 27, 2015 @ 9:37 am
To Fincham: I’m still profoundly puzzled.
The UNSC had refused to endorse the UNGA 181 partition resolution. So the latter should have been vitiated, it had only ever had any existence as a proposal. It might have been a recommendation but it was certainly not a resolution. By March of 1948, UNGA 181 was 4 months old, was never going to be progressed and had no further existence or claim to validity.
Now, UNSC 42 “to take all possible action” was on 5th March 1948 and 6 weeks later (April 17 1948, soon after the Deir Yassin massacre, clearly completely uncalled for), the UNSC made its position against the creation of Israel even clearer.
The UNSC (with the US on board and the British abstaining again) forbade Israel declaring its independence “Calls upon all persons and organizations in Palestine, and especially upon the Arab Higher Committee and the Jewish Agency, to take immediately, without prejudice to their rights, claims or positions, and as a contribution to the well-being and permanent interests of Palesitne, the following measures … Refrain, pending further consideration of the future government of Palestine by the General Assembly, from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims or position of either community … and refrain from any actions which might endanger the safety of any of the Holy Places in the territory". Passed: 9 for – 2 abstain – 0 against. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_46
Now, we know that Israel managed to do an end-run on this UNSC 46 mandatory resolution because on 15th May, Truman recognised Israel anyway (after the letter from Epstein specified its borders as being along the partition line – still the only recognition that Israel has ever had!).
However, I’d suppose that Truman recognised Israeli without advice from the State Dept, which had a carefully considered American foreign policy to follow and would have strongly objected.
Hence, my reading continues to be that UNSC 42 was a call to arms against people [Irgun and Stern terrorists in particular] who were even disowned by the Yishuv. Such terrorists had no legitimacy and armies must move against them.
Fincham again – you say you’ve been looking at the UN Documents and discussions relating to UNSC 42 – where are they to be found? If, as you say, there is no discussion the 2nd phrase “to take all possible action” then I’d be bound to suppose they’ve been tampered with.
Comment by William Smart — June 27, 2015 @ 7:01 pm
Hello William (you may call me David)
Yes I agree that resolution 46 is attempting to stop the Israeli declaration, among other things.
Yes, there was a big difference of opinion between the State Department, which was pushing Trusteeship, and Truman in the days running up to May 14: ultimately Marshall agreed not to oppose Truman on the recognition.
The UNSC did not refuse to endorse 181. Clause 1 of Resolution 42 is about taking steps “with a view to implementing the resolution of the General Assembly”, thereby endorsing it. That is what all the argument was about in that series of meetings leading up to 42. The Zionists wanted that phrase included, the Arabs did not. (When the Palestine Commission asked the SC to provide troops to help them restore law and order (in effect help them impose partition) the SC refused that.)
To find the documents, go to the UN website, look for the document search, and type in the the codes I list. These are the official UN records, there is no possibility they have been tampered with. There are an awful lot of words, it is possible I have missed some discussion over clause 2. Please inform me if you find it. Until then, my opinion is that clause 2 is a badly worded attempt to calm things down, certainly not a call for military action.
Comment by dgfincham — June 28, 2015 @ 11:25 am
I think I can clear up some misconceptions here. Resolution 242 was a U.N. Security Council resolution. But it was made under Chapter VI, not Chapter VII. Chapter VII resolutions have to do with maintaining peace between nations, and these are the only binding Security Council resolutions. They alone empower the U.N. to send troops.
Since all of Western Palestine had been placed in trust for World Jewry by the Palestine Mandate, the U.N. Security Council could not enforce the General Assembly’s Resolution 181 recommending removal of part of this territory for the benefit of Palestinian Arabs. (Yes, 181 was a real resolution, but General Assembly resolutions function only as recommendations). Resolution 242 wasn’t a resolution about endorsing Resolution 181, a non-binding U.N. General Assembly resolution requiring the agreement of both affected parties, Arabs and Jews, in order to become binding. Because the Palestinian Arabs had violently rejected Resolution 181, attacking Palestinian Jews and killing almost 2,000 of them in the ensuing 6 months by the time the Zionists declared their State of Israel in May of 1948, Resolution 181, the Partition Resolution, was never effected. Resolution 242 was about trying to point a way forward to peace following the 1967 Six Day War. Yes, I agree with dgfincham that 242 was an attempt to calm things down.
I don’t agree, however, with dgfincham’s earlier comment that the West Bank was being held in trust for the Arabs. Only two nations had recognized Jordan’s illegal annexation of this territory in 1950: Pakistan and Britain. Note that not even the Arab League ever recognized Jordan’s annexation. The Palestine Mandate, however, had delayed Statehood for the Jewish State until the Jews could become a majority in the area being held in trust for them.
I would like to quote here from an article by Wallace Edward Brand at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/16232#.VZBVY2fbL3g
“In the case of Palestine, many states signed voluntarily onto the Palestine Mandate in 1922. That was a Trust Agreement providing for Jewish settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan commencing in 1922 and placing in trust for the Jewish People, the collective political rights to Palestine until such time as:
1. they attained a population majority in the area where they would rule, and
2. had the capability to exercise sovereignty under the declaratory method.
Once a state’s discretion in selecting an entity it is willing to recognize as a state has been exercised, under the legal doctrine of acquired rights, (now codified in the Vienna Convention on Treaties, Article 70 (1) (b)), it cannot be withdrawn except for cause. An action in estoppel is the approved way of asserting one’s acquired rights.
In 1922, fifty-two states asserted their approval of the Palestine Mandate which placed in trust the national or collective political rights to all Palestine west of the Jordan. The trust agreement they approved gave to the Jewish People the immediate right of close settlement on the land west of the Jordan River but delayed their statehood until such time as they attained a population majority in the area they would rule and had the necessary elements to qualify for sovereignty under the declaratory method.”
At the time of the Partition Resolution, the Jews were not a majority in all of Western Palestine. But they were a majority in the part recommended for them by the Partition Resolution. Thus, they accepted Statehood in this portion of Western Palestine. Things have now changed, though; and the Jews constitute something like a 65% majority in Western Palestine “from the river to the sea.” They have the right to settle any vacant land not already owned by non-Jewish inhabitants. (Recall here that Article 6 of the Palestine Mandate specifies: “The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”) Ironically, Arab nations actually contributed to Jewish attainment of a majority in Western Palestine by ethically cleansing Jews from Arab lands, a project which started in 1941 with the Farhoud, or Farhud, in Iraq. And Egypt, Jordan, and Syria contributed to Israel’s liberation of all the territory designated for it by the Palestine Mandate when, in 1967, they forced Israel to fight a defensive war. As a side note: Land may not legally be acquired by aggression. But land taken in a defensive war is in a different category. If this were not true, Breslau, Germany would not now be Wrocław, Poland.
I hope this will help.
Marjorie Stamm Rosenfeld
Comment by Marjorie Rosenfeld — June 28, 2015 @ 8:47 pm
Hello Marjorie,
I was having a conversation with William about Resolution 42. I am sorry I confused you by, at one point, typing 242 rather than 42.
Everything you say in your latest post is incorrect, and this is a result of your listening to liars rather than reading the original documents. Everything I say is correct because it is based on a careful reading of the documents.
I invite you to visit my web-site and read this article http://www.religion-science-peace.org/2014/06/15/the-borders-of-israel-and-palestine/ which covers the territorial aspects of the conflict from the start, with quotations from and links to the documents. This correspondence on talknic’s site is now ended.
Comment by dgfincham — June 29, 2015 @ 10:06 am
Marjorie “Chapter VII resolutions have to do with maintaining peace between nations, and these are the only binding Security Council resolutions.”
Problem with your Ziononsense is the fact that Laws and UN Charter articles re-affirmed and emphasized in any UN resolution are binding.
“Since all of Western Palestine had been placed in trust for World Jewry by the Palestine Mandate”
Article 7 of the Mandate tells us you’re hallucinating or believe in fairy tales
“Resolution 242 wasn’t a resolution about endorsing Resolution 181, a non-binding U.N. General Assembly resolution ”
The Jewish Agency officially claimed UNGA res 181 was binding.Friday, 5 March 1948 Rabbi Silver stated to the UNSC
Friday, 19 March 1948 Rabbi Silver replacing Mr. Shertok at the Council table as representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine stated
And again:
Security Council S/PV.271 19 March 1948 The representative of the Jewish Agency, Rabbi Silver:
…. requiring the agreement of both affected parties, Arabs and Jews, in order to become binding”
See above and …. declaring independence is entirely unilateral. There was no clause requiring co-signatories. Again, the Jewish Agency
“Resolution 181, the Partition Resolution, was never effected.”
Strange, it is enshrined in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. http://www.knesset.gov.il/docs/eng/megilat_eng.htm It was cited in the Israeli Government plea for recognition http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf and cited in the Israeli Government’s statement to the UNSC of May 22nd 1948 in regards to territories “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”
“I don’t agree, however, with dgfincham’s earlier comment that the West Bank was being held in trust for the Arabs” …..”Note that not even the Arab League ever recognized Jordan’s annexation.
Nonsense. The Arab states insisted it be in trust. The West Bank as it is now known, was bilaterally annexed at the request of the Palestinians Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950). There is no UNSC resolution condemning bilateral annexation, it’s a part of self determination.. There are numerous UNSC resolutions condemning Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem UNSC Resolution 476 is one of at least EIGHT reminders of UNSC Res 252
252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 452 (1979) 20 July 1979, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 June 30 1980 and 478 August 20 1980. None of which have anything to do with race or religion. They’re based on the UN Charter, International Law and the GC’s, all of which Israel obliged itself to uphold. Alas it hasn’t. No state BTW has ever recognized East Jerusalem as Israeli.
” The Palestine Mandate, however, had delayed Statehood for the Jewish State until the Jews could become a majority in the area being held in trust for them.”
Drivel. The LoN Mandate was for a Palestinian state, with Palestinian nationality read Article 7 of the Mandate instead of LYING about having read the mandate
“I would like to quote here from an article by Wallace Edward Brand at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/16232#.VZBVY2fbL3g“
Problem …. Article 7 of the LoN Mandate tells us Wallace is full of Ziopoop
“At the time of the Partition Resolution, the Jews were not a majority in all of Western Palestine. But they were a majority in the part recommended for them by the Partition Resolution. Thus, they accepted Statehood in this portion of Western Palestine.”
That’s it Marjorie. (Contrary to what you previously claimed about UNGA res 181 BTW). “… 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.”
No further territories have ever been legally acquired and annexed to Israel.
“Things have now changed, though; and the Jews constitute something like a 65% majority in Western Palestine “from the river to the sea.” They have the right to settle any vacant land not already owned by non-Jewish inhabitants. “
UNSC res 476 tells us otherwise
“(Recall here that Article 6 of the Palestine Mandate specifies: …. etc etc etc…”
A) Article 6 only specifies what it actually says and B) Article 7 tells us you’re hallucinating and C) http://www.knesset.gov.il/docs/eng/megilat_eng.htm The Mandate terminated midnight May 14th 1948 Marjorie
“Ironically, Arab nations actually contributed to Jewish attainment of a majority in Western Palestine by ethically cleansing Jews from Arab lands, a project which started in 1941 with the Farhoud, or Farhud, in Iraq”
Didn’t alter Israel’s proclaimed and only recognized borders
“And Egypt, Jordan, and Syria contributed to Israel’s liberation of all the territory designated for it by the Palestine Mandate..”
None was designated to Israel read Article 7
“when, in 1967, they forced Israel to fight a defensive war.”
Israel attacked in Nov 1966
” As a side note: Land may not legally be acquired by aggression. But land taken in a defensive war is in a different category.”
The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States Article 11 tells us otherwise Marjorie
Save your nonsense, it doesn’t make the grade
Comment by talknic — July 1, 2015 @ 10:35 am
>>I think I can clear up some misconceptions here. Resolution 242 was a U.N. Security Council resolution. But it was made under Chapter VI, not Chapter VII. Chapter VII resolutions have to do with maintaining peace between nations, and these are the only binding Security Council resolutions. They alone empower the U.N. to send troops.
As far as I’m aware, the distinction you’re trying to make is nonsense. As Talknic has said “Laws and UN Charter articles re-affirmed and emphasized in any UN resolution are binding.”.
If you need more detail – CHAPTER VI is the “PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES” http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter6.shtml
However, its essentially no different from CHAPTER VII – ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION – http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml
In other words, Chapter VI concerns matters brought to the UNSC by nations who fear aggression from their neighbours.
Whereas Chapter VII concerns cases where both parties are judged aggressive and the UNSC steps in to arbitrate.
There is no difference between those chapters as regards the powers of the UNSC to make law. Or order UN forces to stop aggression.
In fact, only Zionist legalese lawfair garbage suggests there is any important distinction.
The world does not have forces under the command of the UN to stop aggression … but only because Israel pulls strings to make such peace-keeping impossible, by methods such as this.
Shut down Israel’s aggression, force it to respect international borders, and the world would be a much, much better place.
Comment by William Smart — July 4, 2015 @ 7:53 pm
William: I have been looking at the UN documents. Clause 2 appeared in the first US draft of the resolution, S/685. There were a series of SC meetings on “the Question of Palestine”. S/PV.255, S/PV.258, S/PV.260, S/PV.261, S/PV.262. All the discussion of the resolution concerned Clause1. I did not see anything about Clause 2. It just went through by default. It has no significance.
Comment by dgfincham — June 27, 2015 @ 10:45 am
Hello David
You say “The UNSC did not refuse to endorse 181. Clause 1 of Resolution 42 is about taking steps “with a view to implementing the resolution of the General Assembly”, thereby endorsing it.”
That phrase looks to me like fluff – included in order that the two UN bodies appear to be singing from the same hymn-sheet at the time of UNSC 42 but presently contradicted by UNSC 46.
An endorsement of UNGA 181 (as was necessary for it to have any legal effect) would have been by stand-alone Resolution, as the UNSC refused to consider.
>> I did not see anything about Clause 2. It just went through by default. It has no significance.
I don’t understand how a call “to take all possible action to prevent or reduce such disorders” can be anything other than a full blown declaration of war.
If you cannot find any discussion on such an extreme resolution then either:
a) the discussion was cut short because there could never be agreement on the first clause (not impossible – legalese endlessly used to avoid discussion on the second clause) or
b) discussion cut short by sleight-of-hand (again, something that can and does happen) or
c) the record of the discussion on the second clause was extracted from the file and destroyed, nobody appreciating the significance of a virtual declaration of war until years later, by which time the individuals concerned had been dispersed.
All-in-all, I’m left with the impression that the UNSC was firm in its intention to stop the Zionists … but was bypassed and rendered completely irrelevant in this respect by Truman.
If the Saudi government is reading this, then they might think that recognition of ISIL would guarantee them an ally (if not a very reliable one) and would enormously increase their clout in the world. Recognising ISIL is exactly equivalent to what the US did over Israel – cock a snook at the rest of the world but look statesmanlike about it.
Comment by William Smart — July 4, 2015 @ 7:22 pm
William, you need to read the whole discussion for yourself. I have seen nothing to suggest that the “SC was firm in its determination to stop the Zionists”. The SC was divided over clause 1 of 42, arguing whether or not to include the phrase “with a view to implementing the resolution of the General Assembly” . Eventually they voted for it (i.e for partition, for the Zionists). Resolution 46 is addressed to the Arab Higher Committee as well as the Jewish Agency. The Security Council cannot take sides in internal disputes. These resolutions were before the end of the Mandate, while Britain was responsible for law and order. It would have been impossible for the SC to ask outside states to intervene militarily in Palestine, that would have been an attack on the Government of Palestine.The regular Arab armies waited until May 15 before entering Palestine, and claimed authority under Chapter VIII (wrongly in my view, it covers only pacific actions), not under UNSCR 42. (I have recently been told by a Zionist that the Jordanian Arab Legion entered Palestine before May 14. If so, this must have been because Britain asked them for support.)
I always say that a SC resolution “means what the words say”. Yes, clause 42 (2) does say “all possible action” and this includes military action. Your interpretation is correct. But they did not intend it to mean military action, and no-one took it to mean that. It was badly drafted. Your ‘impression’ is incorrect.
Comment by dgfincham — July 5, 2015 @ 12:46 pm
David – Regarding https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_42 again – I cannot see the point of Clause 1. (Unless the UNSC needed to recognise and not object to UNGA 181? Really? Ignored it for 5 months.)
Clause 1 looks to me like the kind of fluff that precedes all UN Resolutions. “Having received … Expressing its continuing concern … Emphasizing the inadmissibility … Emphasizing further … act in accordance with the UN Charter,
I can see the point of Clause 2 – a call for neighbouring governments to move in and put down the disturbances. The language is quite different and sounds like a real instruction “Appeals to” – or other times “Requests of”.
What do you think is the point of UNSC Resolution 42?
Comment by William Smart — July 6, 2015 @ 1:54 pm
The point of the resolution is this: the SC has to guide and instruct the Palestine Commission, that’s in 181. They hadn’t a clue what to tell them. So they turned to the big daddies, the permanent members, asking them what they should do.
Comment by dgfincham — July 6, 2015 @ 2:08 pm
Hello talknic, can you please answer a few questions?
1. Declaration of the borders of Israel. Apart from the letter to President Truman, are there any other documents that confirm specifically that Israel asked for recognition, or received recognition, on the frontiers specified in the Plan for Partition?
2. On 20 May 1948 the Israel Cabinet decided “The United Nations was to be informed that Israel would not respect the partition lines of 1947 unless there was an Arab partner.” [israelsdocuments.blogspot.com/2012/08/new-series-cabinet-protocols.html]. Do you know of any UN document that records this information and/or gives a response to it?
3. Through the Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordinance Israel effectively incorporated into itself all territory between the Partition Plan line and the 1949 Armistice Line. Have any states or international body given any sort of official recognition to this line as the de facto border of Israel?
4. The Arab League Invasion of Palestine. Do you know of any reaction from the UN to the cablegram sent to the Secretary General by the Arab league announcing this invasion?
5. On 3 June 1948 David Ben-Gurion said “I pointed out that the Arabs had intended to strangle the infant State of Israel in a lightning operation. According to a plan that fell into Israeli hands, Haifa was to have been captured on May 20, with Tel Aviv and Jerusalem to follow on May 25. That same day King Abdullah was to have entered Jerusalem, to be crowned as ruler of his enlarged kingdom.” [mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relations/Israels+Foreign+Relations+since+1947/1947-1974/10+Report+to+the+Provisional+Government+of+Israel.htm] Do you have any other information about such a plan?
Comment by Walk Tall Hang Loose — December 18, 2012 @ 9:34 pm
1. Yes – Is the Israeli Government OK? On May 22nd 1948 to the UNSC
2. Your source doesn’t “quote” The United Nations was to be informed that Israel would not respect the partition lines of 1947 unless there was an Arab partner (today we would call it a Palestinian state) as stipulated in the Partition Plan of 29th November 1947.
A) It wasn’t stipulated in the Partition Plan of 29th November 1947. It could not have been stipulated in the plan. Independence by its very nature is unilateral. IOW its nonsense and;
B) Security Council S/PV.271 19 March 1948 The official representative of the Jewish Agency, Rabbi Silver: “The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State.” and;
“The element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only.”
3. No country or international body has ever recognized any territory acquired by war by Israel. Israeli civil law had no jurisdiction in territories it occupied. The Armistice agreements specifically did not change any borders Article V – 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary... Territory can only be acquired by legal annexation, which requires a referendum of the legitimate citizens of the territory to be annexed (sans citizens of the annexing state). Israel has never legally annexed any territory.
4. Before May 15th 1948, under Plan Dalet Jewish forces were already outside the territory allotted for a Jewish State. The moment Israel was declared, other Regional Powers had a right to intervene in the remaining non-self-governing territories of Palestine and attempt to expel foreign forces. There is no UNSC resolution condemning any Arab State for their declared intervention, because it was within the legal requirements of the UN Charter Chapt XI and Chapt VII. (It appears to be the last official declaration of war ever made to the UNSC)
5. It didn’t happen. No point in ruminating about something that didn’t take place.
However from your Israeli Government source:
Report to the Provisional Government of Israel by Prime Minister and Minister of Defence Ben-Gurion 3 Jun 1948
“The entire expanse of the State of Israel allocated to us under the terms of the UN resolution is in our hands, and we have conquered several important districts outside those boundaries“.
and;
“To the greatest possible extent, we will remain constantly on the offensive, which will not be confined to the borders of the Jewish State“.
Comment by talknic — December 18, 2012 @ 11:52 pm
0. Many thanks for the links you left on my site.
1. Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was not asking about the documents where Israel has accepted the Partition Plan borders. I was wondering if there are similar letters sent to other states, or statements by other states explicitly accepting those borders?
2. Yes, the archivist has paraphrased the cabinet protocols into English. He does give links to the Hebrew originals. I wonder if you read Hebrew? If so, would you be interested in translating them? The fact that Israel, a few days after the declaration of its borders, had decided not to respect those borders, came to me as a rather stunning revelation. What I would like to know is: whether they did actually pass on that information to the UN, and if so was there any response?
3. Thank you for confirming that.
4. The Arab States cited Chapter VIII to justify their action. But this would require Security Council authorization, not just lack of condemnation, would it not? Could you explain just how Chapters XI and VII justify the action, I don’t quite see it myself?
5. Since the Zionists and their supporters believe that “the Arabs intended to strangle the infant State of Israel at its birth”, there is some point in checking whether there is any explicit evidence of such a plan. Did Ben-Gurion just make it up?
Comment by Walk Tall Hang Loose — January 3, 2013 @ 1:54 pm
Hi WTHL,
Re links .. No problems .. Happy to help. I only discovered your site the other day.
1. Whether other states explicitly accepted those borders is somewhat irrelevant if the Jewish Agency in statements to the UNSC signaled an intention to abide by UNGA res 181 prior to declaration and the Provisional Government of the State of Israel officially acknowledged the extent of its territories according to UNGA res 181 after declaration.
The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States had already entered into force on December 26, 1934. It requires a state to have a “ b ) a defined territory;” The Convention itself was basically a codification of pre-existing legal custom preceding 1934. One of the signatories was the US. It was US custom from about 1845 when, after winning the Mexican war, the US annexed Texas via a referendum of the MEXICAN citizens of Texas asking them if they wanted to be annexed to the US, then a referendum of US citizens. Same, Alaska amongst the Russian citizens of Alaska (after it was bought from Russia) and same Hawaii, a referendum. This (US) custom was instrumental in helping shape what eventually passed into Customary International Law making it illegal to acquire territory by war/force. The Montevideo Convention does not differentiate between offensive or defensive war. Territory taken for strategic defense in war, must be either withdrawn from or legally annexed.
Statements made by the Jewish Agency to the UN/UNSC pre-declaration quite clearly show acceptance of UNGA res 181 and an intention of going forward based on the recommendations.
UNGA Res 181 was enshrined in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel 6 months after the Arab States rejected it. ” AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY,”
The recognition by the USA and Russia indicate they both received identical or very similar plea requests from the Provisional Government of Israel
Recognitions by US, Russia, Britain, Australia, New Zealand all mention UNGA res 181. One might presume they were aware of pre-declaration statements to the UNSC by the Jewish Agency or had received similar pleas to the US/Russia
Official statements by the Provisional Government and Israeli representatives post-declaration were likewise peppered with references to the extent of Israeli sovereignty, according to UNGA res 181
2. No Hebrew in my family for four generations now
cont 2. “The fact that Israel, a few days after the declaration of its borders, had decided not to respect those borders … I would like to know is: whether they did actually pass on that information to the UN, and if so was there any response?”
The blog has not used “quotes” “May 20th (1948), 6pm: The United Nations was to be informed that Israel would not respect the partition lines of 1947 unless there was an Arab partner () as stipulated in the Partition Plan of 29th November 1947″
A) Is the blog accurately “quoting” the decision? Because;
B) It ISN’T stipulated in the Partition Plan of 29th November 1947. “independence” by its very nature must be declared unilaterally. There was no provision in UNGA res 181 requiring co-signatures. No country in the world has a declaration of independence co-signed by or with another country.
C) Rabbi Silver had already stated to the UNSC Friday, 19 March 1948 that “The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State.” and again on the 19th March 1948“The element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only.” and;
D) Independence had already been declared, the recognition process had already begun
The Jewish Agency/Israeli Government were well aware of how the UN worked. The UN cannot directly sanction a state for any of it’s actions before it becomes a UN Member. The first time “Israel” is mentioned in a UNSC resolution is 11 Aug 1949 S/RES/72 (1949). “Israel” is not mentioned by name in any UNSC resolution prior to becoming a UN Member State (11 May 1949). After which Israel is mentioned and the UNSC also calls for “peace in Palestine”. The wars were fought primarily “outside the territory of the State of Israel” …. “in Palestine”
There were numerous statements by the Israeli Government and Israeli officials, in the Knesset and to the UNSC after declaration, confirming the existence of borders, references to “territories outside the state of Israel” … “the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel”
The statements and the acquisition of territory were made before Israel became a UN Member.
After Israel’s May 1949 acceptance into the UN, on Aug 31 1949 Israel made it’s first official claim to territories beyond the extent of its sovereign frontiers. The claim was rebuffed, citing the Armistice Agreements, which had not altered any borders or conferred Israeli sovereignty over the territories it occupied. The Armistice Agreements left Israel, Egypt and Jordan only as Occupying Powers.
Although Israel admitted the territories between UNGA es 181 and the Armistice Demarcation lines were “outside the State of Israel” and; it was occupying them and; although it has never relinquished its hold over them and; although hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens populate them, it all took place before Israel became a UN Member.
Now however, Israel is a UN Member state. The Law still requires Israel to legally annex those territories sot the rest of the International Community can be assured they are indeed a part of Israel. After all these years, an impossible task.
So Israel MUST reach an agreement with the Palestinian representative to have those territories in effect secede from Palestine in order to circumvent the Law, which would require Israel to otherwise, withdraw, evacuate its citizens and pay billions in rightful reparations. A HUGE ‘fact on the ground’ that has led Israel long past the point of where it could have afforded to adhere to the law. Now adhering to the law, which falls on in favour of the Palestinians, would send Israel bankrupt for decades.
The only thing protecting Israel from the consequences of having broken the Law is the US UNSC veto vote under which Israel demands negotiations with the Palestinians because only by reaching an agreement with the Palestinians can the law and the incredible expense be circumvented. Israel must plea bargain with the Palestinians.
4. The Arab States cited Chapter VIII to justify their action. But this would require Security Council authorization, not just lack of condemnation, would it not? Could you explain just how Chapters XI and VII justify the action, I don’t quite see it myself?
At the time and for a quarter of a century the Arab Higher Committee was the official representatives for the Arab Palestinians. They and the Jewish Agency were summoned by the UNSC in discussions.UNSC 43 (1948). Resolution of 1 April 1948 [S/714, I]2. “Calls upon the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the Arab Higher Committee to make representatives available to the Security Council for the purpose of arranging a truce between the Arab and Jewish communities of Palestine “
Chapt XI Article 73 “Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:
to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses”;
On the termination of the Mandate for Palestine, the Arab states as regional powers (Chapter VIII) “assumed” responsibility (Chapt XI)
By default of Israel’s independence from Palestine, Palestine was defined. Palestine had been a provisional state under the LoN Mandate for Palestine, first paragraph, referring to the LoN Covenant Art 22.
5. Since the Zionists and their supporters believe that “the Arabs intended to strangle the infant State of Israel at its birth”, there is some point in checking whether there is any explicit evidence of such a plan. Did Ben-Gurion just make it up?
It’s made up, alluding to murder / infanticide. There are some statements by individual Arab leaders, however there are no official Arab State statements to that objective. You will find the oft quoted individuals’ statements are often truncated, rife with ellipses and cannot be conclusively corroborated
Lebanon. Syria, Iraq, Egypt were UN Member States. Although there is no legal obligation to recognize any other state, they were obliged to 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;” They have never threatened to “acquire” any Israeli territory. They have attempted to expel foreign forces (Israeli) from “territory outside the State of Israel” and they have attempted to “restore” the sovereignty of their own territory (Schwebel/Lauterpacht). As Israel has ignored Chapt VI resolutions on the Golan, Syria has the right, on informing the UNSC of its intentions, to attempt to restore its sovereignty over the Golan, by force.
Comment by talknic — January 5, 2013 @ 12:00 pm
Hello talknic. Please, if you have the time I would appreciate it very much if you could read and comment on my article ‘The borders of Israel’ on my site at religion-science-peace.org/?p=317. Many thanks.
Comment by Walk Tall Hang Loose — September 11, 2013 @ 6:43 pm
I like it!
I think in some of the early history you’re very over-generous to the immigrants, who had no intention of living peacefully side by side with anyone.
However, that’s irrelevant to the point you’re making.
Comment by William Smart — September 12, 2013 @ 4:33 pm
Addition: The Jewish National Home Could be The Jewish National Home in the Nation of Palestine Add link to Article 7 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7 “ART. 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. “
Correction: //France and Britain were given Mandates to set up administrations in these ‘provisional states’.//
Recognition was provisional. “Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized … “ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#art22
Correction: //when the British authorities tried to placate them by restricting Jewish immigration,//
The British tried to enforce the MandateART. 6. “The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions …” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#art11
AND
” ART. 11. The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country, and, subject to any international obligations accepted by the Mandatory, shall have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#art11
Addition : //The Jews accepted the Partition Plan,// proof of acceptance statement to the UNSC “As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision. of the United Nations. We regard it as binding” http://pages.citebite.com/l1t3s9i2x5shf
NOTE: “persistent objector” in International Law “the norm will nevertheless not apply to the state that objected to it in its formative stages“ http://pages.citebite.com/s2r0j8h3k8hdv For this reason the Arab States and the Palestinians were not obliged to UNGA res 181.
Correction/explain: // despite strong reservations on three points: // these were not official reservations registered with the UN. Israel has no right of persistent objection. As Israel did not lodge any official ‘strong reservations’ it does NOT have the right of persistent objector. In fact Israel officially regarded it as binding ” As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision. of the United Nations. We regard it as binding “ http://pages.citebite.com/m1l4a6f3d4edm
Addition: //The plan was rejected by the Arab Palestinians and the Arab states.// The legal conditions regarding a state declaring contained in UNGA res 181 only applied to a party IF they chose to declare independence. Independence is entirely unilateral. To be dependent on any other entity or body to agree or co-sign undermines the very concept of independence. There is no provision for co-signing in UNGA res 181.
Addition: “The meeting went on to consider a draft Declaration. There was a heated discussion about the borders. Some members thought they should be mentioned in the Declaration, but Ben-Gurion was vehemently opposed. “ Not mentioning borders only meant not mentioning them. It did not mean they did not exist.
More later
Comment by talknic — September 13, 2013 @ 3:13 am
Well, I just discovered your site and I read your historical research and all the comments, and it is interesting, because I have contacts with people like Antony and want to exercice my accuracy and my knowledge in international law, you propose here, it is very important because the brainwashed are legions! We let them do for 68 years! Three generations of hasbara in the western media! Internet has really changed the game. Lies and myths became suddenly flagrant and the facts on the ground on a every day basis are seen immediately and reveal the barbarity of the state of Israel! The Palestinians really give us a great lesson of dignity in their struggle for freedom and justice. I can say that the conflict shows the two sides of humanity which are in confrontation to one each other : on the one hand you have all forms of aggressions with weapons of mass destruction and media inundation of lies and myths, a war of propaganda based on hatred, black mailing and character assassinations against those who critizise publicly Israel’s warmongering (I think of the poem of Guenter Grass the german Nobel laureate, which was really very cautious) and on the other hand the fight for dignity and justice. Once you have made your choice you can not be bought because it is a question of awareness and morality and great hope for humanity. Nice website!
Comment by Freija — December 16, 2012 @ 4:42 am
Thank You Freija.
Please use anything off the site. Let people know!
T
Comment by talknic — December 16, 2012 @ 10:37 am
[…] […]
Pingback by israel reacts like a spoilt child - Page 2 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum — December 1, 2012 @ 3:17 am
[…] […]
Pingback by What Kind of State in Israel? - Page 8 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum — December 1, 2012 @ 3:11 am
those people dont have a right to return.its ISRAELS land.always was and always will be.besides God is going to kill millions of people.nutters like you who shake a fist in Gods face will SCREAM in terror when it all comes down.hope you choose the right side while you still have a chance.this world is running out of time and it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of a WRATHFUL GOD!!!oh and if you think your a tough guy,just go watch an autopsy being performed.we really are quite fragile
Sorry jerry sweet. I asked for some evidence and you’ve posted abuse… bye now
Comment by jerry sweet — June 18, 2012 @ 4:03 pm
Someday soon, Israel is either going to kill millions upon million of Palestinians and others amongst its neighbours, or it will allow the Palestinians their “Right of Return”.
Or both, since killing millions will not save Israel.
Every nation in the world supports the refugees in their right to go home, only individual nutters like you (and the racists of the Likud) wish differently.
Comment by William Smart — June 18, 2012 @ 3:39 pm
Just discovered your site. Congratulations!! Most impressive. You know of what you write. To be brief, Israel and its supporters/apologists are of the ludicrous view that there is a special provision in international law that enables Israel to violate it with impunity. Thankfully, the world, including an ever-increasing number of Americans, is growing ever so weary of and disgusted with exclusionary/expansionist/occupier/oppressor Israel. No wonder nearly one million Israeli Jews have emigrated seeking better and secure lives abroad while immigration is in free fall. Non-Jews who now comprise 25% of its population are Israel’s most rapidly expanding segment and they are now the majority between the River Jordan and the Med. Sea. The handwriting is on the wall. Demographics, 21st century international reality and the increasingly obvious fact that it is America’s number one geopolitical liability do not bode well for Israel. One state is inevitable. Given the utter absurdity and blatant racism of Zionism, It could only be thus.
Comment by David — July 19, 2011 @ 3:53 am
Hi there. Thanks. It’s a bit messy…. However, the subject interests me greatly. Accuracy is paramount in the I/P issue.
—–
Better to say the supporters of Israel’s illegal expansionist policies. Israel is a state, it’s policies can change. Plus not all who support Israel, myself included, are of the notion that G-d gave us any land or that Israel has a legitimate right to any territory beyond it’s legal frontiers of May 15th 1948
A one state solution was the idea behind the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, deeming it a Provisional State. The Mandate idea of statehood was reflected almost exactly by the Arab States Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine May 15th 1948.
The settlers, Zionist colonialists and ziocaine addicts notion of a Jewish state requires wiping the Palestinians off the map, as they are well aware. Justifying it by religion, racist/bigoted propaganda, nonsense and blatant lies is representative of madness………..or evil.
Comment by talknic — July 19, 2011 @ 5:00 pm
Greetings again
You’re right of course re the League of Nations British Mandate. It was a Class A Mandate.
Palestine was to be administered by Britain AS A WHOLE until its citizens were able to assume democratic self-rule. By incorporating the Balfour Declaration (no legal status – Nemo dat quod non habet, nobody can give what he does not possess) the mandate did facilitate Jewish immigration to “secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home,” but it did not call for the creation of a sovereign Jewish state or homeland in Palestine or any form of partition. This was made very clear in the Churchill Memorandum (1 July 1922) regarding the British Mandate: “[T]he status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status.”
Also, regarding the British Mandate, as approved by the Council of the League of nations, the British government stated: “His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.” (Command Paper, 1922)
To be precise, perhaps I should have written “while it may yet be preceded by two states, one state is inevitable.” I am thinking long-term. Common sense tells me that once lasting peace is established between them (i.e., the borders of 4 June 1967 as per the 2002 Arab League Beirut Summit Peace Initiative and Jerusalem as a joint capital ) and Palestinians are no longer discriminated against in Israel, both Israelis and Palestinians will realize that their best interests, e.g., economic and regional integration into what many young educated Arabs now envision as one common market throughout the region, lie in one secular democratic state I am also convinced that Zionism will eventually end up in the dust bin of history.
Comment by David — July 19, 2011 @ 11:04 pm
Hello, talknic,
I recently discover this website and am impressed with the amount of information that it contains, I like the fact that you provide links to the original sources.
I need to point something out, At the top of this page you state: “Under the preemptive Plan Dalet, Jewish forces were already OUTSIDE of Israel’s Sovereignty on the 14th May 1948.”
Did you mean Plan Daleth? because I can’t find Plan Dalet referenced anywhere. Plan Daleth is described in the same way as Plan Dalet in your page. Just wondering if it just might be a spelling error. I’m not sure if you still read your comments, I hope you do and I hope you continue to bring forth this much needed, mostly forgotten part of real history which the Zionists have been trying to erase from existence, inventing their own for public consumption.
Thank you
Comment by Mar — August 6, 2013 @ 2:07 am
Hi Mar,
Usually referred to as Plan Dalet ( https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Plan%20Daleth )
Comment by talknic — August 6, 2013 @ 7:00 am
>>> No wonder nearly one million Israeli Jews have emigrated seeking better and secure lives abroad <<<<<>>> while immigration is in free fall. <<<<< In 2007 Israel abandoned the efforts it had been making to import any more westerners. Since then, they've been trying to declare tribes in India and in South Africa to be Halakha and hoping to to turn them into Israelis. I've not heard how successful that effort is being or whether it was working better than with no-hopers. I can't see it rescuing this otherwise disastrous experiment.
Comment by William Smart — July 19, 2011 @ 7:03 pm
Hi William
It seems pretty obvious to me that while young Zionist zealots are still being produced, the appeal of Zionism among western Jewish youth is in decline. No surprise given Israel’s accelerating descent into fascism.
Comment by David — July 20, 2011 @ 3:05 am
That’s right. Israel has been getting steadily less attractive as a place one might emigrate to.
That undercuts the future of Zionism and may, perhaps, one day undercut the support of Israel in Congress.
Comment by William Smart — July 25, 2011 @ 7:33 pm
yes and GOD will undercut us and we will be on the dung heap of the nations in history GOD has destroyed because of the ill treatment of the jews,HE will punish them and has but woe to the nations he uses to do it.you will not escape HIS wrath
Sorry jerry sweet. I asked for some evidence and you’ve posted abuse… bye now
Comment by jerry sweet — June 18, 2012 @ 4:23 pm
your bias toward Israel is very evident and your stupidity knows no bounds.you really dont know what you are talking about.btw there never has been a people known as palestinian.never.they are arabs and Israel with Gods leading will wipe all of them out.thats is about to happen in the very soon .in the very near future. all Godless people hide and watch.the muslims are doomed according to the Bible they have attacked Israel 5 times since Israel became a nation.they will be defeated again only this time with much more severity.egypt,lebanon,syria,jordan and nothern saudi arabia will be destroyed.Dont get too upset, they are just taking back what is theirs in the first place.GOD annexed the land for them and HE is going to see to it they get it back.watch how this loser God according to talknic works in the future.i hope you God haters have stout hearts
Comment by jerry sweet — June 17, 2012 @ 8:57 pm
Someday soon, Israel is either going to kill millions upon million of its neighbours, or it will allow the Palestinians their “Right of Return”.
Or both, since killing millions will not save Israel either.
Every nation in the world supports them in a peaceful return, only individual nutters like you (and the racists of the Likud) wish differently.
Comment by William Smart — June 18, 2012 @ 7:18 am
forget mans stupid laws and watch the mighty lawgiver do His thing.HIS name is GOD ALMIGHTY.people like you are in for a heart stopping experience in the very near future
Comment by jerry sweet — June 18, 2012 @ 3:33 pm
that is one stupid and hateful comment.GOD will destroy all who mess with the jews.get used to it.that means you .another blowhard,who has no common sense at all.except for a (few) this website is full of brainless, void of any common sense at all people filled with hate over a people who want to live in peace but the muslims wont ,along with most of the world let them alone.you live under bombs falling all around you daily by cowards who wont even show thier faces and see if you wouldnt fight back.well you i doubt it,all you people have is a runnaway mouth.those palestinians need to go back to thier country.instead of squatting illegally on JEWISH soil.ISRAEL will and does allow peaceable arabs(OXYMORAN) to live with them.but if they continue to kill then ISRAEL will kill every last one of them.dont like it ,take it up with GOD!!
Sorry jerry sweet. I asked for some evidence and you’ve posted abuse… bye now
Comment by jerry sweet — June 18, 2012 @ 4:19 pm
Quite so, any state can LEGALLY annex territories.
Comment by Coach Outlet — June 8, 2011 @ 6:58 am
It’s pretty unusual in modern circumstances, but it would still be possible.
However, you have to get the agreement of the population that lives there and you have to get the recognition/acquiesence of states in the region/the world.
Otherwise it’s illegal, like the settlements.
Comment by William Smart — June 8, 2011 @ 5:48 pm
Two points to be precise.
1) A referendum must be carried out amongst the legitimate ‘citizens’ of the territory to be annexed. (see the US annexation of Texas). To say ‘population’ might lead folk to believe citizens of the occupier may also be included.
2) (a) Quite often recognition is based on a state’s opinion, which might be contrary to the opinion of the International Court of Justice. (b) recognition is not by a vote in the UN.
E.g., Israel was not recognized by a vote in the UN. The recognizing states were counted AFTER they had recognized Israel. Likewise, the Palestinians are not seeking a vote of recognition by the UN in Sept. They are seeking a show of hands by those states who already recognize Palestine as a state in order to show the UN and UNSC that a majority already recognize Palestine as a state. The UN and UNSC will then be bound by the will of the majority of UN Member States to implement the UN Charter in respect to how Israel is bound to act towards Palestine. This of course scares the hell outta Israel and the US because there is no veto vote in UNGA.
Annexation – Jordan’s temporary annexation of what became the West Bank was not put to a vote in the UN and was recognized by only two countries, far from a majority, the other countries preferring remain mute.
Whether or not it was ‘legal’ can be determined by the fact that there is no condemnation by the UNSC deeming it invalid as it was A) at the request of the Palestinians and B) in keeping with the UN Charter Chapt XI, temporary and as a trustee at the insistence of the other Arab States (Session: 12-I Date: May 1950).
Whereas Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem, was not recognized by any state (except Israel) and deemed invalid by the UNSC because it was illegal.
Comment by talknic — June 9, 2011 @ 4:06 am
Wery good i like what you have said her. I’m jewish but i support palestine not for any religion reason at all. Based on facts and evidence and 1 million innocent palestinians lives.i dont think jews have any right on palestine.Jews lived in palestine 3 thousand years ago. Zionisme=nazi and death. Dont think all jews are like this. Free palestine!
Comment by I support palestine.I dont support israel's war crimes — March 31, 2011 @ 11:18 pm
I will no longer be posting here because “Talknic” of Sydney, Australia is not educated enough to know that when you answer yes to a yes or no question and the correct answer is no, you are incorrect. There is no hope for him.
Comment by Anthony — December 25, 2010 @ 1:43 am
Anthony – I think you need to explain how the process you’ve described “What matters in this instance is whether or not Israel had effective control over the territory and extended domestic law over the territory. Israel did both, rendering territory outside of Resolution 181 part of Israel” is different from the Nazis invading Poland and annexing parts of it (which I don’t think they did).
Why’s it important you explain yourself with reference to the crimes committed by the Nazis? Well, they’re the foundation of most modern International Law. A benchmark, so to speak. Any actions similar in law or morality to what the Nazis did are probably illegal and your defense of them pretty shameful.
Comment by William Smart — December 25, 2010 @ 8:55 am
Uh huh
What a pity you’re leaving Anthony, you’ve left so many completely un-answered questions.
There are presented here, the official statements of the State of Israel, opinion of representatives and the judiciary of the State of Israel. None is conspiracy, none has been shown to be untrue, none are presented in hatred or on behalf of anyone or anything other than to promote factual information so that folk can develop well informed opinions.
You have been deservedly roasted for the holey notions you put forward attempting to justify Israeli intransigence.
By the word of the law, the UN Charter and substantiated word of official Israeli Government documents, correspondence, statements and legal opinion, your justifications are shown to be propaganda.
Merry Xmas to ya..
Comment by talknic — December 25, 2010 @ 9:05 am
Is a convention the same thing as a treaty such that convention means treaty and vice versa?
Comment by Anthony — December 23, 2010 @ 5:39 am
“Is a convention the same thing as a treaty such that convention means treaty and vice versa? “
Let me know when you next go to a treaty.
This link was provided before.
Comment by talknic — December 23, 2010 @ 6:13 am
Hi William,
Check your PR mailbox
talknic
Comment by talknic — December 21, 2010 @ 2:25 pm
I don’t recall ever seeing any post from you, nor can I find one now … are you sure you posted?
Comment by William Smart — March 28, 2012 @ 4:35 pm
Oops, try this one.
Comment by William Smart — March 30, 2012 @ 7:32 am
Have emailed … The original attempt was for an idea I have since dropped…
Comment by talknic — April 30, 2012 @ 10:05 am
Talknic
I think this has gone on long enough – you’ve been identified as a really serious danger to the Zionist point of view and particularly abusive members of that lobby are coming here to taunt and discourage you. Anthony and Ames and Michaal Le Favour are all personally abusive in ways nobody should have to put up with. They are also (I’m pretty sure) being deliberately illogical. Ban them, but do so with links to discussions of these kinds prominently displayed so everyone can see how patient you were at pointing out their falsehoods. Remember, allowing your pages to be filled up with garbage greatly diminishes the value of this site and the good work you’re trying to do. William
Comment by William Smart — December 21, 2010 @ 1:51 pm
Ah, the true face emerges. Of course you can’t afford to have your precious Hasbara ripped to shreds, especially by verbatim quotes from the Israel Govt website.
This is coming from a person who believes no means yes and yes means no… I’d like to know what medication you’re on. Please be honest.
If it’s true that half of your family were wiped out in the Holocaust, I am absolutely positive that they were members of the Judenrat.
By the way: Is customary international law binding without exception? Let’s try again. :)
Also, would you kindly present me with an acceptable scholarly source, I’d prefer of course a well-respected international law textbook, saying that when a majority of countries ratify a treaty, the treaty becomes custom. (you won’t find one).
Again, it’s because our enemies are knuckleheads like you that we are able to succeed so effortlessly.
Comment by Anthony — December 20, 2010 @ 10:20 pm
“This is coming from a person who believes no means yes and yes means no… I’d like to know what medication you’re on. Please be honest.
See previous post where ‘yes’ is ‘yes’ and ‘no’ is ‘no’, with a full explanation as to why.
“If it’s true that half of your family were wiped out in the Holocaust, I am absolutely positive that they were members of the Judenrat.”
You either have no understanding of the meaning of ‘Judenrat’ or perhaps no understanding of ‘wiped out’ means (‘slaughtered’ was the word actually used. Why must you alter what is been said? Habit?)
If folk were slaughtered in the Holocaust, they were unlikely Judenrat. What ever it is you don’t comprehend, your pathetic attempt at insult only emphasizes your stupidity and lack of any moral fibre.
“By the way: Is customary international law binding without exception? Let’s try again. :)
Before you truncated the qualifying statement in respect to Israel and/or any other nation who swears to uphold the UN Charter and/or is accepted into the UN knowing the Charter is binding in total on all who are accepted into the UN and/or who ratifies conventions, the answer is the same… Yes.
You do not understand ‘yes’ and you don’t seem to understand that to be a persistent objector, one must have been persistently objecting.
“Also, would you kindly present me with an acceptable scholarly source, I’d prefer of course a well-respected international law textbook, saying that when a majority of countries ratify a treaty, the treaty becomes custom. (you won’t find one)”
C) Precisely why I didn’t use the word ‘treaty’… Again your complete stupidity and incompetence strikes. With amazing inaccuracy BTW .
See the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties I’m sure you will be able to distort it to show that treaties are the same as conventions, despite the title.
B) You have started to go around in a circle… earlier claiming ‘exceptions’ to Customary International Law on behalf of Israel. It was Israel you were trying to excuse, no?
A) For your perusal, encapsulating Customary International Law and persistent objectors – from Renee Dopplick, B.S., M.S., J.D.
“Again, it’s because our enemies are knuckleheads like you that we are able to succeed so effortlessly”
Altering what has been said, truncating quotes to omit qualifying statements, denial, insults, abuse, ignorance, lies, obfuscation and arrogance, are not signs of success… they’re more like signs of a pathological mental illness. Like a horse stuck in mud, you’ll thrash about making all manner of stupid statements, digging your self in deeper and deeper, either oblivious or paid to look like a complete nut case. I’m not sure which, very likely though just an abuser who uses the I/P issue as an outlet in the safety of the anonymity offered by the internet. Perhaps a good thing, because most abusers cannot handle anyone at their own level, picking instead on women, children and the defenseless.
Sorry pal, but I CONTROL YOU HERE. You’re banned at my discretion.
Comment by talknic — December 21, 2010 @ 6:26 am
Dude, I’m done with you. You’re incapable of intelligent debate on account of your inability properly comprehend various materials related to international law and Israel. You see something that clearly and explicitly says one thing and say that it means something else. Example? Look no further than your incorrectly answering a very basic and simple yes or no question regarding international law and then trying to attribute your incorrect answer to context.
This conflict is going to be solved in the realm of the intellect anyways, as I’m sure you already know. It’s going to be solved in the realm of power. With AIPAC, the resurgence of the very pro-Israel Republican Party, and the rise in anti-Muslim pro-Israel parties throughout Europe, I’m sure you can make an educated guess as to which side will ultimately win and which side will ultimately lose.
Best from my beautiful pad in liberated East Jerusalem,
~Anthony Shapiro
Comment by Anthony — December 19, 2010 @ 3:26 am
“Dude, I’m done with you. “
Didn’t you like the irrefutable evidence HERE of Israel’s declared boundaries?
Never mind, other folk like you have also left similarly victorious, spitting and with egg on their face.
“You’re incapable of intelligent debate on account of your inability properly comprehend various materials related to international law and Israel. You see something that clearly and explicitly says one thing and say that it means something else.”
Ahem… Your problem is I don’t, but I DO point out where the Hasbara does…
“Example? Look no further than your incorrectly answering a very basic and simple yes or no question regarding international law and then trying to attribute your incorrect answer to context.”
A truncated ‘quote’ actually.
“This conflict is going to be solved in the realm of the intellect anyways, as I’m sure you already know. It’s going to be solved in the realm of power. With AIPAC, the resurgence of the very pro-Israel Republican Party, and the rise in anti-Muslim pro-Israel parties throughout Europe, I’m sure you can make an educated guess as to which side will ultimately win and which side will ultimately lose.
Nice to see the agenda and preferred M/O of another illegal settler finally hit the page.
“Best from my beautiful pad in liberated East Jerusalem”
Uh huh. East Jerusalem is in PALESTINE. It was never legally annexed to Israel.
Comment by talknic — December 19, 2010 @ 4:43 am
Didn’t you like the irrefutable evidence HERE of Israel’s declared boundaries?
Nothing irrefutable. Just the mad rants of a propagandist Israel hater. I know if Joseph Goebbels had a time machine you would be the first person he’d travel to.
Never mind, other folk like you have also left similarly victorious, spitting and with egg on their face.
The kind of egg where Yes means No and No means Yes right.
A truncated ‘quote’ actually.
Actually you were given the complete quote as you were kind enough to give me a straight yes or no answer. There was nothing after that, only the link that you used to wrongfully support your answer. When a person answers “Yes.” to a question and says nothing else, then that single word is the quote in full :)
Nice to see the agenda and preferred M/O of another illegal settler finally hit the page.
Call it illegal all you like. Those of us who have studied international law with the intent of understanding what it actually has to say realize that the settlements are perfectly legal.
Of course, we have no care for what you and your ilk have to say. There was a time when being Jewish was illegal too.
We’re used to little Eichmann’s making blind appeal to the “law” today and are just as sure as they would have made the same blind appeals in 1944.
Uh huh. East Jerusalem is in PALESTINE. It was never legally annexed to Israel.
Funny because I see the Israeli flag here, and we both know it’s going to stay that way.
Comment by Anthony — December 19, 2010 @ 7:51 pm
“Nothing irrefutable. Just the mad rants of a propagandist Israel hater”
Oh? the Provisional Government of Israel I take it you didn’t even bother to follow the links to the source documents.
“I know if Joseph Goebbels had a time machine you would be the first person he’d travel to. “
False and childish accusations based on NOT reading the information supplied, although the forte of illegal settlers and their ignorant supporters, have no place in rational discussion.
“Actually you were given the complete quote …”
Actually you’re flipping in desperation, from one issue to another…
“then that single word is the quote in full”
The previous ‘quote’ was not in full, it was truncated, leaving out a qualifying statement!
You then asked a question on Customary International Law, i.e., When the majority of states ratify a convention, it passes into Customary International Law. Binding on all states. Naturally the answer to the question on CUSTOMARY International Law is YES!
International Law on the other hand, is through either being a UN Member or agreeing to uphold the UN Charter. International Law is also through the ratification of conventions by UN Members. None of which are binding on states who are not UN Members or who have not agreed to uphold the UN Charter or who have not agreed, or have not been allowed to agree to, the relevant convention/s.
Is International Law binding on all states? The answer is NO! It is only binding on states recognized as UN Members or who have sworn, as Israel did on Declaration and re-affirmed later in being accepted into the UN, to uphold the UN Charter and later by the conventions they have ratified.
You cannot argue ‘exceptions’ on Israel’s part in respect to the UN Charter which encompasses International Law and Customary International Law formed before Israel agreed to uphold the UN Charter. Nor can you argue ‘exceptions’ on the conventions Israel has ratified. Israel has KNOWINGLY accepted both conditions.
“Those of us who have studied international law with the intent of understanding what it actually has to say realize that the settlements are perfectly legal.”
A) If you’d studied International Law at all, you’d understand the difference between Customary International Law and International Law. You quite obviously don’t. In the opinion of the International Court of Justice the settlements are illegal. Under the GC’s they’re illegal. Only one country on the planet thinks they are not illegal.
B) ‘with the intent of understanding what it actually has to say’
Studying the law in order to justify one’s illegal actions is most certainly NOT with the intent of understanding what it actually has to say. It’s called looking for loopholes.
“Of course, we have no care for what you and your ilk have to say”
Ah, the true face emerges. Of course you can’t afford to have your precious Hasbara ripped to shreds, especially by verbatim quotes from the Israel Govt website.
“There was a time when being Jewish was illegal too”
Uh huh. Tell me about it. More than half of our family was slaughtered in the Holocaust. Of what remains, half live in Tel Aviv. So save it pal.
“We’re used to little Eichmann’s making blind appeal to the “law” today and are just as sure as they would have made the same blind appeals in 1944”
The stupidity of your vile and un-necessary accusations only reflects on yourself and has resulted in your banning.
//East Jerusalem … was never legally annexed to Israel//
“Funny because I see the Israeli flag here, and we both know it’s going to stay that way”
Irrelevant to it’s actual legal status today. For it to legally ‘stay that way’, will depend upon the generosity of the Palestinians out of concern for the people caught up in Israel’s ghastly, illegal, ‘facts on the ground’, most of whom are Jewish folk, deceived by successive Israeli Governments.
Bye.
Comment by talknic — December 20, 2010 @ 6:31 am
A fly in your ointment: Within 20-25 years: 650 million Arabs, including 10-12 million Palestinians between the Jordan River and the Med. Sea; 3 billion Muslims worldwide (1.75 billion today). Now there is real “power” that Zionism’s 19th century racist enterprise in historic Palestine will not be able to withstand.
Comment by David — July 20, 2011 @ 5:22 pm
That’s my feeling as well. The nations of the Middle East have done a terrible job of defending themselves from Israel, and they’ve done a terrible job of getting justice on the world stage.
However, in military terms the imbalance is falling fast. More and more ME nations are either developing their own arms industries, or recognising that they need arms they can buy from Russia or China. Automatic weapons were easy to copy and develop (the AK-47 is from 1947, duh, and revolutionised infantry warfare). Rockets are easy to make and will increasingly find a ready market (and, presently, guided rockets using GPS will be easy to make). Knocking down these cheap weapons is hugely expensive (and doesn’t work yet).
Similarly on the legal side of things – Israeli soldiers have twice failed to advance into Gaza partly because they were terrified of photographs being taken of them. Either that, or their morale has fallen through the floor (though that’s probably happened too).
Only in hasbara does Israel still have a clear lead – and that’s where we could help, expressing the unassailable legal and moral grounds for backing the Palestinians.
Comment by William Smart — January 4, 2013 @ 12:48 pm
Lets see if its just the IP or an all out moderation of all comments
Comment by Anthony — December 17, 2010 @ 7:35 pm
It’s whatever I care to make it.
If you post anything substantial, it’ll be put up…..
Meanwhile…
Enjoy
Comment by talknic — December 18, 2010 @ 5:35 am
“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.
My pleasure:
[img] http://i54.tinypic.com/juzdkp.png [/img]
I asked if you believe international law is binding without exception and for you to give me a simple yes or no answer for clarity. You Answered yes.
Comment by Anthony — December 14, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
How odd. You’re pointing to a DIFFERENT question.
One is on CUSTOMARY International Law . The other was International Law.
Read carefully. Answer honestly.
Comment by talknic — December 14, 2010 @ 4:03 pm
You said customary international law was binding without exception. I said you were incorrect (due to the persistent objector rule). You asked for evidence of your having stated so in the first place. I kindly provided the evidence.
Me: Are you saying that customary international law is binding without exception?
You: Yes.
There you have it. Your knowledge of international law is lacking.
Comment by Anthony — December 14, 2010 @ 5:34 pm
One question was based on a truncated ‘quote’ in which a qualifying statement purposefully was left off in order to make a straw point.
The second question is quite different.
—————-
The argument on exceptions is also straw
The Jewish People’s Council informed the world in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel, that Israel ” will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations”
Surely they knew what they were saying. There is no reservation, there is no objection. Do you think perhaps they hadn’t read the Charter?
The Provisional Israeli Government, informed the International Community of Nations 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”
There is no reservation, there is no objection.
Israel SIGNED and RATIFIED the Geneva Conventions. Surely they knew what was being signed and ratified. Or do you think Israel was run by a bunch of morons?
Comment by talknic — December 14, 2010 @ 9:02 pm
Yawn. You claim knowledge of things of which you have no understanding.
Can you give me your location?
I think the world would be better off if I dropped some white phosphorous on your house.
Comment by Anthony — December 15, 2010 @ 9:17 pm
Threats have no place in rational discussion. That you’d rather lower yourself only shows us the effectiveness of brainwashing for a Greater Israel.
—
Your comments are now moderated. Only dialogue relevant to the discussion is permitted.
—
Comment by talknic — December 16, 2010 @ 4:26 am
Anthony – It would seem that Zionists like yourself can bring nothing to the discussion other than personal abuse – or in your case, even threats.
You even make it appear as if Talknic must be right on every count, which is quite an achievement for him – and quite a mind-boggler for you!
Comment by William Smart — December 23, 2010 @ 4:45 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?
Tawnic is trying to argue that Israel declared its borders to be those in UN General Assembly Resolution 181 and any territory beyond that has not been legally annexed by Israel.
Even if it is the case that Israel issued some sort of declaration accepting the borders, it most certainly does not preclude Israel from expanding upon these borders.
What matters in this instance is whether or not Israel had effective control over the territory and extended domestic law over the territory. Israel did both, rendering territory outside of Resolution 181 part of Israel.
An initial declaration of borders does not preclude a state from expanding upon those borders.
Comment by Anthony — December 12, 2010 @ 9:48 pm
Anthony, thanks for your time and I hope you don’t mind that I have saved your responses here. This distortion is common amongst Arab propagandists and Israel haters, and now I have a better understanding of how to respond. An initial declaration of borders by a non-state Council certainly would not preclude a state from expanding on terra nullius.
Do you have your own website or anything? I have more questions if you would care to assist me. Here is my email
(Your email has been removed in order to protect your identity)
Comment by ML Ames — December 13, 2010 @ 4:12 am
“Terra Nullus”
Who were Jews fighting for 50 years? No one? Amazing!!!
Seems logic has no place in the Hasbara.
I’d like to see my homeland State adhere to the law in order to live in peace with it’s neighbours and I am an “Israel hater” ?
AMAZING!!
False accusations are not tolerated here. (1st warning)
Comment by talknic — December 13, 2010 @ 6:23 am
“Even if it is the case that Israel issued some sort of declaration accepting the borders, it most certainly does not preclude Israel from expanding upon these borders”
By LEGAL annexation. See the US annexation of Texas for an example of LEGAL annexation.
What matters in this instance is whether or not Israel had effective control over the territory and extended domestic law over the territory. Israel did both, rendering territory outside of Resolution 181 part of Israel.
A) Legally annexed on what date, by agreement with who? Under what treaty? Signatories for the territory being annexed?
B) Now you’re saying there were UNGA Res 181 borders? AMAZING!!!
“An initial declaration of borders does not preclude a state from expanding upon those borders”
Quite. By LEGAL annexation.
Comment by talknic — December 13, 2010 @ 6:09 am
Anthony – I think you need to explain how the process you’ve described “What matters in this instance is whether or not Israel had effective control over the territory and extended domestic law over the territory. Israel did both, rendering territory outside of Resolution 181 part of Israel” is different from the Nazis invading Poland and annexing parts of it (which I don’t think they did).
Why’s it important you explain yourself with reference to the crimes committed by the Nazis? Well, they’re the foundation of most modern International Law. A benchmark, so to speak. Any actions similar in law or morality to what the Nazis did are probably illegal and your defense of them pretty shameful.
Comment by William Smart — December 22, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
Hi William
Anthony is moderated. ML Ames foolishly claimed something written by Michael Lefavour. They really are quite stupid.
Comment by talknic — December 22, 2010 @ 11:37 pm
Hi Talknic
I don’t blame you for moderating or indeed, after a reasonable period of too-and-froing, banning all three of them. I don’t see evidence any of them are trying to get their teeth into any part of what you’re saying and the level of personal abuse makes it unlikely anything worthwhile will come of the discussion. However, lets hope Anthony attempts to answer my question. International Law was revised and codified in modern terms, with particular reference to the crimes of the Nazis. As I said, a benchmark.
……
Comment by William Smart — December 23, 2010 @ 4:29 pm
No mail from you!
Comment by William Smart — December 23, 2010 @ 7:38 pm
Hi William,
There seems to be what could a typo in PR’s mail form … I have notified them.
I do not do email or personal contacts from this site for anyone. In order to try to keep it to the points raised as much as possible, I will delete this series of posts (even my own) :-)
If you use FireFox, Safari, IExplorer you can use the RSS live feed button for updates
William Smart a British diplomat circa 1948…
T
Comment by talknic — December 24, 2010 @ 8:20 am
Hi William,
As you have mentioned re- the Nazis..
The disregard by Israel of laws formulated BECAUSE of the suffering of Jewish folk in the Holocaust is quite bizarre…
RoR being one, compensation for dispossession etc. The oddity is further emphasized, as Germany has instituted RoR and compensation AND above and beyond the basic requirement of RoR, Germany allows lineal descendants.
Israel just keeps repeating the illogical ‘demographic threat’ twaddle. As though no one on the planet can do simple maths.
T
Comment by talknic — December 24, 2010 @ 8:45 am
Talknic – As you have mentioned re- the Nazis.. The disregard by Israel of laws formulated BECAUSE of the suffering of Jewish folk in the Holocaust is quite bizarre…
The rules of debate don’t require anyone to answer the questions I have for them – but the rules of civil debate do require an attempt to be made. Complete failure is the mark of the troll.
Moreover, Anthony has made an assertion “rendering territory outside of Resolution 181 part of Israel” that he presumably understands himself and intends us to understand and absorb.
Being as how I’ve not seen Anthony post since (and assuming you’ve not barred him?) I’ll wait for an answer, or at least evidence of willingness to address the issue. Not that I’m noticing him or his drinking mates address any issues in a meaningful fashion!
Comment by William Smart — December 24, 2010 @ 9:44 am
Anthony is moderated. He does try awfully hard… Maybe he won’t come back..best refute his notion again, now..
His comment
“Tawnic is trying to argue that Israel declared its borders to be those in UN General Assembly Resolution 181 and any territory beyond that has not been legally annexed by Israel.””
It is not my argument that Israel declared its borders to be those in UN General Assembly Resolution 181. The Provisional Government of Israel made the claim! I’m reiterating on their behalf… :-) The citations are on this page.
And the only Israeli attempt to annex Palestinian territory has been condemned by the UNSC numerous times. Again, it is not my claim, I am reiterating the UNSC. The citations are on this page.
“Even if it is the case that Israel issued some sort of declaration accepting the borders…”
‘if’? The citation is on this page. I suggest you take it up with the present Government, their knowledge of history is rather lacking when it comes to the state they govern.
“… it most certainly does not preclude Israel from expanding upon these borders.”
Indeed it does not. However, the process by which Sovereign States ‘acquire’ territory, is not by war. The citation is on this page.
The ‘acquisition’ of territory is by legal annexation. Legal annexation requires an agreement between those who live in the territory being annexed and the party annexing. Same as a protectorate.
See the US annexation of Texas, some half a century before Israel was declared for such an agreement (decided by a referendum held by those who live in the territory to be annexed)
In respect to uninhabited territory, see the British annexation of the Falkland Islands. ( AFAICT penguins haven’t evolved to the point of holding a referendum)
This one is cute…
“What matters in this instance is whether or not Israel had effective control over the territory and extended domestic law over the territory. Israel did both, rendering territory outside of Resolution 181 part of Israel.”
Israel declared and confirmed the extent of it’s sovereign territory on May 22 1948 BEFORE claiming territory “outside the territory of the State of Israel” on the 31st August 1949.. An entity cannot claim territory AFTER it has declared, unless it legally annexes. Israel has NEVER LEGALLY annexed ANY territory
Having enforced control over territory not under one’s Sovereignty is called occupation. An Occupying Power cannot institute it’s own civil law in ‘territories occupied’ or in territories ‘acquired’ by war.
Israel is required to follow Chapter XI of the UN Charter, the principles of which it obliged itself to follow, without reservations, in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel, May 14th 1948.
“An initial declaration of borders does not preclude a state from expanding upon those borders.”
Quite so, any state can LEGALLY annex territories.
—–
Comment by talknic — December 24, 2010 @ 2:44 pm