First, find out what isn't true…

Not tolerated here… th’ rules rule. OK.

It’s simple: False accusations, lies, smearing, bigotry, racism, bad language, the purposeful, repetitious, lower casing of ‘a’rabs, ‘p’alestinians, ‘j’ews etc , off topic posts and posters who do not substantiate their claims … will be relegated to the trash.

The following words are not tolerated

“….”

“……..”

“…. …!”

“….!”

“…. ….”

“……..”

:-)

Advertisements

46 Comments »

  1. My final comments to Talknic regarding the last remarks (3rd attempt, edited):

    -“‘part of the territory proposed for the Jewish State under the Partition Plan. It remained under Syrian control until June 1967’
    “Oh so now UNGA res 181 applies and Israel has borders. Interesting how you can be drawn to eventually trip over yourself.”

    I didn’t say that those are Israel’s borders or that UNGA res 181 applies. I said “part of the territory proposed for the Jewish State under the Partition Plan”, which is YOUR definition of “Israel’s borders”, demonstrating that even according to your definition, an act of Arab aggression was committed.

    – “You’re delusional .The first paragraph is an ISRAELI introduction to the Arab states document
    http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook1/Pages/5%20Arab%20League%20declaration%20on%20the%20invasion%20of%20Pales.aspx

    The reference to “Palestine” in the introductory paragraph to the Arab League’s declaration on the Arab invasion of Palestine is clearly a reference to the entire territory of Palestine as it was under the Mandate and as it is mentioned elsewhere in the introduction and in the ensuing text (which is separated from the introductory paragraph by a colon).
    The statements of the Arab League and Arab governments quoted in the document don’t distinguish between Israeli territory and the remainder of Palestine, because they didn’t acknowledge Israeli sovereignty in ANY PART of Palestine.

    -“Yes they were stating their case. Their aim was in the last article.”
    To quote that last article:
    “Eighth: The Arab States most emphatically declare that [their] intervention in Palestine was due only to these considerations and OBJECTIVES, and that they aim at nothing more than to put an end to the PREVAILING CONDITIONS in [Palestine].”
    One of those OBJECTIVES behind their “intervention” is clearly defined as “THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A UNITARY PALESTINIAN STATE”. Their immediate “aim” in pursuance of that “objective” is not limited to the restoration of peace, but to “put an end to the prevailing conditions”….so that the objective of “the establishment of a unitary Palestinian state” can be achieved. One of those “prevailing conditions” necessarily includes the existence of the State of Israel…in any part of Palestine as defined in the Arab League statement.

    The intent is even more clear in the Arab League statement to the UN Security Council of 16 May 1948 (S/745):
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cablegram_from_the_Secretary-General_of_the_League_of_Arab_States_to_the_Secretary-General_of_the_United_Nations
    “The Arab States recognize that the independence and sovereignty of Palestine which was so far subject to the British Mandate has now, with the termination of the Mandate, become established in fact, and maintain that the lawful inhabitants of Palestine are alone competent and entitled to set up an administration in Palestine for the discharge of all governmental functions without any external interference. AS SOON AS THAT STAGE IS REACHED THE INTERVENTION OF THE ARAB STATES, WHICH IS CONFINED TO THE RESTORATION OF PEACE ***AND ESTABLISHMENT OF LAW AND ORDER***, SHALL BE PUT AN END TO, AND the sovereign State of Palestine will be competent in co-operation with the other States members of the Arab League, to take every step for the promotion of the welfare and security of its peoples and territory.

    The Governments of the Arab States hereby confirm at this stage the view that had been repeatedly declared by them on previous occasions, such as the London Conference and before the United Nations mainly, the only fair and just solution to the problem of Palestine is the creation of UNITED STATE OF PALESTINE based upon the democratic principles which will enable all its inhabitants to enjoy equality before the law, and which would guarantee to all minorities the safeguards provided for in all democratic constitutional States affording at the same time full protection and free access to Holy Places. The Arab States emphatically and repeatedly declare that their intervention in Palestine has been prompted solely BY THE CONSIDERATIONS AND FOR THE AIMS SET OUT ABOVE and that they are not inspired by any other motive whatsoever. They are, therefore, confident that their action will receive the support of the United Nations as tending to further the aims and ideals of the United Nations as set out in its Charter.”

    It’s pretty obvious that “the establishment of law and order” is according to the definition of “law and order” as envisioned by the Arab League, and that is directly addressed in the same statement:
    “Now that the Mandate over Palestine has come to an end, LEAVING NO LEGALLY CONSTITUTED AUTHORITY BEHIND IN ORDER TO ADMINISTER LAW AND ORDER IN THE COUNTRY, the Arab States declare as follows…”
    “The Mandatory has already announced that on the termination of the Mandate IT WILL NO LONGER BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF LAW AND ORDER IN PALESTINE except in the camps and areas actually occupied by its forces, and only to the extent necessary for the security of those forces and their withdrawal. THIS LEAVES PALESTINE ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT ANY ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN, and capable of maintaining, a machinery of administration of the country adequate for the purpose of ensuring due protection of life and property.”

    These two statements describing the Arab League’s concept of “law and order” are utterly incompatible with the existence of the State of Israel as a sovereign entity in ANY borders within the territory of the former Mandate of Palestine.

    And lest there be any further doubt about what the Arab League’s definition of “Palestine” is, they define it:
    “The Pact of the League of Arab States declared that Palestine has been an independent country since its separation from the Ottoman Empire.”

    -“You’re spouting complete nonsense. Under the UN Charter all UN Members are obliged to adhere to the decisions of the UNSC.”
    ….with the caveat spelled out in Article 25
    “Article 25
    The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRESENT CHARTER”.
    The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of its duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII.
    The scope, limitations and caveats of the different types of UN Security Council Resolutions (e.g. Chapter VI and Chapter VII) are defined in the Charter.

    – “The LoN Mandate for Palestine terminated midnight May 14th 1948. You’re delusional.”
    The mandate terminated on 15 May 1948, at midnight. Typically, the new date is understood as starting at midnight. Ergo:
    “The United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine on May 15, 1948.”
    https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/2248AF9A92B498718525694B007239C6
    “We declare that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948)”
    https://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/declare.htm
    “May 14, 1948: late morning eastern standard time (late afternoon in Palestine): David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, reads a “Declaration of Independence,” which proclaims the existence of a Jewish state called Israel beginning on May 15, 1948, at 12:00 midnight Palestine time (6:00 p.m., May 14, 1948,eastern standard time).”
    https://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/palestin.htm

    The Mandate as an international instrument ended on that date. But Article 80 of the UN Charter guarantees that “nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner THE RIGHTS WHATSOEVER OF ANY STATES OR ANY PEOPLES or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.

    – On 12 June 1950, the Arab League declared the annexation was a temporary, practical measure and that Jordan was holding the territory as a “trustee”:
    “Furthermore and contrary to the Israeli notion that Jordanian annexation was condemned by the Arab States, the Arab States in fact demanded of Jordan that the annexation be as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950), in keeping with the UN Charter Chapt XI as a “sacred trust”. By 1967, the West Bank was a part of Jordan, a UN Member State and a High Contracting Party.”

    The Arab League declared the annexation was a temporary, practical measure and that Jordan was holding the territory as a “trustee” pending a future settlement. I don’t know anything about the territory in question have been held under a trusteeship in a manner consistent with the terms of the UN Charter, which is dealt with in Chapter XII. Article 75 of the Charter states that the “United Nations shall establish under its authority an international trusteeship system”, but that does not appear to be how Jordan governed the territory. Jordan itself does not appear to have regarded itself only as a “trustee”. In 1953 the King of Jordan declared that east Jerusalem is an “integral and inseparable part” of Jordan. But Jordanian sovereignty had extremely limited recognition. Even in the case of Britain, which recognized Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, its annexation of east Jerusalem was only recognized as “de facto”. In any case, on 31 July 1988, Jordan renounced its claims to the West Bank (with the exception of guardianship over the Moslem holy sites in Jerusalem).

    – “BTW the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was specifically authorized by the UN Security Council. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1386 You spout ZioNonsense.”

    UNSC Resolution 1386 was passed on 20 December 2001, more than two months after the US launched its invasion of Afghanistan. By the time of the Resolution’s passage, new realities were already prevailing on the ground in Afghanistan. That does not constitute authorization for the invasion itself. What the Resolution did authorize was establishment for 6 months of an International Security Assistance Force to assist the Afghan Interim Authority. I’m pleased to note, however, that nothing in the Resolution condemns the American invasion or calls for a restoration of the status quo ante, when the Taliban was in full control of the country and providing a safe haven there for al-Qaeda from which to operate. That only proves my earlier point.

    -“What don’t you understand about ‘the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed ..’”
    Israel made its declaration, it was signed.”

    Res. 181 recommends that “when the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.”
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181

    The “declaration” referred to in Resolution 181 has NOTHING TO DO with Israel’s Declaration of Independence:
    It is specifically spelled out in Section C of the Resolution:
    “A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the Provisional Government of each proposed State before independence. It shall contain, inter alia, the following clauses:
    General Provision…
    Chapter I: Holy Places, Religious Buildings and Sites…
    Chapter 2: Religious and Minority Rights…
    Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations…(BTW specifically, “international agreements and conventions…to which Palestine has become a party”)
    Chapter 4: Miscellaneous Provisions

    Section B. 10 . of the Resolution states that “the Constitutions of the States shall embody Chapters 1 and 2 of the Declaration provided for in section C”, and lists various provisions that are to be included (incidentally, the boundaries of the two states outlined in Part II of the Resolution are not included in this Declaration).

    The “undertaking” is described in section D: “Provisional Council of Government of each State shall enter into an undertaking with respect to Economic Union and Transit”.

    Like I said, I have seen no evidence of the State of Israel having signed the “declaration” or the “undertaking” alluded to in Res. 181. All I know is that it was admitted for membership in the United Nations in accordance with article 4 of the Charter, having satisfied the criteria of being a peace-loving State and commited to the Charter.

    Once again, the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel wasn’t made by an acting, empowered government of Israel. It was made by the People’s Councl, the representative body of the Jewish community of Palestine. That body assumed no powers as a sovereign government of Israel at the moment of declaration on 14 May 1948. While the act of declaring was done on the basis of Res. 181, there was no binding commitment to abide by the resolution, to stick to its framework, to recognize the proposed boundaries of the Jewish state mentioned in the Resolution, or to recognize the proposed boundaries of the Arab state or internatioinal “corpus separatum” of Jerusalem described therein. In short, the People’s Council made no commitment whatsoever that the State of Israel would be bound by the Partition Plan either at the moment of its inception or at any other time in the future. What was relevant to them in going forward with the declaration was that the Resolution: (a) called for an end to the Mandate regime, (b) recommended the establishment of a Jewish state; and on that basis, they made their announcement of an independent Jewish state….to be made effective after the termination of the Mandate.

    The UN appears to have fully understood that the State of Israel had made no binding commitment to Res. 181: notwithstanding, it has accepted Israel as a member, not made its continued membership conditional on any kind of commitment to Res. 181, and in the the meantime, the UN’s concept of a two-state solution has been on the basis of the June 4, 1967 lines.

    – “you stupid stupid person”, “ZioPuke”, “ZioStupid”, “ZioRocks in your ZioHead”, “what a pack of scummy liars you appear to admire”, “Alzheimer’s is it?”, etc. etc.

    Ad hominems…LOL. A sure sign that you’re winning the argument.

    Oh, well,…this has been very interesting indeed, but I’m all out of time.
    I should probably thank you; I’ve discovered many new things during this “discussion” which have only strengthened my support for Israel’s cause, and my opposition to the anti-Israel agenda.

    If there’s one comment from you that I believe exemplifies what this agenda is all about, it’s this one:
    “Furthermore, the Arab states, as Regional Powers, had and still have every right to attempt to expel Israeli forces from non-Israeli territories as they did on 1948.”

    Such a notion only condemns the Middle East to more cycles of war, fanning the flames of more violence, and pushing off peace indefinitely.

    Comment by Jacob D — March 8, 2017 @ 7:20 am

    • “My final comments to Talknic ..”

      What a disappointment

      “I didn’t say that those are Israel’s borders or that UNGA res 181 applies. I said “part of the territory proposed for the Jewish State under the Partition Plan”, which is YOUR definition of “Israel’s borders”, demonstrating that even according to your definition, an act of Arab aggression was committed”

      A) How do you know what Israeli territory was taken, invaded or attacked if it had no borders? Fact is you can’t B) It’s not my definition. It was the Provisional Government of Israel who made the assertion in the request for recognition

      ” The reference to “Palestine” in the introductory paragraph to the Arab League’s declaration on the Arab invasion of Palestine..”

      Sorry to burst you ZioBubble buddy but the Israeli Government website 1st Paragraph, is an Israeli introduction to the Arab Declaration. No mention of “Mandate Palestine” in that Israeli introduction. Get your guide dog to read and explain it to you. It speaks of the Arab states and actions in the third person

      http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook1/Pages/5%20Arab%20League%20declaration%20on%20the%20invasion%20of%20Pales.aspx
      VOLUMES 1-2: 1947-1974

      II. THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE

      5. Arab League declaration on the invasion of Palestine, 15 May 1948:

      The State of Israel came into being on the evening of Friday, 14 May 1948. On the night of 14-15 May, the regular forces of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon invaded Palestine. The Egyptian Foreign Minister informed the Security Council that “Egyptian armed forces have started to enter Palestine to establish law and order” (his cable to the Security Council, S/743, 15 May 1948). The Governments of the Arab League States issued a statement on 15 May 1948, as their forces were advancing into Palestine:

      Having omited and replaced the Arab States introductory passage it then goes on to quote from 1) of the Arab Declaration,
      [ GOI version http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook1/Pages/5%20Arab%20League%20declaration%20on%20the%20invasion%20of%20Pales.aspx ]
      [ WikiSource version: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cablegram_from_the_Secretary-General_of_the_League_of_Arab_States_to_the_Secretary-General_of_the_United_Nations ]

      UNSG, 16 May 1948 (S/745)

      On the occasion of the intervention of Arab States in Palestine to restore law and order and to prevent disturbances prevailing in Palestine from spreading into their territories and to check further bloodshed, I have the honour to request your Excellency to bring following statement before General Assembly and Security Council.

      1. Palestine was part of the Ottoma etc etc https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cablegram_from_the_Secretary-General_of_the_League_of_Arab_States_to_the_Secretary-General_of_the_United_Nations

      There’s no condemnation by the UNSC of the Arab States aims as expressed the official Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine, which was as far as I can ascertain, the last time an actual declaration of war was lodged with the UNSC per Chapt VII

      //-“… Under the UN Charter all UN Members are obliged to adhere to the decisions of the UNSC.” //
      “….with the caveat spelled out in Article 25”

      It’s not a caveat. It’s an obligation

      “Article 25
      The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present charter”

      .“The mandate terminated on 15 May 1948, at midnight.”

      The Declaration on the establishment of the State of Israel says WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE’S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE … Published in the Official Gazette, No. 1 of the 5th, Iyar, 5708 (14th May, 1948).

      “The Mandate as an international instrument ended on that date. But Article 80 of the UN Charter guarantees that “nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner THE RIGHTS WHATSOEVER OF ANY STATES OR ANY PEOPLES or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.”

      The Mandate didn’t exist after it terminated

      ” I don’t know anything about the territory in question have been held under a trusteeship in a manner consistent with the terms of the UN Charter … blah blah blah”

      Unlike Israel’s unilateral and illegal annexation of East Jerusalem, there are no UNSC resolutions condemning the unilateral annexation of the West Bank at the request of the majority of the legitimate citizens of the territory. It was handed back to the people of Palestine in order that they could declare

      “… Jordanian sovereignty had extremely limited recognition.”

      Recognition isn’t a prerequisite or condition of legality in respect to annexation. Self determination of the legitimate citizens of the territory to be annexed is a condition of legality. BTW No states recognize Israel’s illegal unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem

      ” In any case, on 31 July 1988, Jordan renounced its claims to the West Bank (with the exception of guardianship over the Moslem holy sites in Jerusalem).”

      Indeed, Jordan handed the West Bank back to the Palestinians. They wished to declare independence. Jordan gave them the freedom, the majority of the International Comity of Nations have recognized the State of Palestine as requested, relinquishing a huge block of their rightful territories to the Jewish State in exchange for peace.

      Israel continued to occupy, illegally settle, lie, misinform, bribe, cheat, anything to prevent Palestine from having equal power at the UN.

      “The “declaration” referred to in Resolution 181 has NOTHING TO DO with Israel’s Declaration of Independence ……

      Like I said, I have seen no evidence of the State of Israel having signed the “declaration” or the “undertaking” alluded to in Res. 181”

      It’s in the declaration of independence and subsequent request for recognition.

      “All I know is that it was admitted for membership in the United Nations in accordance with article 4 of the Charter, having satisfied the criteria of being a peace-loving State and commited to the Charter.”

      UNSC resolutions against Israel tell us it has not adhered to the Charter

      “Once again, the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel wasn’t made by an acting, empowered government of Israel. It was made by the People’s Councl, the representative body of the Jewish community of Palestine. That body assumed no powers as a sovereign government of Israel at the moment of declaration on 14 May 1948.”

      OK. Have it your way, Israel is an illegitimate illegal entity established by liars. Bravo!

      “The UN appears to have fully understood that the State of Israel had made no binding commitment to Res. 181”

      It’s in the Declaration of statehood and subsequent request for recognition

      ” … notwithstanding, it has accepted Israel as a member, not made its continued membership conditional on any kind of commitment to Res. 181,”

      Uh? Israel is already a state. Israel is now subject to
      A) International and Customary International Law
      B) the UN Charter in its entirety C) Relevant ratified conventions and those conventions that have passed into Customary International Law via a majority of nations adopting the legal custom of those conventions.
      C) Israel was 1st recognized as it asked to be recognized before admission to the UN.
      D) On admission to the UN it obliged itself to the law.

      To end hostilities territories captured for strategic purposes can either be returned a la UNSC res 242 as implemented in the Egypt Israel Peace Treaty or;
      Legally annexed on approval of the majority of the legitimate citizens of the occupied territory (self determination a la the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank as trustee).
      That was what was expected of Israel.

      The Jewish State has failed to adhere to its obligations. It’s witnessed by the huge number of UNSC resolutions reminding the State of Israel of its obligations

      Israel has the US veto vote in its unfortunate favor. While it remains, there’s little point in pursuing any actions to reign in the little rogue state

      ” I’ve discovered many new things during this “discussion” which have only strengthened my support for Israel’s cause, and my opposition to the anti-Israel agenda.”

      I understand your need for denial

      ‘If there’s one comment from you that I believe exemplifies what this agenda is all about, it’s this one:
      “Furthermore, the Arab states, as Regional Powers, had and still have every right to attempt to expel Israeli forces from non-Israeli territories as they did on 1948.”

      Such a notion only condemns the Middle East to more cycles of war, fanning the flames of more violence, and pushing off peace indefinitely.”

      You silly person. While there is occupation, don’t expect peace . There is no valid legal, moral, ethical or practical reason why Israel can not begin to end its occupation today. It’s required by law. It’s required for peace.

      Comment by talknic — March 8, 2017 @ 11:41 am

  2. Talknic, you forgot a few caveats to your sweeping statements.
    1. The statement mentioning the proclamation of “an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” does not actually appear in Israel’s Declaration of Independence. And it was not made, as you claim, on May 15th 1948 (when Israel’s declaration actually took effect). It was made while the Mandate was still in force, on May 14th, 1948, in a letter by Eliahu Epstein, “Agent, Provisional Government of Israel”, in which he is describing a FUTURE event: “The Act of Independence WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time” (after midnight on 15 May, Israel time). This allusion to independence taking effect in the future is similarly made in the Declaration of Independence itself: “with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948)”.
    Much like the statements of a President Elect prior to formal Inauguration, statements made prior to the Israeli government assuming actual powers cannot be taken as official acts with binding authority and commitment.

    2. Eliahu Epstein hadn’t been privy to the final draft of the Declaration of Independence. During the deliberations over the final wording, references to borders were axed from the text. Ben Gurion did not want any reference to borders; in his words, “We accepted the UN Resolution, but the Arabs did not. They are preparing to make war on us. If we defeat them and capture western Galilee or territory on both sides of the road to Jerusalem, these areas will become part of the state. Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs don’t accept?” A vote was held in the Minhelet haAm (People’s Adminstration), and by a vote of 5 to 4, it was decided to nix any reference to borders in the text (the meeting minutes are available in Hebrew). Ben Gurion also prevailed over his rivals who had wanted the text to say that independence is being declared “within the framework” of the UN Partition Plan. Instead, it states that “on the basis” of the said UNGA resolution, they are declaring the establishment of the Jewish State. Note: The Declaration does NOT state that the right of this State to exist or the legitimacy of this State depends on the UN Partition Plan. Not at all. It states that this is is a “natural right”, a “historic right”, which has now been recognized by the UN, implying it is a preexisting right. It is the ACT of DECLARING the State, not the right of that State to exist, which is being done on the Basis of that Declaration. Perfectly understandable. The Partition Plan called for ending the Mandate and recommended the establishment of a Jewish State. On the basis of the fact that the Mandate is coming to an end and that a majority of UN member states are in favor of a Jewish State being established, independence is being declared. It is NOT a commitment to uphold the letter of the Partition Plan (a document which explicitly describes the proposed partition as a recommendation and which, as a General Assembly resolution, is not legally binding).

    3. In response to Eliahu Epstein’s letter, US President Harry S. Truman granted recognition to the “provisional government” of the proclaimed Jewish state as the “de facto authority of the new State of Israel”. No mention of conditions that have to be met, no mention of borders, no mention of Mr. Epstein’s letter, no mention of the UN Partition Plan. Crucially, it mentions the words “provisional government” and “de facto authority”, signifying that the government did not take upon itself legally binding authority.
    The text of the Declaration reinforces this: “from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight…until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State…the People’s Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People’s Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called “Israel”.
    Once Israel held its first Legislative elections in January 1949, Truman issued a new letter, noting that “a permanent government was elected in Israel” and thus extended “de jure recognition to the Government of Israel”.

    4. In light of that fact, only the formal undertakings of the de-jure, permanent government of Israel to the UN can be taken as official. When Israel applied for membership to the UN in May 1949, the Israeli ambassador in his statement to the Ad Hoc Commitee made no formal commitments to implement UNGA 181 and 194 (both of which, by the way, had been rejected by the Arab states), and stated that new developments since that time, as result of Arab aggression, made parts of those resolutions no longer relevant. Crucially, Israeli ambassador stated that “nothing but the provisions of Article 4 are relevant in the consideration of an application for membership” and that “juridically no State was entitled to make its consent to the admission of an applicant dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Charter”, and that “the only question relevant to the Committee’s discussion was the eligibility of Israel for membership within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter”.

    In the end it was Israel’s position that prevailed over others who wanted to make Israeli admission to the UN contingent on its implementation of Res. 181 and 194. No special conditions were placed on Israel’s entry to the UN. Both the UN Security Council and General Assemblydecided simply “that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations”, and Israel was admitted as a member to the UN.

    5. Citing a reference in the Israeli Declaration of Independence to the UN Partition Plan, and then basing Israel’s entire right to statehood on that Plan, is severely and mendaciously overplaying one’s hand. Aside from the fact that (as stated above) no such statement is made or implied in the Declaration, THE DECLARATION ITSELF IS NOT PART OF ISRAELI LAW!!!
    It is true that the Declaration is mentioned in Israeli basic laws on Human Dignity and Liberty and Freedom of Occupation, which state that “the fundamental human rights in Israel will be honored … in the spirit of the principles included in the declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel”.
    However, neither the Supreme Court nor the Knesset view the Declaration itself as a legally binding document. The Supreme Court has ruled that the guarantees were merely guiding principles, and that the declaration is not a constitutional law making a practical ruling on the upholding or nullification of various ordinances and statutes.

    Comment by Jacob D — March 1, 2017 @ 5:44 pm

    • Jacob D puts forward some interesting theories. Like all Zionist attempts to justify, they simply do not pass the test

      ” 1. The statement mentioning the proclamation of “an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” does not actually appear in Israel’s Declaration of Independence … etc etc etc etc … Much like the statements of a President Elect prior to formal Inauguration, statements made prior to the Israeli government assuming actual powers cannot be taken as official acts with binding authority and commitment.”

      Uh huh. Read the plea you stupid stupid fellow. The Provisional Israeli Government “authorized” Epstein to lodge the plea for recognition on their behalf. It was conveyed from the Jewish Agency of Palestine in Washington USA on the 14th May 1948. (15th May 1948 in ME East) by the agent of the Provisional Government of Israel on behalf of the Provisional Israeli Government. The Provisional Government of Israel existed BEFORE the plea was delivered

      THE JEWISH AGENCY FOR PALESTINE
      2210 Massachusetts Ave, K-W-
      Washington 8, D. C

      “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.”

      With full knowledge of the deep bond of sympathy which has existed and has been strengthened over the past thirty years between the Government of the United States and the Jewish people of Palestine, I have been authorized by the provisional government of the new state to tender this message and to express the hope that your government will recognise and will welcome Israel into the community of nations.
      Very respectfully yours,
      ELIAHU EPSTEIN
      Agent
      Provisional Government of Israel

      According to your theory the recognitions of the State of Israel by the US, Russia, etc were all worthless. Very interesting

      “2….. During the deliberations over the final wording, references to borders were axed from the text. Ben Gurion did not want any reference to borders ….. ”

      So what? Not mentioning them only means they weren’t mentioned. Israel, like any state was required by to have defined borders (Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States 1933 Article 1) )

      BTW Your citing Ben Gurion’s purposeful omission only tells us he omitted mentioning borders in order to deceive. Keep up the good work

      “3. In response to Eliahu Epstein’s letter, US President Harry S. Truman granted recognition to the “provisional government” of the proclaimed Jewish state as the “de facto authority of the new State of Israel” blah blah blah”

      Indeed. As requested by the Provisional Government of Israel and conveyed by their agent in Washington

      “Once Israel held its first Legislative elections in January 1949, Truman issued a new letter, noting that “a permanent government was elected in Israel” and thus extended “de jure recognition to the Government of Israel”.”

      Didn’t change the borders that had been recognized according to the official plea for recognition of the Provisional Government. In fact as late as the 31st August 1949 Israel was still trying to claim territories outside the State of Israel http://wp.me/pDB7k-l5#coveting-land

      “4. In light of that fact, only the formal undertakings of the de-jure, permanent government of Israel to the UN can be taken as official.”

      Strange, the US took the provisional Government’s plea as being official and recognized it per that plea. The Israeli Provisional Government officially authorized EPSTEIN to make a plea for recognition on the Provisional Government’s behalf. Seems your theory like all ZioTheories, has a big hole in it.

      “When Israel applied for membership to the UN in May 1949, the Israeli ambassador in his statement to the Ad Hoc Commitee made no formal commitments to implement UNGA 181 and 194”

      So what? It didn’t change Israel’s borders

      “(both of which, by the way, had been rejected by the Arab states),”

      So what? The official stance by the Jewish Agency was that it wasn’t necessary. There was no article requiring co-signatures. Independence is entirely independent. You’ll find official statements here http://wp.me/pDB7k-Yx

      “and stated that new developments since that time, as result of Arab aggression, made parts of those resolutions no longer relevant”

      Forces under Plan Dalet were already in territories outside of Israel by May 15th 1948 at 00:01 (ME time). The Regional Arab Powers had a right to attempt to expel any armed Israeli forces from non-Israeli territories. That’s why there are no UNSC resolutions condemning the actions of the Arab States, even though Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt were UN Members at the time.

      “No special conditions were placed on Israel’s entry to the UN. “

      Quite true. It like all states was and still is bound to adhere to all International Law and the UN Charter in its entirety. It hasn’t. That’s why there are so many UNSC reminders to Israel of binding International Law, Charter and relative conventions

      “Both the UN Security Council and General Assemblydecided simply “that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations”, and Israel was admitted as a member to the UN”

      Didn’t change Israel’s recognized borders. Didn’t absolve Israel from any of its legal obligation before becoming a Member or of the Israeli Government’s statements. Israeli forces were in non-Israeli territories at the time.

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

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

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

      “international regulations” at the time say;

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

      “5. Citing a reference in the Israeli Declaration of Independence to the UN Partition Plan, and then basing Israel’s entire right to statehood on that Plan, is severely and mendaciously overplaying one’s hand. ”

      Yes. it would be. However I’ve not expressed any such notion. I’ve merely shown that without doubt, in the words of the Provisional Government of the State of Israel, the Jewish State had borders at precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) (ibid). By its own words It had the same borders May 22nd 1948 (ibid). By its own words It had the same borders August 31st 1949 (ibid).

      ” THE DECLARATION ITSELF IS NOT PART OF ISRAELI LAW!!! etc etc etc”

      So what? Israel was recognized as it asked to be recognized. No further territories have ever been transferred to or acquired by Israel by any agreement or legal mechanism

      IOW Your rant is typical ZioDrivel

      Comment by talknic — March 3, 2017 @ 4:03 am

      • Talknic, this may be your site, but ad hominems won’t add anything to reinforce the fundamental weaknesses in your arguments.
        My responses to the above:
        1. “The Provisional Israeli Government “authorized” Epstein to lodge the plea for recognition on their behalf.”
        Yes, Epstein was authorized to make that statement, as the letter states. It is not irrelevant, however, that the Declaration of Independence omits any mention of borders, because Ben Gurion did not want to formally commit to the boundaries recommended in the Partition Plan. Epstein hadn’t seen the final wording of the Declaration, and his letter differs from the Declaration on that point. That is a minor issue and is not central to the main point I was trying to make. Both the Declaration and the letter of Epstein clearly show that they were issued WHILE THE MANDATE WAS STILL IN FORCE. They indicate that the “Provisional Government” had no powers at that moment in time, and that powers would be assumed on 15 May, 1948. Your insistence that the Provisional Government of Israel existed before the letter requesting recognition from the US faces the insurmountable obstacle of the wording of the Declaration itself: “We declare that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People’s Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People’s Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called “Israel.”
        The “Provisional Government of Israel” did not pretend to be a functioning government with powers. All the powers were to be assumed IN THE FUTURE. Epstein may have called himself an agent of the “Provisional Government of Israel”, but that was a title without any real meaning at that point, AS EPSTEIN’S LETTER MAKES CLEAR: “The Act of Independence WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”
        Statements such as “discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law”, again, refer to such obligations and laws to which Israel would be party in the future, post-independence and subject to signature and ratification of such laws…none of which Israel was party to at that point.
        I never suggested that the recognition by the US, the Soviet Union, etc. “were all worthless”. I’m just saying that such recognition was not made conditional on Israel existing only within the boundaries mentioned in the Partition Plan. This point is made fairly clear in President Truman’s statement on October 24 1948:
        “We approve the claims of the State of Israel to the boundaries set forth in the United Nations’ resolution of November 29 and consider that modifications thereof should be made only if fully acceptable to the State of Israel.”
        http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13065

        2. “Israel, like any state was required by to have defined borders (Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States 1933 Article 1)”
        I’ll repeat what I stated below. Neither Israel nor any country outside the Americas (and a good deal of countries in the Americas as well) are parties to the said Montevideo Convention as well. And I see nothing in UN Charter “codifying” the Montevideo Convention, and the UN Charter is different from it. Having de jure, formal, final international boundaries isn’t itself a requirement for UN membership, and many UN member states have had and continue to have boundary disputes in which the “boundary” between them is more a ceasefire line than a formally recognized international boundary. And Israel was not a UN member until about a year after it declared its establishment as a State.

        I never suggested that Ben Gurion wasn’t being deceptive. But that’s surely quite understandable, given the “honesty” of the Arab Higher Committee executive Jamal Husayni (representing the Palestine Arabs), to the UN Security Council on 16 April 1948: “The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not attackers, not aggressors; that the Arabs had begun the fight and that once the Arabs stopped shooting, they would stop shooting also. As a matter of fact, we do not deny this fact. We told the world, during the last session of the General Assembly, that we could not accept our country being torn to pieces, that we could not accept that little Palestine’ should be divided into three different States. We told the whole world that this was a flagrant aggression against our country and against our interests and rights, and that we were going to fight it.”

        3. “Indeed. As requested by the Provisional Government of Israel and conveyed by their agent in Washington”.
        The Truman letter of recognition doesn’t make any mention of the details of the request made by the provisional government. It just mentions that a “Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional Government thereof”. No mention of borders. No mention of Partition Plan. No inclusion of the Epstein’s letter as an “Appendix A” for referral. Just a de-facto recognition of a provisional government. The letter, incidentally, is marked 6:11; it was signed at 6:11 pm Washington time, by which point it was already May 15 in Israel and the “provisional government of Israel” cited in Epstein’s letter could indeed by that point be considered a Provisional Government, and not just a title.

        The link you provided provides reference to a quote by Rabbi Silver of the Jewish Agency when then Mandate was still in force (19 March 1948). In it he says that, “The element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only”, referring to the text of UNGA 181 “When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.”
        Did the Israeli government sign the Partition Plan in its application for membership? The statement of the Israeli Ambassador (Abba Eban) seems to suggest otherwise, mentioning the “recommendation that when either State envisaged by that resolution had made its independence effective”, such “sympathetic consideration” should be given. He leaves out the part about signing the document.

        4. “Strange, the US took the provisional Government’s plea as being official and recognized it per that plea.”
        Why did Truman make no mention of boundaries? Why did he make no mention of the Partition Plan? Why did he not include the Epstein letter as an Appendix to his letter? Why did he use the word “DE FACTO” to qualify recognition? Why did he not state that US recognition of Israel is limited to the definition of the Jewish State in the Partition Plan? Truman could have put all sorts of conditions and caveats on his recognition, but other than the “de facto” statement, HE DIDN’T.

        “So what? It didn’t change Israel’s borders”
        What borders? The UN resolutions authorizing Israel’s membership don’t mention borders. Israel’s membership wasn’t made conditional on acceptance of such-and-such borders.

        “bound to adhere to all International Law and the UN Charter in its entirety.”
        That doesn’t include the Partition Plan, which is not “international law” and isn’t part of the UN Charter.

        RE UNSC S/766 May 22, 1948: “present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution”….”the territory of the State of Israel”….
        The text implicitly suggest that the two are the same in area, but the text avoids equating the two, or making any guarantee that “the territory of the State of Israel” would be limited to the “area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution”.

        “Israel was recognized as it asked to be recognized”… It was recognized, period…the letter requesting recognition isn’t a legal document or affidavit, and it’s not part of any country’s law, nor is it a document officially registered with any international organization.

        Comment by Jacob D — March 3, 2017 @ 6:33 pm

        • You haven’t shown any fundamental weaknesses in my argument. If one accepts your argument, Israel should never have been recognized at all!
          Your bitching should be aimed at the Zionist Movement et al for being willfully deceptive

          “The Truman letter of recognition doesn’t make any mention of the details of the request made by the provisional government.”


          “This Government has been informed that a Jewish State has been proclaimed in Palestine and recognition has been requested by the provisional Government thereof “
          The details are in that request

          “The link you provided provides reference to a quote by Rabbi Silver of the Jewish Agency when then Mandate was still in force (19 March 1948). In it he says that, “The element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only”, referring to the text of UNGA 181 “When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.”
          Did the Israeli government sign the Partition Plan in its application for membership? “

          Uh? Why would it? Israel was already an independent state effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 and already recognized by the majority of the Comity of Nations per it’s plea for recognition PRIOR to membership application, PRIOR to UNSC recommendation for membership

          “Why did Truman make no mention of boundaries? Why did he make no mention of the Partition Plan? “

          Because it’s already in the plea for recognition by which Israel was recognized (image provided)

          “What borders?”

          The borders in the plea for recognition by which Israel was recognized. If you think a state can be borderless, tell me, how would anyone know in which territories such a state’s citizens may live? How would one administer import and export duties? How would one ascertain which territories might be taxed by that state? How would anyone know whose territories have been attacked? Fact is none of those issues could be ascertained. Which is why states are required to have a defined territory!

          “The UN resolutions authorizing Israel’s membership don’t mention borders. Israel’s membership wasn’t made conditional on acceptance of such-and-such borders.”

          Uh? Israel was already recognized BEFORE being recommended by the UNSC and BEFORE being accepted into the UN

          /// “bound to adhere to all International Law and the UN Charter in its entirety.”//

          “That doesn’t include the Partition Plan, which is not “international law” and isn’t part of the UN Charter.”

          Correct. Israel was already recognized per its plea for recognition BEFORE being recommended by the UNSC and BEFORE being accepted into the UN. Once accepted into the UN Member states are bound to adhere to the UN Charter in its entirety. Israel has not

          “RE UNSC S/766 May 22, 1948: “present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution”….”the territory of the State of Israel”….
          The text implicitly suggest that the two are the same in area, but the text avoids equating the two, or making any guarantee that “the territory of the State of Israel” would be limited to the “area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution”.

          That wasn’t the question asked. The territory of states can change by agreement. Territories can not be acquired by war or any coercive measure. The territories Israel has acquired by war have not been legally annexed to Israel by any legal agreement or mechanism under International Law.

          ““Israel was recognized as it asked to be recognized”… It was recognized, period… “ as requested (image provided)

          ” many UN member states have had and continue to have boundary disputes… “

          Their disputes arise because they both claim to have borders. Not because they claim to not have borders

          Go ZioDump somewhere else, you’re way out of your league

          Comment by talknic — March 4, 2017 @ 3:06 pm

          • “You haven’t shown any fundamental weaknesses in my argument. If one accepts your argument, Israel should never have been recognized at all!”

            You’re not willing to admit the weaknesses in your argument. Not my problem. Even within the UN itself, a 2-state solution is envisaged to be based on the pre-1967 lines, not on the Partition Plan proposed boundaries.

            “The details are in that request”.
            No they are not. And had Truman wanted to point out that he is only prepared to recognize the State of Israel within the framework of the Partition Plan, he would have had no problem pointing that out in his letter. In point of fact, he made no mention of it.

            “Which is why states are required to have a defined territory!”
            Required by whom? Truman can recognize what he wants. At the point at which Epstein wrote his “plea”, as you call it, for American recognition, the state in question did not exist, Jewish forces hadn’t established effective control throughout the said territory, and there was no guarantee that they would. The status quo was fluid. In fact, there was a great deal of American skepticism that a Jewish State would survive. If Truman had been willing to recognize at that early point de jure Israeli sovereignty over all the territory of the Jewish State as proposed by the Partition Plan, that would have entailed an American commitment to stand by that sovereignty, which evidently he was not prepared to do. So he sufficed with recognition of the Provisional Government of Israel as a de-facto authority, and made no mention of boundaries of a “defined territory”.

            “Uh? Israel was already recognized BEFORE being recommended by the UNSC and BEFORE being accepted into the UN”.
            Not by the UN.

            “Israel was already recognized per its plea for recognition BEFORE being recommended by the UNSC and BEFORE being accepted into the UN. Once accepted into the UN Member states are bound to adhere to the UN Charter in its entirety.”
            This “plea” was not part of the conditions to which the UN Security Council and General Assembly decided to accept Israel as a member to the UN. The criteria were within the meaning of the UN Charter Article 4; it was decided that israel “is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter”. In its application for membership Israel made no commitment to implement the Partition Plan or to be bound by it.

            “That wasn’t the question asked…”
            Read the questions asked in that document, UNSC S/766 May 22, 1948.
            No mention of a defined territory of the State of Israel, or recognition of the Partition Plan boundaries as the boundaries of that state, or in fact any mention of Israel or of any state.
            “QUESTIONS TO THE JEWISH AUTHORITIES IN PALESTINE”
            “Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at the present time?” (To which the Israeli ambassador clearly understood that “Palestine” INCLUDES the territory of the Jewish State as proposed in the Partition Plan.)
            “Have Arab forces penetrated into the territory over which you claim to have authority?”

            “Their disputes arise because they both claim to have borders. Not because they claim to not have borders.”
            And in many cases the claims to said “borders” by one or both parties do not have international recognition.
            In other cases the parties do not recognize the “border” as a formal international boundary but as a ceasefire line, like in the case here, “without prejudice to the rights, claims, and positions of either party”.

            Comment by Jacob D — March 5, 2017 @ 7:49 am

            • “You’re not willing to admit the weaknesses in your argument. Not my problem.”

              What weaknesses? You’ve not actually pointed any out.

              “Even within the UN itself, a 2-state solution is envisaged to be based on the pre-1967 lines, not on the Partition Plan proposed boundaries”

              Correct. The Palestinian State as recognized by a majority of the International Community of Nations is generously based on the pre-1967 lines, forgoing 78% of their rightful territories for peace with Israel http://pages.citebite.com/e9p5s8u2yhcd (Israel’s response was to build more illegal settlements)

              However a 2-state solution is envisaged to be based on the pre-1967 lines is not International Law. International Law is applicable to all instances and all states and remains in force until repealed. It’s not held in abeyance in this one instance. A 2-state solution envisaged to be based on the pre-1967 lines does not absolve Israel from having illegally acquired non-Israeli territory by war prior to or in ’67

              //“The details are in that request”//

              “No they are not”

              You’re delusional. The plea for recognition says verbatim “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.”

              .“And had Truman wanted to point out that he is only prepared to recognize the State of Israel within the framework of the Partition Plan, he would have had no problem pointing that out in his letter.”

              He did you stupid stupid person

              “This Government has been informed that a Jewish State has been proclaimed in Palestine and recognition has been requested by the provisional Government thereof “

              “In point of fact, he made no mention of it.”

              See above

              //“Which is why states are required to have a defined territory!”//

              “Required by whom?”

              The Law. The JCPA for example demands it of the Palestinians http://www.jcpa.org/art/becker1.htm (a la the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States)

              “Truman can recognize what he wants”

              He recognized Israel as requested

              ” At the point at which Epstein wrote his “plea”, as you call it, for American recognition, the state in question did not exist”

              OK. Have it your way. Epstein and the provisional Israeli Government were liars. The provisional Government of a state that didn’t exist ‘authorized’ Epstein.

              ” Jewish forces hadn’t established effective control throughout the said territory”

              A) So what? They were illegally in non-Israeli territories.
              B) If they didn’t have effective control over non-Israeli territories
              1. How come they’ve never left?
              2. Why on the 22nd of May 1948 did the Israeli Govt claim that Israel had full control 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 claimed it exercised exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard. The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed.” … ” the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel?

              “If Truman had been willing to recognize at that early point de jure Israeli sovereignty over all the territory of the Jewish State as proposed by the Partition Plan, that would have entailed an American commitment to stand by that sovereignty, which evidently he was not prepared to do. So he sufficed with recognition of the Provisional Government of Israel as a de-facto authority, and made no mention of boundaries of a “defined territory”.”

              The official request for recognition did!

              //“Uh? Israel was already recognized BEFORE being recommended by the UNSC and BEFORE being accepted into the UN”.//

              “Not by the UN.

              You have no idea of what your talking about. States are recognized by a majority of the International Community of Nations. Already recognized states are then recommended (or not) by the UNSC for admission to the UN. The UNGA then admits (or not) those already recognized as UN Members

              “This “plea” was not part of the conditions to which the UN Security Council and General Assembly decided to accept Israel as a member to the UN.”

              That’s right, because Israel had already been recognized per its plea for recognition BEFORE it was recommended by the UNSC for UN Membership.

              “The criteria were within the meaning of the UN Charter Article 4; it was decided that israel “is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter”. In its application for membership Israel made no commitment to implement the Partition Plan or to be bound by it”

              Correct. Israel had already been recognized per its plea for recognition BEFORE the UNSC recommended it for UN Membership.

              //“That wasn’t the question asked…”//
              “Read the questions asked in that document, UNSC S/766 May 22, 1948.”

              Uh huh. So quote where in UNSC S/766 May 22, 1948 it was asked to make a ” guarantee that “the territory of the State of Israel” would be limited to the “area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution”.” Fact is, it wasn’t asked. Because borders can change by agreement. Thus far there has been no agreement with Palestine

              “No mention of a defined territory of the State of Israel,”

              You’re delusional. The Israeli reply to the question was thus ” over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947. https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/b4085a930e0529c98025649d00410973?OpenDocument The Jewish State being of course Israel.

              “… (To which the Israeli ambassador clearly understood that “Palestine” INCLUDES the territory of the Jewish State as proposed in the Partition Plan.)”

              Strange Israel was by then independent. An independent State cannot be in what remained of the state it seceded from. The Israeli reply stated ” the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel “

              //“Their disputes arise because they both claim to have borders. Not because they claim to not have borders.”//

              “And in many cases the claims to said “borders” by one or both parties do not have international recognition.”

              Name these ‘many cases’ thx

              “In other cases the parties do not recognize the “border” as a formal international boundary but as a ceasefire line, like in the case here, “without prejudice to the rights, claims, and positions of either party”.”

              States, including Israel, do not have any legal rights to or the legal right to claim any territories outside of their recognized borders. States, including Israel, do not have the right to claim for themselves someone else’s territory for their own self defense. and;
              The Palestinians do not have any obligation what so ever to sacrifice any of their territories or their right to self defense or self determination or any other rights in negotiations with Israel.

              Meanwhile, Israel is still in breach of the binding Laws, UN Charter and relevant conventions reaffirmed, emphasized and/or reiterated in numerous UNSC resolutions reminding Israel of its legal obligations to those binding Laws, UN Charter and relative conventions. It is also bound to all International Law, including the Laws of war and all conventions ratified by a majority of the International Community of Nations, thereby passing into Customary International Law.

              Comment by talknic — March 5, 2017 @ 1:41 pm

  3. You’ve stated that Israel never attempted to annex the territory it captured in the 1947/48 war, prior to its admission to the UN. I believe that is incorrect. The Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordinance, 5708-1948 passed on 9/22/48 (made retroactive to 5/15), extended Israeli law to the captured territories.

    Comment by pt — February 28, 2015 @ 9:50 pm

    • @ pt
      Problem 1): International and Customary International Law trumps domestic law

      Problem 2). ” captured territories” = captured by Israeli military.

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

      Problem 3). It has been illegal to acquire territory by war since at least 1933, any war! Ratified by the USA 1934. Which is why even the US does not have its embassy in Jerusalem

      Statement by the ISRAELI GOVERNMENT On May 22, 1948 UNSC S/766 the Provisional Government of Israel answered questions addressed to the “Jewish authorities in Palestine”
      Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947?
      “In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard. The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed.” … ” the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel

      Problem 4). Annexation under Customary International Law is by agreement, bilateral! See the US annexation of Texas, by agreement with the legitimate citizens of Texas, same Hawaii, same Alaska (long after it was bought, there was an agreement with the then Russian citizens of Alaska before annexation took pace and they became US citizens. By adopting the legal custom of having an agreement, the US was instrumental in that legal custom eventually passing into Customary International Law and being codified in the UN Charter Chapt 1 Art 2. (4) All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations..

      By which agreement has Israel legally annexed any territories captured in war? Date, co-signatories …. thx … Good luck.

      Comment by talknic — March 11, 2015 @ 11:52 am

      • You haven’t addressed my comment.
        I believe you had stated that Israel never attempted to annex the territory it captured, prior to its admission to the UN.
        I demonstrated that it had. I really had no opinion as to the legality of that attempt.
        Having read you arguments, and thought about it; I don’t think you make a strong case. Israel’s action may have been illegal,
        I don’t know, a court would have to decide that.

        Problem 1). Not necessarily. Have you ever read a legal brief or opinion explaining the relationship between domestic law and international law.
        It can get complicated. If you had you wouldn’t be making such sweeping generalizations. But let’s say you are correct for the sake of argument – it has no bearing on my opinion.

        2) I don’t get your point. Yes Israel captured territory. Yes they occupied it for a time. The source you cited has no relevance to anything beyond that. They then attempted to annex it. The question is whether that was legal or not.

        3) No so. The US and 19 countries in Latin American signed the Montevideo treaty (convention).(four of them never ratified it) No other countries in Europe, Asia or Africa signed. A treaty between countries in the Americas does not constrain Israel or any non contracting parties. To prove that it did you would have to prove that ARTICLE 11, (not the other articles), had passed into CIL. Can you provide an authoritative legal source, (court case or legal argument) that demonstrates that.
        If the US felt that because of the convention that they could not recognize Israel’s acquiring of territory in 1947/47, that is their right – it doesn’t make what Israel, a non signee, did, illegal.

        Interestingly, the UNSC passed a resolution in 1993 (808 referencing report S/25704) noting that Geneva IV had passed into CIL, in order set up the tribunal for former Yugoslavia. Prior to that, I assume, a case could be made that the relative articles in Geneva IV only applied to contracting parties, before it became accepted as CIL.

        4) You have shown that the US behaved a certain way. You have not proved that it is CIL. In fact the UN article you cited doesn’t mention how annexations, which can, in certain circumstances be legal, are to be implemented.

        5) You have shown that Israel was dishonest and unethical when they made declarations, assuming they knew they would subsequently attempt to annex territory ALREADY captured. You have not shown that they did anything Illegal. Please provide an authoritative legal source which says that nations declare their borders unilaterally and that such declarations have legal weight. Also what form those declarations need to take.

        If the nations that recognized Israel based on that declaration of borders felt they were mislead they could have taken punitive action, amongst other things, by refusing to recognize Israel’s annexation. They appear not to have done so – if fact Israel was subsequently admitted to the UN.

        Comment by _pt — March 19, 2015 @ 1:10 am

        • @_pt “You haven’t addressed my comment.”

          Yes I did. It’s still there. It’s you who have not been able to provide what I requested.

          “Interestingly, the UNSC passed a resolution in 1993 (808 referencing report S/25704) noting that Geneva IV had passed into CIL, in order set up the tribunal for former Yugoslavia.”

          Interestingly UNSC res 808 doesn’t mention S/25704 http://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u930222a.htm

          Comment by talknic — March 19, 2015 @ 1:48 am

          • S/25704 is the report requested in paragraph 2. of 808; http://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/Statute/statute_re808_1993_en.pdf
            I believe I did answer your question, but since I didn’t really lay it out explicitly I can see why you thought not.
            There are no agreements. With regard to the territory captured in 1967,that is why it is still occupied territory.
            With regard to the territory annexed in 1948, no agreement was necessary.
            If the issue were to go to court – that court would only consider laws as they existed in 1948.

            Comment by _pt — May 13, 2015 @ 11:09 pm

            • @ _pt “S/25704 is the report requested in paragraph 2. of 808; http://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/Statute/statute_re808_1993_en.pdf

              That’s 2. at paragraph 14

              “There are no agreements. With regard to the territory captured in 1967,that is why it is still occupied territory.”

              There are no final status agreements WR to territories captured in 1948.

              “With regard to the territory annexed in 1948, no agreement was necessary”

              Interesting theory… it has been illegal to acquire territory by war since at least 1933, any war!
              .
              “If the issue were to go to court – that court would only consider laws as they existed in 1948”

              Uh huh. UN Charter 1945. Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States 1933. Got any more bullsh*t?

              Comment by talknic — May 27, 2015 @ 2:18 am

              • This addresses my own question about The Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordinance, posted elsewhere. clearly this contradicts your statement that Israel has never tried to officially annex these areas, regardless of the Internation Law situation, your comment must be inaccurate unless you can demonstrate that said ordinance is not de facto annexation.

                Comment by andrewsz8757 — December 22, 2015 @ 4:39 pm

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

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

                  BTW de facto is not de jure

                  Comment by talknic — December 23, 2015 @ 5:32 am

                  • Not correct. The Arab residents who remained in those territories, initially outside the territory of the State of Israel but annexed by means of the Areas of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordinance, became citizens of the State of Israel, accepting the rights and responsibilities associated with that.

                    Your claims regarding the US do not somehow place its cession of Mexican territories in a more legitimate light. The Treaty of Guadelupe-Hidalgo (1848) between the US and Mexico that ended the Mexican War did fix the boundary at the Rio Grande, but avoided contentious issues such as the 1836 secession of the Republic of Texas and the 1845 annexation of Texas to the United States. Articles VIII and IX ensured safety of existing property rights of Mexican citizens living in the transferred territories. Despite assurances to the contrary, the property rights of Mexican citizens were often not honored by the US in accordance with modifications to and interpretations of the Treaty.

                    Comment by Jacob D — March 1, 2017 @ 3:12 pm

                    • “Not correct. The Arab residents who remained in those territories, initially outside the territory of the State of Israel but annexed by means of the Areas of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordinance, became citizens of the State of Israel, accepting the rights and responsibilities associated with that.”

                      They’re domestic ordinances. Not International Law. The acquisition of territory by war or any coercive manner was illegal by 1945. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war and it is illegal for any state to recognize territory acquired by war.

                      Comment by talknic — March 3, 2017 @ 4:18 am

      • RE “Problem 1)”: Israel was not a member of the UN at the point that it passed the Area of Jurisction and Powers Ordinance (Sept. 1948). It had made no binding undertakings to the UN at any point until it became a member in May 1949. As for your contention that “International and Customary International Law trumps domestic law”, the UN is not a world government; if you think otherwise, you’d better go back and read the UN Charter. The UN, by the way, did not put special conditions on Israel to becoming a member, other than those it put on applicants in general. In recommending Israel for membership to the UN General Assmeblyy, the Security Council stated simply (UNSCR 69, March 1949) that it “decides in its judgement that Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter”. The same phrase is used in the operative part of the UN General Assembly Res. that admitted Israel for membership; it puts no conditions on Israel for membership, other than those relevant to Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure, and the General Assembly judged that Israel had satisfied the criteria and allowed it to join.
        As it so happens, UN Security Council did not adopt or implement the UN Partition Plan (UNGAR 181); instead it instructed the General Assembly to go back and “consider further the question of the future government of Palestine” (Res. 44). The General Asembly didn’t reconfirm the Partition Plan; instead it appointed a mediator who came up with fresh new proposals, which proved acceptable to neither side. The UN Security Council determined its position on the matter to be one of total neutrality, “without prejudice to the rights, claims, and positions of either party.” e.g. (Res. 46, 49, 50, etc.).

        RE “Problem 2)”: The Hague IV convention you cite (Art. 43, Section III) refers only to the condition in which as a result of hostilities, a territory is placed under control of a hostile army. It does not apply to the territory in question once it is placed under civilian law, as was the objective of the Area of Jurisction and Powers Ordinance of Sept. 1948.

        RE “Problem 3)” The 1934 Montevideo Convention (Article 11) you cite emphasizes that this is being adopted by agreement between “the contracting states”. This does not apply to the situation between the belligerents in and around Palestine in 1947-49. As of today, no country outside the Americas is party to the Montevideo Convention.

        The Security Council document you refer to (UNSC S/766) is dated from May 22, 1948 (prior to the passage of the aforementioned Ordinance), in which the *Provisional* Government of Israel was stating its position at that moment during the war, one week after declaring independence. The positions stated were not what Israel viewed as formally, legally, and perpetually binding upon itself, but how it viewed the situation at that snapshot it time. At that point, it (the Provisional Government) did view the newly captured areas as being outside the “territory of the State of Israel” and being under the military control fof its forces. However, while mentioning its control over the “area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947”, it does not state explicitly and definitively that the the territory of the State of Israel is congruent to that area and does not state that it will be restricted to that area in the future. In fact, it suggests otherwise: “We consider the territory of Israel as a single unit with a Jewish majority. As indicated above, the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel; parts which, with the notable exception of Jerusalem, formerly for the most part, contained Arab majorities. These areas have, however, been mostly abandoned by their Arab population.”
        The statement also indicates that “the Jews were ready to negotiate for peaceful collaboration on the basis of implementation of the Resolution of the General Assembly of November 29”, but that these overtures were rejected. It does not indicate that it sees the Partition Plan boundaries as future international borders.

        RE “Problem 4)”: Once again, the customary international law you refer to is between high contracting parties. None of the parties in question was at that point a UN member or a signatory to the various conventions or to the UN Charter. In fact, the sovereignty of ANY state within the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine was not yet formally upheld by the UN. Furthermore, UN Charter Chapt 1 Art 2. (4) (“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”) is NOT a reference to territory gained in a defensive war, and is NOT an insurance policy for an aggressor against the loss of its territory. It means that a country cannot wage war against its neighbor in order to capture territory; it does NOT mean that if a country attacks its neighbor and then loses its own territory in the proces, it has automatic recourse to claim it back.

        Comment by Jacob D — March 1, 2017 @ 2:33 pm

        • “RE “Problem 1)”: Israel was not a member of the UN at the point that it passed the Area of Jurisction and Powers Ordinance (Sept. 1948). It had made no binding undertakings to the UN at any point until it became a member in May 1949. As for your contention that “International and Customary International Law trumps domestic law”, the UN is not a world government; if you think otherwise, you’d better go back and read the UN Charter.”

          International Law existed prior to the UN. IOW International Law exists outside of the UN

          “The UN, by the way, did not put special conditions on Israel to becoming a member, other than those it put on applicants in general.”

          All international Law is binding on all states, whether they’re UN Members or not. All UN Members are bound to International Law and the UN Charter in its entirety.

          “As it so happens, UN Security Council did not adopt or implement the UN Partition Plan (UNGAR 181); instead it instructed the General Assembly to go back and “consider further the question of the future government of Palestine” “

          Quite. Meanwhile Israel Declared and entered a plea for recognition and by which it was recognized

          “RE “Problem 2)”: The Hague IV convention you cite (Art. 43, Section III) refers only to the condition in which as a result of hostilities, a territory is placed under control of a hostile army. It does not apply to the territory in question once it is placed under civilian law, as was the objective of the Area of Jurisction and Powers Ordinance of Sept. 1948.”

          Civilian Law is not International Law. The Laws of war are International Law. It is Inadmissible to acquire territory by war/force. There are no exceptions. 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.”

          “RE “Problem 3)” The 1934 Montevideo Convention (Article 11) you cite emphasizes that this is being adopted by agreement between “the contracting states”. This does not apply to the situation between the belligerents in and around Palestine in 1947-49. As of today, no country outside the Americas is party to the Montevideo Convention.”

          The UN Charter was adopted in 1945, in effect it codified the Montevideo Convention in Chapter 1 Article 2. 4) http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html Israel agreed on entry to the UN to adhere to the UN Charter in its entirety

          “The Security Council document you refer to (UNSC S/766) is dated from May 22, 1948 (prior to the passage of the aforementioned Ordinance), in which the *Provisional* Government of Israel was stating its position at that moment during the war, one week after declaring independence. The positions stated were not what Israel viewed as formally, legally, and perpetually binding upon itself, but how it viewed the situation at that snapshot it time. At that point, it (the Provisional Government) did view the newly captured areas as being outside the “territory of the State of Israel” and being under the military control fof its forces.”

          Strange, Israel conveyed the same situation in August 31st 1949 http://wp.me/pDB7k-l5#israels-intentions

          “RE “Problem 4)”: Once again, the customary international law you refer to is between high contracting parties”

          International Law and Customary International Law existed BEFORE the UN existed, before Israel was proclaimed.

          ” None of the parties in question was at that point a UN member or a signatory to the various conventions or to the UN Charter”

          Go spread your crap somewhere else pal.
          Lebanon 24 October 1945
          Syria 24 October 1945
          Egypt 24 October 1945
          Iraq 21 December 1945

          ” In fact, the sovereignty of ANY state within the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine was not yet formally upheld by the UN”

          That’s right. They have to be admitted. In order to be admitted they must be independent states and they must adhere to all International Law and the UN Charter

          “Furthermore, UN Charter Chapt 1 Art 2. (4) (“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”) is NOT a reference to territory gained in a defensive war,.”

          I can’t find any clause excepting defensive war .. Please quote it verbatim. Thx

          “… It means that a country cannot wage war against its neighbor in order to capture territory; it does NOT mean that if a country attacks its neighbor and then loses its own territory in the proces, it has automatic recourse to claim it back”

          Schwebel, Lauterpacht and Herzog tell us the opposite … http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y#Schwebel Professor Stephen M. Schwebel – (NB: ‘Professor’ not as a Judge of International Court of Justice at the time) as quoted by

          Mr. HERZOG (Israel):

          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.

          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.

          Furthermore, the Arab states, as Regional Powers, had and still have every right to attempt to expel Israeli forces from non-Israeli territories as they did on 1948. There are no UNSC condemnations of their actions in Palestine

          Comment by talknic — March 3, 2017 @ 5:05 am

          • “They’re domestic ordinances. Not International Law. The acquisition of territory by war or any coercive manner was illegal by 1945. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war and it is illegal for any state to recognize territory acquired by war.”

            Better tell that those who occupied the Kuril Islands at the conclusion of WW2 and annexed them, or those who invaded and occupied and annexed Tibet in 1949, or those who invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, or those who forcibly detached Kosovo from Serbia and proclaimed it an independent state, or those whose forcibly carved up pieces of Georgia and Azerbaijan and did the same, or the dividers of Kashmir, or those who occupied the Hala’ib Triangle and Tiran Island, and numerous others engaged in forcible territorial acquisitions since 1945. Apparently the “rules” only apply to Israel.

            Or better yet, start by reading the text of the UN Charter itself, where the principle of “inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war” and its limitations and caveats are defined.

            Article 2(4): “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

            Nothing there indicates that the aggressor, who wages war against the “territorial integrity” and “political independence” of another state, is insured against the loss of his own territory in the event that he loses.

            And no, “International Law” does NOT hold automatic override over domestic law and ordinances.
            Even Chapter VII of the UN Charter, under which the most binding of all Security Council resolutions are drafted, spells out the limitations of the UN’s power and explicitly does not override domestic law and national sovereignty.

            Article 40: “In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR POSITION OF THE PARTIES CONCERNED.”

            Article 51: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

            Comment by Jacob D — March 4, 2017 @ 12:33 pm

            • “Better tell that those who occupied the Kuril Islands at the conclusion of WW2 and annexed them, or those who invaded and occupied and annexed Tibet in 1949, or etc etc etc Apparently the “rules” only apply to Israel.”

              If you say so pal. I haven’t. Two or more wrongs don’t make a right, except in ZioLoonyLaLaLand

              “Or better yet, start by reading the text of the UN Charter itself, where the principle of “inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war” and its limitations and caveats are defined.

              Article 2(4): “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

              Nothing there indicates that the aggressor, who wages war against the “territorial integrity” and “political independence” of another state, is insured against the loss of his own territory in the event that he loses”

              Uh? There’s nothing there that allows any state to acquire territory by force! Schwebel/Lauterpacht/Herzog tell us a state may restore sovereignty by war http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y#Schwebel
              Israel has never lost any territory to restore. It has illegally acquired territory by war

              .“And no, “International Law” does NOT hold automatic override over domestic law and ordinances.
              Even Chapter VII of the UN Charter, under which the most binding of all Security Council resolutions are drafted, spells out the limitations of the UN’s power and explicitly does not override domestic law and national sovereignty.”

              Where countries are acting outside of their recognized boundaries, their civil law doesn’t apply. International Law does. Read UNSC res 476 as an example. It’s a UN resolution, according to the UNSC understanding of International Law, the UN Charter and relative Conventions

              .“Article 40: “In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR POSITION OF THE PARTIES CONCERNED.””

              States have no rights to any territories outside their borders. Nor do they have any legal claims to territories outside of their recognized borders

              “Article 51: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

              By it’s own actions and admissions Israel’s wars have all been preemptive. The preemptor starts its wars. Jewish forces under Plan Dalet were already outside of Israel’s borders even as they were being declared and recognized.
              There are no UNSC resolutions against any Arab State for going to the defense of what ever remained of Palestine after Israel’s borders were made clear in its plea for recognition. The Arab Regional Powers/UN Members/High Contracting Parties (except Jordan who used Iraqi forces) had a legal right to attempt to expel armed foreigners from the territories of their allies in Palestine.

              No Israeli territories have been invaded. No Israeli territories have been taken. Israel’s wars have all been fought in non-Israeli territories

              Comment by talknic — March 4, 2017 @ 3:51 pm

              • “If you say so pal. I haven’t. Two or more wrongs don’t make a right”.
                Then lets see principles and standards applied fairly and uniformly and based on actual legal standards and norms, rather than the UN being hijacked and dominated by the narrow agenda of anti-Israel activists, organizations, and blocs.

                “Schwebel/Lauterpacht/Herzog tell us a state may restore sovereignty by war”.
                Schwebel, Lauterpacht, and Herzog were differentiating between LAWFUL and UNLAWFUL acquisition of territory by force, and defending the position of Israel post-1967, arguing that it had acquired territory by LAWFUL means. Lauterpacht is NOT saying that the “recognized sovereign” is by default in the just position if he loses territory. Otherwise Germany would now be in a position to recover by force territory that had belonged to it before WW2 and that it had lost as a result of war.

                “Read UNSC res 476 as an example. It’s a UN resolution, according to the UNSC understanding of International Law, the UN Charter and relative Conventions”
                UN Sec. Res. 476 was adopted under Chapter VI and is a recommendation, not binding order. I seem to recall you noting elsewhere that Chapter VI resolutions are non-binding recommendations; let me know if I’m wrong.
                It may reflect the position of the UN as an organization, but it does not reflect the position on the ground in eastern Jerusalem, in which Israeli civil law does apply, though the Israeli government is committed to upholding the Geneva Conventions with respect to the non-citizen Arab population.

                “States have no rights to any territories outside their borders. Nor do they have any legal claims to territories outside of their recognized borders”.
                Except that, with the exception of the boundary between the State of Israel and Egypt, and the State of Israel and Jordan, which were established as a result of BILATERAL accords, there are no “recognized borders”. The rest of the lines were established “without prejudice to the rights, claims, and positions” of the parties involved, and are not formal international borders. The 1949 Armistice Lines are such an example (the 1949 Armistice Accords explicitly denies they are to be construed as an international border). The Partition PLAN was, for the umpteenth time, a proposal RECOMMENDING borders, not a creator of borders. The UN Security Council didn’t adopt or implement it, and the General Assembly didn’t take it up when requested by the Security Council to “consider further the question of the future government of Palestine”, choosing a different route that ended in…well…nothing.

                “By it’s own actions and admissions Israel’s wars have all been preemptive. The preemptor starts its wars. Jewish forces under Plan Dalet were already outside of Israel’s borders even as they were being declared and recognized.”

                The Israeli position was fairly clear and consistent that the Arab side was the aggressor and responsible for starting the fighting, and the Arab side, specifically the Arab Higher Committee representing the Palestine Arabs was clear in acknowledging this, e.g. in the statements of AHC representative Jamal Husseini to the UN Security Council on 16 April and 23 April 1948, declaring on behalf of the Palestine Arabs that “we have never concealed the fact that we began the fighting. We began it because we were always under the impression, as we are now, that we were fighting in self defense”. Husseini also stated clearly during this period that a ceasefire on the basis of the Partition Plan was unacceptable.
                The fact that the Arabs were the attackers, and the Jewish forces responding to the attacks, can be seen, for example, in the statement of the British representative, Sir Alexander Cadogan, to the UN Security Council on 23 April, 1948 (No. 62, 287th meeting):

                “Perhaps I ought to give the Security Council at this stage, some information which my delegation has received since the Colonial Secretary addressed the First Committee of the special session this morning [see document A/C.1/SR.123].This relates to the situation in Haifa. The information is to this effect: that during the past week there has been a tendency for armed Arabs to infiltrate into Haifa, and there were continuous Arab attacks on Jews during the four days preceding the Haganah offensive. It thus appears that the Arabs are themselves responsible for the latest developments in Haifa.”

                Plan Dalet wasn’t a plan cooked up out of thin air to launch a pre-emptive strike on peaceful Arabs, grab their land, and expel them, as various propagandists and distorters are often wont to allege. It was drawn up in March 1948, after months of armed attacks by Arabs (including both Palestine Arabs and ALA irregulars from outside Palestine), at a time when the Partition Plan itself was increasingly seen as unworkable (the United States had abandoned support for partition in favor of trusteeship). An invasion of regular Arab armies from outside Palestine was anticipated. The goal of Plan Dalet was to establish effective control over the area of the proposed Jewish state and Jewish population centers outside it. Kind of hard to blame them, in light of that Jews were being attacked and killed by armed Arab bands, and were especially vulnerable in outlying areas, in Jerusalem, and on the roads, such as the main road between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

                “The Arab Regional Powers/UN Members/High Contracting Parties…had a legal right to attempt to expel armed foreigners from the territories of their allies in Palestine.”

                The Arab League decision was to prevent the Partition of Palestine, not to expel “armed foreigners from the territories of their allies in Palestine”.
                Cable S/745 from the Secretary-General of the Arab League to the Secretary-General of the UN (15 May 1948) shows that the last thing in the world on the minds of the invading Arab countries was to implement the Partition Plan.
                Their stated aim was to create a “United State of Palestine” on the entire territory of the Palestine Mandate territory. There was no question of cooperating with the estblishment of a Jewish State in any borders.
                https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/DER/NL4/829/25/PDF/NL482925.pdf?OpenElement

                Comment by Jacob D — March 5, 2017 @ 2:38 pm

                • ” lets see principles and standards applied fairly and uniformly and based on actual legal standards and norms, rather than the UN being hijacked and dominated by the narrow agenda of anti-Israel activists, organizations, and blocs. .”

                  Let’s see Israel adhere to the BINDING Laws, BINDING UN Charter and BINDING conventions reaffirmed and emphasized in the numerous UNSC resolutions reminding that state of its obligation to uphold those those binding Laws, UN Charter and relative conventions. If Israel adhered to its obligations, there’d be no reminders. If you don’t adhere to the contract, is the power company is not biased for issuing reminders?

                  “Schwebel, Lauterpacht, and Herzog were differentiating between LAWFUL and UNLAWFUL acquisition of territory by force”
                  The UN and International Law do not differentiate

                  “Otherwise Germany would now be in a position to recover by force territory that had belonged to it before WW2 and that it had lost as a result of war”

                  For the second time, What territories within the borders of Germany did it ‘lose’ ?

                  UN Sec. Res. 476 was adopted under Chapter VI and is a recommendation, not binding order. I seem to recall you noting elsewhere that Chapter VI resolutions are non-binding recommendations; let me know if I’m wrong.”

                  Problem with that wholly holey Hasbara bullshit is the inescapable fact that the Laws, UN Charter and relative Conventions reaffirmed and/or emphasized in ANY resolution are binding, regardless of what type of resolution they’re emphasized and/or reaffirmed in. Chapt VI resolutions are reminders of those BINDING Laws, BINDING UN Charter and relevant ratified conventions

                  “….it does not reflect the position on the ground in eastern Jerusalem, in which Israeli civil law does apply, though the Israeli government is committed to upholding the Geneva Conventions with respect to the non-citizen Arab population.”

                  East Jerusalem is not Israeli. It was not proclaimed or recognized as Israeli and has never been legally acquired by Israel by any agreement or legal mechanism. IOW you’re spouting bullsh*t!

                  “… with the exception of the boundary between the State of Israel and Egypt, and the State of Israel and Jordan, which were established as a result of BILATERAL accords”

                  Bullsh*t. Egypt and Jordanian borders were established and recognized long before the State of Israel declared independence

                  ” …there are no “recognized borders”

                  Strange, Israel was recognized by the borders in the Israeli request for recognition. This can be shown in the failed attempt by Israel on the 31st August 1949 to have territories outside the State of Israel and acquired by war assigned to the State of Israel. https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/C96E0252E7710BCE85256D95006BC157

                  “The rest of the lines were established “without prejudice to the rights, claims, and positions” of the parties involved, and are not formal international borders”

                  A) States do not have any ‘rights’ to any territories outside of their recognized borders. Nor do they have any legal claims to any territories outside of their recognized borders. B) Armistice Demarcation Lines are not formal borders except where they were already borders such as described in Armistice Agreements E.g., Lebanon/Israel AGREED to “Article V 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line should follow the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine.”

                  “The 1949 Armistice Lines are such an example (the 1949 Armistice Accords explicitly denies they are to be construed as an international border).”

                  That’s right. Israel’s borders did not change

                  ” The Partition PLAN was, for the umpteenth time, a proposal RECOMMENDING borders, not a creator of borders.”

                  Correct. However Israel accepted the resolution as “binding” http://wp.me/pDB7k-Yx , proclaimed itself independent and was recognized as requested within the recommended borders

                  “The Israeli position was fairly clear and consistent that the Arab side was the aggressor and responsible for starting the fighting”

                  By 00:01 15th May 1948 ME time, Jewish forces under Plan Dalet were already in control of territories outside of the borders in Israel’s official request for recognition. The civil war that existed prior to Israeli independence, became a war by the State of Israel at precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 ME time on what remained of Palestine

                  ” … in the statements of AHC representative Jamal Husseini to the UN Security Council on 16 April and 23 April 1948″

                  You’ve linked to a 2nd December 1996 statement by DAVID PELEG (Israel) , where he truncates and conflates statements made on 16 April and 23 April 1948, BEFORE the State of Israel even existed.

                  No one could possibly have started a war with Israel in April 1948. April is BEFORE May, except in ZioLaLaLand where the government of a state that doesn’t exist authorizes their agent to make an official request on their behalf.

                  “… the statement of the British representative, Sir Alexander Cadogan, to the UN Security Council on 23 April, 1948 …”

                  Was also BEFORE the State of Israel existed. Some folk really ought to learn about the chronology of events before they open their lying wailgobs

                  “Plan Dalet wasn’t a plan cooked up out of thin air to launch a pre-emptive strike on peaceful Arabs … etc etc”

                  Oh, so you actually believe that Ben Gurion didn’t know about Plan Dalet when he purposefully attempted to deceive by not mentioning borders in the Declaration? I guess some people really are quite stupid

                  Never the less, it’s irelevant to the fact that Jewish forces were already in non-Israeli territory at 00:01 May 15th 1948, have NEVER withdrawn and Israel has never reached an agreement whereby any of the territories it has acquired by war have ever been legally annexed to Israeli by agreement or any legal mechanism

                  “The Arab League decision was to prevent the Partition of Palestine, not to expel “armed foreigners from the territories of their allies in Palestine .. etc”.

                  A) They had that right to expel armed foreigners from the territories of their allies in Palestine. B) Israel had no right to have any forces in non-Israeli territories C) Read the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine very closely.

                  “Cable S/745 from the Secretary-General of the Arab League to the Secretary-General of the UN (15 May 1948) shows that the last thing in the world on the minds of the invading Arab countries was to implement the Partition Plan.”

                  They didn’t accept the partition plan and were not obliged to accept the partition plan or help implement it. They did as Regional Powers and being UN Members with the exception of Jordan, after having registered their intentions with the UNSC, have the right to defend Palestinian territories outside of Israel’s recognized borders from Israeli aggression. There is no UNSC condemnation of the Arab States Declaration on the invasion of Palestine

                  Furthermore their statement contained what they considered would be a just and fair solution to the conflict. If it was a threat to carry it out, they’d have invaded Israel. But as we can see from the ISRAELI GOVERNMENT they invaded “Palestine”. http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook1/Pages/5%20Arab%20League%20declaration%20on%20the%20invasion%20of%20Pales.aspx

                  None of the resolutions on the Question of Palestine call for peace in Israel because apart from a couple of cross border skirmishes after the war was started by Jewish forces being in non-Israeli territories, there has never been a war in Israeli territories. All of the resolutions on the question of Palestine call for peace in Palestine

                  “Their stated aim was to create a “United State of Palestine” on the entire territory of the Palestine Mandate territory.”

                  No it wasn’t. Here it is verbatim

                  Eighth: The Arab States most emphatically declare that [their] intervention in Palestine was due only to these considerations and objectives, and that they aim at nothing more than to put an end to the prevailing conditions in [Palestine] . For this reason, they have great confidence that their action will have the support of the United Nations; [that it will be] considered as an action aiming at the realisation of its aims and at promoting its principles, as provided for in its Charter. (ibid)

                  Your link https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/DER/NL4/829/25/PDF/NL482925.pdf?OpenElement doesn’t lead to any document

                  Comment by talknic — March 6, 2017 @ 2:05 am

                  • – “Let’s see Israel adhere to the BINDING Laws, BINDING UN Charter and BINDING conventions…”

                    Israel adheres to them, as best it can. It isn’t obliged to adhere to the politically-motivated interprations of said laws, Charter, and conventions designed to serve the interests of the other Party in the conflict – interpetations of various NGO’s, the advisory opinion of an international court to which Israel isn’t a party and has not turned for advice, and even UN resolutions initiated by anti-Israel blocs at the UN. As stated before, the UN is NOT a world government. All the conclusions you’ve made based on the laws, Charter, conventions, etc. are the result of interpetations – I would say twisted, biased, defective interpretations – by politically-motivated parties using “legalism” as a means to get from Israel what they were unable to get by war.

                    The UN Charter, incidentally, includes Article 80, which emphasizes that “Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.”
                    Palestine was never placed under a trusteeship system. The “rights” cited include those enjoyed under the Palestine Mandate, including all Jewish National Home provisions in the Palestine Mandate document, which continued to be valid west of the Jordan, and were only “withheld” in Transjordan, per the terms of Article 25 and the Transjordanian Memorandum.

                    – “For the second time, What territories within the borders of Germany did it ‘lose’ ?”

                    Primarily territories that became part of Poland and the Soviet Union after the War (and had had not been previously).

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Germany#/media/File:Germanborders.svg

                    – “East Jerusalem is not Israeli”.
                    Keep repeating that, as though it will come true. East Jerusalem has been annexed to the Municipality of Jerusalem and the State of Israel by Israeli law. Many of those who cry foul about this annexation also claim that even WEST Jerusalem is not part of Israel (after the funeral of Shimon Peres on Mt. Herzl, the Obama White House deleted a reference to Mt. Herzl, Jerusalem being in Israel). But that has little bearing on the fact that Jerusalem is, by Israeli law, in word and in deed, the seat of the Israeli government, and the united capital of Israel. You may not acknowledge Israeli sovereingty, but Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem is a fact.

                    – “The civil war that existed prior to Israeli independence, became a war by the State of Israel at precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 ME time on what remained of Palestine”
                    The UN did not acknowledge the sovereignty of the State of Israel or of the proposed “Arab state” in any part of Palestine when the Mandate expired at 00:01 May 15th 1948 and the ensuing months. It continued to refer to both parties as “Jewish and Arab authorities in Palestine”, and the Security Council addressed it’s letter dated 18 May to the Provisional Government of Israel to “the Jewish Agency for Palestine”.

                    -“You’ve linked to a 2nd December 1996 statement by DAVID PELEG (Israel) , where he truncates and conflates statements made on 16 April and 23 April 1948, BEFORE the State of Israel even existed.”

                    I’ve linked to no such thing. I am quoting from the statement of Jamal Bey Husseini, representative of the Arab Higher Commitee, to the Security Council on 23 April 1948 (pg. 14 of the following Security Council official record)
                    https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxtaXNqdWRlcmlhc3xneDoyMmUzYjA5MmFmYmI0NzNl
                    Husseini made a similar statement to the Security Council on 16 April 1948 (pg. 19 of the following Security Council official record):
                    http://repository.un.org/bitstream/handle/11176/87872/S_PV.283-EN.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
                    In the same document, Husseini also states (pg. 20):
                    “We insist, also, that we should be assured that this truce and the ensuing discussions should not be a preliminary to the Partition scheme. We have fought and we are now fighting the Partitition scheme, and we cannot have any truce on the basis it.”

                    I never claimed that the Arab side was waging war against the independent State of Israel at this point. I said the Israeli position is that the Arab side was the aggressor. It saw all Arab violent actions in attempting to thwart Partition as relevant to that position. It cited to the Security Council the following clause in the Partition Plan:
                    “Requests that…the Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution”

                    -“‘British representative, Sir Alexander Cadogan, to the UN Security Council on 23 April, 1948 …’ Was also BEFORE the State of Israel existed”.

                    Moving the goalposts now? I was responding to your allegation that the Jewish side employed pre-emptive war the in the form of Plan Dalet, to capture territory, and were thus outside the proposed borders of the Jewish state when the Mandate ended.

                    – “Oh, so you actually believe that Ben Gurion didn’t know about Plan Dalet when he purposefully attempted to deceive by not mentioning borders in the Declaration? I guess some people really are quite stupid.”

                    Stupid is the leader who has no contingency plan to take the battle to the enemy who is sworn to your destruction and has already launched his war against you. Apparently you’re more disturbed by Ben Gurion’s use of deception in response to Arab aggression, than to Husseni’s admission that the Arab side had begun the war. That’s rather telling.

                    – “There is no UNSC condemnation of the Arab States Declaration on the invasion of Palestine”
                    In UNSCR 49 (22 May 1948), the Security Council “Calls upon all Governments and authorities, without prejudice to the rights, claims or positions of the parties concerned, to abstain from any hostile military action in Palestine.”

                    UNSCR 50 (29 May 1948), “Decides that if the present resolution is rejected by either party or by both, or if, having been accepted, it is subsequently repudiated or violated, the situation in Palestine will be reconsidered with a view to action under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations;”

                    UNSCR 54 (15 June 1948), “The Security Council, taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine; that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine, 1. Determines that the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations;”

                    Let’s assume, as you do, that this doesn’t constitute a condemnation of the Arab states on their invasion of Palestine (including territories of the proposed Jewish State per the Partition Plan). There’s also no condemnation of Israel for military action outside the proposed boundaries of the Jewish State. No repudiation of the Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordinance, passed by the Provisional Gov. of Israel on 22 September 1948 and made retroactively effective from 15 May 1948. No condition of withdrawing from said territories or cancelling Israeli civil law therein in order to become a member of the UN in 1949.

                    And by the way, Arab states DID hold onto territory that you would describe as “Israeli territory”.
                    Syria held territory on the northeast shore of the Sea of Galilee that had been part of the Mandate Palestine and part of the territory proposed for the Jewish State under the Partition Plan. It remained under Syrian control until June 1967.

                    -“A) They had that right to expel armed foreigners from the territories of their allies in Palestine. B) Israel had no right to have any forces in non-Israeli territories C) Read the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine very closely.”…. “No it wasn’t. Here it is verbatim”, etc. etc.

                    I don’t know which document you are referring to.
                    I was referring to the the text of document Cable S/745 from the Secretary-General of the Arab League to the Secretary-General of the UN (15 May 1948). For some reason, the link to the original document doesn’t open directly, but you can view the document on Wikisource, and access the original from a link supplied there.
                    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cablegram_from_the_Secretary-General_of_the_League_of_Arab_States_to_the_Secretary-General_of_the_United_Nations

                    “The Governments of the Arab States hereby confirm at this stage the view that had been repeatedly declared by them on previous occasions, such as the London Conference and before the United Nations mainly, the only fair and just solution to the problem of Palestine is the creation of UNITED STATE OF PALESTINE based upon the democratic principles which will enable all its inhabitants to enjoy equality before the law, and which would guarantee to all minorities the safeguards provided for in all democratic constitutional States affording at the same time full protection and free access to Holy Places. The Arab States emphatically and repeatedly declare that their intervention in Palestine has been prompted solely by the considerations and for the AIMS SET OUT ABOVE and that they are not inspired by any other motive whatsoever.”

                    It’s plainly clear from the wording of the document that by “Palestine”, the Arab League is referring is referring the territory of Palestine as it was under the Mandate, and is NOT excluding from it the territory of the proposed Jewish State under the Partition Plan. The clear intent here is to thwart partition, and establish a unitary Palestinian state on the entire territory of Palestine as it was under the Mandate.

                    – “If it was a threat to carry it out, they’d have invaded Israel. But as we can see from the ISRAELI GOVERNMENT they invaded “Palestine””.

                    That isnt’t an Israeli Government statement. It is the Arab League declaration on the invasion of Palestine- 15 May 1948, as QUOTED on the website of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
                    http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook1/Pages/5%20Arab%20League%20declaration%20on%20the%20invasion%20of%20Pales.aspx

                    In it the Arab League statement, “Palestine” is definitively defined as covering the entire territory referred to as Palestine after the fall of the Ottoman Empire: “The Pact of the League of Arab States declared that Palestine has been an independent country since its separation from the Ottoman Empire”.

                    It also emphasizes that the “Arab intervention” won’t stop until a “state of Palestine” has been created, and the text makes it clear it means on the entire territory of Palestine, not excepting the State of Israel:

                    “The Governments of the Arab States recognise that the independence of Palestine, which has so far been suppressed by the British Mandate, has become an accomplished fact for the lawful inhabitants of Palestine. They alone, by virtue of their absolute sovereignty, have the right to provide their country with laws and governmental institutions. They alone should exercise the attributes of their independence, through their own means and without any kind of foreign interference, immediately after peace, security, and the rule of law have been restored to the country.

                    At that time the intervention of the Arab states will cease, and the independent State of Palestine will co-operate with the [other member] States of the Arab League in order to bring peace, security and prosperity to this part of the world.

                    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”.

                    Comment by Jacob D — March 6, 2017 @ 10:16 am

                    • //“Let’s see Israel adhere to the BINDING Laws, BINDING UN Charter and BINDING conventions…”//

                      “Israel adheres to them, as best it can.”

                      And that’s why Israel receives so many reminders to adhere to its legal obligations. I understand your need

                      “It isn’t obliged to adhere to the politically-motivated interprations of said laws, Charter, and conventions designed to serve the interests of the other Party in the conflict”

                      You’re spouting complete nonsense. Under the UN Charter all UN Members are obliged to adhere to the decisions of the UNSC. Furthermore the UN Charter was written BEFORE the Jewish State was even recommended in UNGA res 181

                      “The UN Charter, incidentally, includes Article 80, … Palestine was never placed under a trusteeship system.”

                      It was already under one. The LoN Mandate for Palestine, which didn’t expire until midnight May 14th 1948 in order that both parties would be fee of British occupation in order that they declare their independence if they so wished. Jewish forces were by then occupying territories slated for the Arab state, making it impossible for Palestine to be independent. Same as today, Israel prevents Palestinian independence.

                      “The “rights” cited include those enjoyed under the Palestine Mandate, including all Jewish National Home provisions in the Palestine Mandate document…”

                      As citizens of PALESTINE along with the existing Palestinians

                      “which continued to be valid west of the Jordan…”

                      The LoN Mandate for Palestine terminated midnight May 14th 1948. You’re delusional

                      // “East Jerusalem is not Israeli”.//
                      “Keep repeating that, as though it will come true. East Jerusalem has been annexed to the Municipality of Jerusalem and the State of Israel by Israeli law”

                      UNSC res 252 and its EIGHT reminders tell Israeli Law isn’t applicable. You’re delusional and in denial

                      //“You’ve linked to a 2nd December 1996 statement by DAVID PELEG (Israel) , where he truncates and conflates statements made on 16 April and 23 April 1948, BEFORE the State of Israel even existed.”

                      “I’ve linked to no such thing”. My mistake. Never the less the statements were made BEFORE the State of Israel existed. So both you and DAVID PELEG (Israel) spout crappolla

                      “I said the Israeli position is that the Arab side was the aggressor. It saw all Arab violent actions in attempting to thwart Partition as relevant to that position. It cited to the Security Council the following clause in the Partition Plan:
                      “Requests that…the Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution”

                      So UNGA res 181 suddenly matters. AMAZING how you do that. 1st it doesn’t, then it does.

                      //“‘British representative, Sir Alexander Cadogan, to the UN Security Council on 23 April, 1948 …’ Was also BEFORE the State of Israel existed”.//

                      “Moving the goalposts now?”

                      The record shows otherwise. Making false accusations is so ZioPuke

                      “I was responding to your allegation that the Jewish side employed pre-emptive war the in the form of Plan Dalet, to capture territory, and were thus outside the proposed borders of the Jewish state when the Mandate ended.”

                      By citing a statement made BEFORE the State of Israel existed. My you are a clever chap. Sooooo clever

                      “Stupid is the leader who has no contingency plan to take the battle to the enemy who is sworn to your destruction and has already launched his war against you. Apparently you’re more disturbed by Ben Gurion’s use of deception in response to Arab aggression, than to Husseni’s admission that the Arab side had begun the war. That’s rather telling.”

                      What is rather telling you stupid stupid person, is for Ben Gurion to brag about his intention to deceive in order to illegally acquire by war more territory than was due the Jewish State and;
                      What is even more stupid is for people like you to present it as some sort of evidence in favour of the Jewish State and;
                      What is REALLY REALLY ZioStupid is to claim a past tense statement made in April 1948, referred to starting a war in May 1948. Was he time traveller? Dr Who?

                      // “There is no UNSC condemnation of the Arab States Declaration on the invasion of Palestine”//

                      “In UNSCR 49 (22 May 1948) / UNSCR 50 (29 May 1948
                      Neither are a condemnation of Arab States Declaration on the invasion of Palestine. Defensive military action is allowable at all times. The Arab states responded to the Israeli invasion of non-Israeli territories. It is a matter of course that the UN plea for peace by all parties.

                      UNSCR 54 (15 June 1948) is not on the Arab states’ initial response to Israeli forces being in non-Israeli territories

                      ” There’s also no condemnation of Israel for military action outside the proposed boundaries of the Jewish State blah blah “

                      A) Israel wasn’t a UN Member state The UN doesn’t directly censure non-member states by name. B) Israel was one party referred to in the resolutions you just gave

                      “Syria held territory on the northeast shore of the Sea of Galilee that had been part of the Mandate Palestine and part of the territory proposed for the Jewish State under the Partition Plan. It remained under Syrian control until June 1967”

                      Oh so now UNGA res 181 applies and Israel has borders. Interesting how you can be drawn to eventually trip over yourself.

                      i“I don’t know which document you are referring to”

                      Oh you poor poor chap. Alzheimer’s is it? How come you’re now saying “It’s plainly clear from the wording of the document “

                      “That isnt’t an Israeli Government statement.”.

                      You’re delusional .The first paragraph is an ISRAELI introduction to the Arab states document
                      http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook1/Pages/5%20Arab%20League%20declaration%20on%20the%20invasion%20of%20Pales.aspx

                      “In it the Arab League statement, “Palestine” is definitively defined as covering the entire territory referred to as Palestine after the fall of the Ottoman Empire: “The Pact of the League of Arab States declared that Palestine has been an independent country since its separation from the Ottoman Empire”.”

                      Yes they were stating their case. Their aim was in the last article.

                      Comment by talknic — March 6, 2017 @ 1:03 pm

                  • “However Israel accepted the resolution as “binding” http://wp.me/pDB7k-Yx , proclaimed itself independent and was recognized as requested within the recommended borders”

                    Again, moving the goalposts. You say “Israel accepted the resolution as “binding””, but all the quotes you provided in the attached link were made during the Mandate period, prior to the desclaration of the establishment of the State of Israel. Rabbi Silver of the Jewish Agency made those statements in March 1948. That’s not a statement of Israel accepting anything. Moreover, the statemets by Rabbi Silver include a satement to the effect that “the element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only”, referring to the Partition Plan’s own text:
                    “When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.”
                    I have seen no evidence of either party signing the document.

                    Here is the Security Council’s record of Israel’s ambassador Abba Eban’s statements in its application for UN membership in May 1949, regarding the opinions of the Israeli government at the time. It shows a deviation from what is stated in the 1947 Partition Plan:
                    “The Government of Israel, while believing that the international principle should be maintained, considered that, in existing circumstances, that principle should be expressed more realistically than in the previous resolutions of the General Assembly. The situation had considerably changed since November 1947. In that connexion, the fact of Jerusalem’s integration into the neighbouring States and the necessity to take a more limited view of the United Nations’ administrative task should not be overlooked….
                    Summing up his Government’s attitude on the Jerusalem problem, Mr. Eban stressed that the Government of Israel had co-operated to the fullest extent with the Statute drawn up in November 1947, and bore no responsibility for the failure of that project. That failure was due rather to the armed resistance of the Arab States and the refusal of United Nations organs to assume the obligations necessary for the fulfilment of the Statute.
                    The Government of Israel advocated the establishment by the United Nations of an international régime for Jerusalem concerned exclusively with the control and protection of Holy Places, and would co-operate with such a régime.”
                    https://web.archive.org/web/20120203124136/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479d/1db943e43c280a26052565fa004d8174?OpenDocument#Mr.%20EBAN%20(Israel)%20understood%20tha

                    Comment by Jacob D — March 6, 2017 @ 12:42 pm

                    • “Again, moving the goalposts. “

                      No. I made a simple naming error.

                      The resolution was accepted as binding by Rabbi Silver You’ve been given the link

                      “Moreover, the statemets by Rabbi Silver include a satement to the effect that “the element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only”, referring to the Partition Plan’s own text:”

                      No he was referring to the statements made by ” Mr. Herschel Johnson, representing the United States delegation, speaking in a sub-committee of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question on 28 October 1947, stated, in discussing this very matter in connexion with economic union: “The element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only.”

                      Which is a matter of course. There’s no clause requiring a co-signature to each others independence. Independence is by its very nature unilateral

                      “When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.”
                      I have seen no evidence of either party signing the document.

                      What don’t you understand about ” the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed ..”

                      Israel made its declaration, it was signed. By numerous foreigners to Palestine I might add. In fact only ONE was from the region http://wp.me/pDB7k-1cE

                      “Here is the Security Council’s record of Israel’s ambassador Abba Eban’s statements …”

                      Israel’s actions give lie to Eban’s crappolla

                      Comment by talknic — March 6, 2017 @ 1:22 pm

          • International Law such the Hague Convention of 1907 are binding on High Contracting Parties, countries that have signed and ratified the relevant conventions.

            “Article 1.
            The Contracting Powers shall issue instructions to their armed land forces which shall be in conformity with the Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the present Convention.
            Art. 2.
            The provisions contained in the Regulations referred to in Article 1, as well as in the present Convention, do not apply except between Contracting Powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.”

            The Nuremberg Tribunal did not consider this argument admissible with regards to war crimes and crimes against humanity (Germany became a party to Hague 1907). http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judlawre.asp
            However, the Allies did not consider that convention and its articles, such as Art. 55, to be applicable to the restoration of Germany’s sovereignty to its pre-War borders and the restoration of displaced Germans to the lost territories, because Germany was recognized as the AGGRESSOR and not seen as insured against the loss of its territory.

            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.”

            That refers to the issue of property (hence, the use of the word “usufruct”). It does not deal with issue of ultimate sovereignty over territory, and isn’t a wild card that can insure an aggressor over the loss of territory from which it has attacked others.
            Again, it refers to relations between states / High Contracting Parties.
            In 1948 Israel did not conquer lands belonging to a sovereign state and was not a High Contracting Party.

            “Go spread your crap somewhere else pal.
            Lebanon 24 October 1945
            Syria 24 October 1945
            Egypt 24 October 1945
            Iraq 21 December 1945”

            I was obviously talking about sovereignty of Jewish and Arab parties WITHIN the territory of the former Mandate Palestine, as shown in my next sentence: “In fact, the sovereignty of ANY state within the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine was not yet formally upheld by the UN.”
            None of the territories of the countries you mentioned had territories occupied after the end of the 1948-49 Arab-Israeli War.
            But since you insist on mentioning that these countries all signed the UN Charter, perhaps you might also explain what business the aforementioned countries had in invading the territory of the former Mandate of Palestine, including the territory of the State of Israel that you insist corresponded to the proposed Partition Plan boundaries: Lebanese troops crossed the border and attacked Nebu Yusha and occupied Malkiya (Israeli territory). Lebanon also carried out artillery bombardments of Israeli territory and enabled ALA (Arab Liberation Army) detachments to cross the border from Lebanese territory. Syria attacked and for a time occupied Israeli territory in the upper Galilee and Hulah Valley region. Egyptian troops attacked the southern sector of the proposed Jewish State (per the Partition Plan), and launched air raids on central Israel, including Tel Aviv. Iraqi troops invaded Israeli territory in the northern Jordan Valley. They also took Geulim and reached Kfar Yona and Ein Vered in central Israel, in the area of Netanya.

            “I can’t find any clause excepting defensive war .. Please quote it verbatim. Thx”
            Since Article 2(4) is specifically referring to an aggressive war aimed specifically for the capture of territory of a neighboring state, you cannot employ an argument from silence to claim it also applies to a defensive war in which territory was captured from an aggressor.
            To quote Prof. Schwebel in American Journal of International Law in 1970, regarding the general international principle that “acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible”:
            “So read, the distinctions between aggressive conquest and defensive conquest, between the taking of territory legally held and the taking of territory illegally held, become no less vital and correct than the central principle itself.
            “Those distinctions may be summarized as follows: (a) A State acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defence may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defence. (b) As a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that state may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defence. (c) Where the prior holder of territory has seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defence has, against that prior holder, better title.

            RE Elihu Lauterpacht’s statement:
            ““… 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.””.

            Well done. You have scored a well-executed and richly deserved “own goal”.
            Lauterpacht’s statement, made in 1968, had the exact opposite intent of what you are now trying to misconstrue. He was DEFENDING Israel against Arab attempts at the UN to have Israel branded as the aggressor in the 1967 War. (See his 1968 pamphlet, Jerusalem and the Holy Places http://www.mefacts.com/cached.asp?x_id=10903). He was precisely pointing out the difference between capture of territory in self defense and capture of territory as an aggressor. He is not claiming that a recognized sovereign has automatic recourse to claim back territory it lost as a result of aggression that IT waged, or that the capturer of territory in a defensive war MUST have been a previously recognized sovereign. (Indeed, he uses the principle to argue AGAINST those who were attempting to claim Israel acted illegally when its annexed east Jerusalem). He is simply stating that if a legitimate sovereign was once the victim of war waged upon it by an aggressor and the “principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” applied to aggressive and defensive war equally, then the legitimate sovereign would have no recourse to use force to take back its territory.
            Lauterpacht also stated in the same vein that: “On 5th June, 1967, Jordan deliberately overthrew the Armistice Agreement by attacking the Israeli-held part of Jerusalem. There was no question of this Jordanian action being a reaction to any Israeli attack. It took place not with-standing explicit Israeli assurances, conveyed to King Hussein through the U.N. Commander, that if Jordan did not attack Israel, Israel would not attack Jordan. Although the charge of aggression is freely made against Israel in relation to the Six-Days War the fact remains that the two attempts made in the General Assembly in June-July 1967 to secure the condemnation of Israel as an aggressor failed. A clear and striking majority of the members of the U.N. voted against the proposition that Israel was an aggressor.”

            “Furthermore, the Arab states, as Regional Powers, had and still have every right to attempt to expel Israeli forces from non-Israeli territories as they did on 1948. There are no UNSC condemnations of their actions in Palestine”

            Sure…
            UNSCR 54:

            “The Security Council,

            Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine; that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine,

            1. Determines that the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations;

            2. Orders the Governments and authorities concerned, pursuant to Article 40 of Charter, to desist from further military action and to this end to issue cease-fire order to their military and paramilitary forces, to take effect at a time to be determined by the Mediator, but in any event not later than three days from the date of the adoption of this resolution;

            3. Declares that failure by any of the Governments or authorities concerned to comply with the preceding paragraph of this resolution would demonstrate the existence of a breach of the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter requiring immediate consideration by the Security Council with a view to such further action under Chapter VII of the Charter as may be decided upon by the Council;”

            Comment by Jacob D — March 5, 2017 @ 12:05 am

            • “International Law such the Hague Convention of 1907 are binding on High Contracting Parties, countries that have signed and ratified the relevant conventions.”

              By 1948, the Hague Conventions had be ratified by a majority of nations, thereby passing into Customary International Law, binding on all nations whether they were/are UN Members or not

              “… the Allies did not consider that convention and its articles, such as Art. 55, to be applicable to the restoration of Germany’s sovereignty to its pre-War borders and the restoration of displaced Germans to the lost territories, because Germany was recognized as the AGGRESSOR and not seen as insured against the loss of its territory.”

              Germany never ‘lost’ sovereignty over its recognized territory. East and West Germany were occupied until reunification.

              “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.”

              That refers to the issue of property (hence, the use of the word “usufruct”). It does not deal with issue of ultimate sovereignty over territory, and isn’t a wild card that can insure an aggressor over the loss of territory from which it has attacked others”

              It tells us what the Occupying Power is allowed. The Occupying Power does not have sovereignty over territories it occupies

              “In 1948 Israel did not conquer lands belonging to a sovereign state and was not a High Contracting Party”

              So what? The acquisition of territory by war or any coercive measure was inadmissible by 1945. UN Charter Chapt 1 Art 2. (4) All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

              any state It doesn’t specify that they be a UN Member
              Under the Mandate for Palestine Article 7 and the subsequent adoption of Palestinian Nationality Law of 1925 (Per Article 7 of the Mandate) Palestine was a Nation State in 1948. Israel seceded from Palestine.

              “I was obviously talking about sovereignty of Jewish and Arab parties WITHIN the territory of the former Mandate Palestine, as shown in my next sentence: “In fact, the sovereignty of ANY state within the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine was not yet formally upheld by the UN.”

              Uh huh. Here is your dialogue, verbatim “None of the parties in question was at that point a UN member or a signatory to the various conventions or to the UN Charter.” The parties in question were the parties at war, i.e., the state of Israel and the Arab States who signed the Armistice agreements

              “None of the territories of the countries you mentioned had territories occupied after the end of the 1948-49 Arab-Israeli War”

              Irrelevant. The parties at war signed Armistice Agreements. They were:
              Israel/Lebanon in which Israel and Lebanon agreed “The Armistice Demarcation Line should follow the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine.” http://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/UNISPAL.NSF/0/71260B776D62FA6E852564420059C4FE

              Israel/Syria in which Israel and Syriaagreed that “3. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall be as delineated on the map attached to this Agreement as Annex I. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow a line midway between the existing truce lines, as certified by the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization for the Israeli and Syrian forces. Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line.” http://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/UNISPAL.NSF/0/E845CA0B92BE4E3485256442007901CC

              Israel/Egypt in which Israel and Egypt agreed that “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” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arm01.asp
              Israel had no ‘rights’ to any territory outside of its recognized borders

              “But since you insist on mentioning that these countries all signed the UN Charter”

              Why do you need to make false accusations? UN Members do not ‘sign’ the UN Charter

              ” perhaps you might also explain what business the aforementioned countries had in invading the territory of the former Mandate of Palestine, including the territory of the State of Israel”

              A) They didn’t invade any Israeli territory proclaimed by Israel. If, as you and other pathetic purveyors of the wholly holey Hasbara insist, Israel had no borders, how do you know Israel was invaded?
              B) As Regional Powers the Arab States had a right to attempt to expel Israeli forces from what remained of Palestine.

              “Lebanese troops crossed the border and attacked Nebu Yusha and occupied Malkiya (Israeli territory).”

              LOL.You can’t spot a honey pot. So suddenly Israel had borders, how amazing.

              A) Once war was started by there being Jewish forces in non-Israeli territories at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time), cross border skirmishes and the occupation of an enemy’s territories for military advantage are permissible. B) No Arab State claimed any Israeli territories as its own.

              //I can’t find any clause excepting defensive war .. Please quote it verbatim. Thx//

              “Since Article 2(4) is specifically referring to an aggressive war aimed specifically for the capture of territory of a neighboring state”

              Quote it verbatim I.e., like this

              All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

              It says NOTHING about ‘an aggressive war aimed specifically for the capture of territory of a neighboring state’. Why do you and your kind need to lie?

              “To quote Prof. Schwebel in American Journal of International Law in 1970, regarding the general international principle that “acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible”:….. etc etc etc.”

              The UN Charter doesn’t differentiate between the defensive and aggressive acquisition of territory by war.

              “RE Elihu Lauterpacht’s statement:
              ““… 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.””.

              Well done. You have scored a well-executed and richly deserved “own goal”.”

              LOL. You stupid stupid person. Israel wasn’t ‘restoring’ sovereignty over any territories it acquired by war.

              “He was DEFENDING Israel against Arab attempts at the UN to have Israel branded as the aggressor in the 1967 War”

              Israel was the aggressor. The war was fought in non-Israeli territories. The preemptor starts their wars. Israel attacked Jordanian territory in 1966 https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/1A03C7BFB8D6C049852560C3004A4AAF

              .“He was precisely pointing out the difference between capture of territory in self defense and capture of territory as an aggressor.”

              He was spouting nonsense. The UN Charter doesn’t differentiate

              “Lauterpacht also stated in the same vein that: “On 5th June, 1967, Jordan deliberately overthrew the Armistice Agreement by attacking the Israeli-held part of Jerusalem”

              Israel broke it in 1966 (ibid)

              “UNSCR 54:”

              Doesn’t condemn the Arab states for their invasion of Palestine May 15th 1948 and doesn’t condemn the Arab States for any actions in Israeli territories. In fact it tells us the war was strong>in Palestine, not Israel. None of the UNSC resolutions on the Question of Palestine call for peace in Israel.

              “Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine; that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine,

              1. Determines that the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations; etc etc”

              Comment by talknic — March 5, 2017 @ 2:15 am

              • “By 1948, the Hague Conventions had be ratified by a majority of nations, thereby passing into Customary International Law, binding on all nations whether they were/are UN Members or not”.
                Ratified by a majority is not the same as ratified by all. The Nuremberg Tribunal in 1945 declared that “all civilised nations” had recognized the Hague Conventions by 1939. That included Germany, in 1909.
                But that wasn’t necessarily the case after 1945. Israel, like its neighbors, is a party only to the 1st Hague Convention (pacific settlement of international disputes). It became a party in 1962.

                “Germany never ‘lost’ sovereignty over its recognized territory. East and West Germany were occupied until reunification.”

                East Germany + West Germany = substantially smaller area than the total pre-War area of Germany in 1939.
                In both 1919 and 1945 Germany lost SUBSTANTIAL amounts of territory (and I am not talking about territory annexed by Nazi Germany).
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Germany
                “The territorial changes at the end of World War II were part of negotiated agreements between the victorious Allies to redraw national borders and arrange for deportation of all Germans that were east of the Oder–Neisse line.”

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Germany#/media/File:Germanborders.svg
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Germany#/media/File:Map-Germany-1945.svg

                Re UN Charter Art. 4(1): “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”.
                That’s pretty specific. Using force against the the territorial integrity or political independence of any state is specifically about waging war against a country in order to conquer their territory or destroy them as an independent state. That’s the textbook definition of an aggressive war. There evidently are wars that are defensive but result in the conquest and permanent disememberment of a part of enemy territory, and the aforementioned example of Germany at the end of WW2 is one such example.

                “LOL.You can’t spot a honey pot. So suddenly Israel had borders, how amazing.”

                Please refer to what I wrote before the colon:
                “…the aforementioned countries had in invading the territory of the former Mandate of Palestine, including the territory of the State of Israel THAT YOU INSIST corresponded to the proposed Partition Plan boundaries: Lebanese troops crossed the border and attacked Nebi Yusha and occupied Malkiya (Israeli territory).”

                I was merely trying to illustrate that even according to your “strict” definition of “Israel territory” according to the lines of the 1947 UN Partition Plan, the Arab countries were invaders and aggressors. Those Arab forces that invaded “Israeli territory” did so in order to hold on to its for the Arabs; they vacated these areas for because they were driven out by Israeli forces (or in the context of the 1949 ceasefire in tandem with a corresponding Israeli withdrawal from “Arab territory”).
                Nevertheless the State of Israel maintains, and I would agree, that the invasion of Arab forces ANYWHERE into the territory of the former Mandate of Palestine was a flagrant act of aggression designed to snuff out the existence of a Jewish State, any Jewish State, within any borders.

                “Under the Mandate for Palestine Article 7 and the subsequent adoption of Palestinian Nationality Law of 1925 (Per Article 7 of the Mandate) Palestine was a Nation State in 1948. Israel seceded from Palestine.”

                That is absolutely NOT the case. In the Mandate for Palestine Article 7 and the Palestinian CITIZENSHIP ORDER IN COUNCIL (THAT’S what it’s called), the term “nationality law” is used as a generic term; reference is made to the establishment of a “Palestinian CITIZENSHIP”, not “Palestinian Nationality”…Thus in the British Palestine Passport issued during the Mandate period, in the field labeled “Nationality”, the text is filled in as “Palestinian Citizenship under Article() of the Palestinian Citizenship Orders in Council, 1925.”
                The text of the 1925 Order in Council uses the term “Palestinian Citizen” in marked contrast to the use of term “Turkish National”, and that difference is quite deliberate.
                https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law21/PG-e-0147.pdf
                The text of the 1925 Order defines Palestine as a TERRITORY (c.f. “Territory of Palestine”), not as a “Nation State”.
                It also defines the term “Palestine” within the meaning of the 1925 Palestinan Citizenship Order of Council:

                “The expression “Palestine” includes the territories to which the mandate for Palestine applies, except such parts of the territories comprised in Palestine to the east of Jordan and the Dead Sea as were defined by Order of the High Commissioner dated the first of September 1922.”
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Citizenship_Order,_1925

                In fact, the original reference to “Palestinian Citizenship” in the Mandate of Palestine, Article 7 specifically refers to the acquisition of citizenship by JEWISH immigrants to Palestine (which is the blueprint for the Law of Return for Jews in the State of Israel today):

                “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.
                Again, “a nationality law” is the generic term, the creation of a “Palestinian citizenship” the effect of such a law.
                The only definite, specific use of the term “national” in the entire Palestine Mandate document is used with respect to the Jewish people: “Jewish NATIONAL home”, “National Home for the Jewish people.”

                Israel didn’t “secede” from Palestine. As the Mandate came to an end, and effective government over the territory came to an end, the Israeli Provisional Government stepped in and established de-facto authority. keeping in force existing law, Israel’s first Ordinance, the Law & Administration Ordinance kept in place the existing law that was in force on 14 May 1948 “insofar as there is nothing therein repugnant to this Ordinance or to the other laws which may be enacted by or on behalf of the Provisional Council of State…”, etc.

                “Israel wasn’t ‘restoring’ sovereignty over any territories it acquired by war”.
                Lauterpacht didn’t claim that “restoring sovereignty” is the only legitimate way that territories are acquired by war. He gave the restoration of sovereignty by a country that was unlawfully invaded as an example of lawful acquisition of territory.

                “Israel was the aggressor. The war was fought in non-Israeli territories. The preemptor starts their wars. Israel attacked Jordanian territory in 1966”.
                You are referring to the Israeli raid on as-Samu’, but that was a punitive raid in response to a series of attacks on Israel by Fatah, culminating in the deaths of 3 Israeli soldiers on a routine patrol on the Israeli side of the ceasefire line with Jordan, as a result of a landmine that had been placed there (apparently) from Jordanian territory. There had been no prior intention on Israel’s part to engage Jordanian forces.
                And that was hardly the first armed attack against Israel from Fatah or Jordanian forces originating in Jordanian territory. For instance:
                On May 31, 1965, Jordanian Legionnaires fired on the neighborhood of Musrara in Jerusalem, killing two civilians and wounding four.
                On, Sept 29, 1965, Moshav Amatzia was attacked by terrorists from Jordanian territory.
                On Nov 7, 1965, a Fatah cell that infiltrated from Jordan blew up a house in Moshav Givat Yeshayahu, south of Beit Shemesh.
                To start the clock in 1966 for the countdown to the Six Day War is deliberately being disengenuous.

                “[Lauterpacht] was spouting nonsense.”
                That’s very convenient. First, you supply a reference to him as “a distinguished authority on international law” and base your conclusions on his statement, then you claim he “was spouting nonsense” when it turns out he used his statement as part of a legal argument to vindicate Israel.

                “Israel broke it in 1966”.
                No it didn’t; even UNSCR 266, which harshly criticized Israel, acknowledged that Israel’s actions constituted “military reprisal”.

                “[UNSCR 54] Doesn’t condemn the Arab states for their invasion of Palestine May 15th 1948 and doesn’t condemn the Arab States for any actions in Israeli territories. In fact it tells us the war was strong>in Palestine, not Israel. None of the UNSC resolutions on the Question of Palestine call for peace in Israel.”

                The UN at the point did not recognize the sovereignty of any state “in Palestine” at this point, and while mentioning “the Provisional Government of Israel” in this resolution, had used the term “Jewish authorities in Palestine” AFTER 14 May 1948 to describe the Provisional Israeli Government.
                Thus for example, UNSCR 50: “Invites the States members of the Arab League and the Jewish and Arab authorities in Palestine to communicate their acceptance of this resolution to the Security Council”
                https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_50
                Or the letter from the Security Council (S/766) dated 18 May 1948:
                “LETTER DATED 18 MAY 1948 FROM THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY-GENERAL FOR SECURITY
                COUNCIL AFFAIRS ADDRESSED TO THE JEWISH AGENCY FOR PALESTINE”
                ” …to the appropriate Jewish Authorities in Palestine”

                https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/B4085A930E0529C98025649D00410973

                Comment by Jacob D — March 5, 2017 @ 6:49 pm

                • “Ratified by a majority is not the same as ratified by all”

                  A convention does not have to be ratified by all states, only by a majority of states, whereby it passes into Customary International Law, binding on all states

                  “The Nuremberg Tribunal in 1945 declared that “all civilised nations” had recognized the Hague Conventions by 1939. That included Germany, in 1909.
                  But that wasn’t necessarily the case after 1945 … Israel, like its neighbors, is a party only to the 1st Hague Convention …”

                  Ratification is merely acknowledgement of and showing the wider International Community a commitment to a convention by passing legislation into the laws of the state. States are never the less bound to Customary International Law at all times, even if they haven’t ratified the conventions on which Customary International law is based.

                  The provisions of the two Conventions on land warfare, like most of the substantive provisions of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, are considered as embodying rules of customary international law. As such they are also binding on States which are not formally parties to them. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/195

                  Re UN Charter Art. 4(1): “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”.
                  That’s pretty specific. Using force against the the territorial integrity or political independence of any state is specifically about waging war against a country in order to conquer their territory or destroy them as an independent state. That’s the textbook definition of an aggressive war. “

                  Indeed. Jewish forces under Plan Dalet were already in territory outside the State of Israel the moment Israel’s independence was declared. Those territories have never been returned and are now populated by Israelis, which gives lie to your silly notion that there was no intention in Plan Dalet of acquiring territory. As if Ben Gurion didn’t know about Plan Dalet when he decided to omit mention of borders in the Declaration in order to illegally acquire even more territory than Israel was legally able to claim

                  “Please refer to what I wrote before the colon:

                  Doesn’t alter the FACT that you first claimed Israel didn’t have any borders. Then suddenly it did have borders. Make up your mind. If Israel didn’t have any borders, no one can ascertain which territories are Israeli.

                  “I was merely trying to illustrate that even according to your “strict” definition of “Israel territory” according to the lines of the 1947 UN Partition Plan, the Arab countries were invaders and aggressors.”

                  A) It was the ISRAELI request for recognition that defined its borders, not mine . Go bitch to those responsible B) The party who starts the war is the aggressor. C) Cross border skirmishes once war has been started do not amount to an invasion, in fact they are allowed.

                  “Those Arab forces that invaded “Israeli territory” did so in order to hold on to its for the Arabs; they vacated these areas for because they were driven out by Israeli forces (or in the context of the 1949 ceasefire in tandem with a corresponding Israeli withdrawal from “Arab territory”).”

                  Oh there you go again. How do you know what was Israeli territory if Israel had no borders? BTW on what dates did Arab states invade Israeli territories? The Arab states didn’t claim any Israeli territories as their own. Israel remained in Palestinian territories and claimed them for its own.

                  ” … I would agree, that the invasion of Arab forces ANYWHERE into the territory of the former Mandate of Palestine was a flagrant act of aggression … “

                  Apart from Jordan, the Arab states were UN Members, there are no UNSC resolutions condemning any Arab state for invading Palestine

                  /// “Under the Mandate for Palestine Article 7 and the subsequent adoption of Palestinian Nationality Law of 1925 (Per Article 7 of the Mandate) Palestine was a Nation State in 1948. Israel seceded from Palestine.” ///

                  “That is absolutely NOT the case. In the Mandate for Palestine Article 7 and the Palestinian CITIZENSHIP ORDER IN COUNCIL (THAT’S what it’s called), the term “nationality law” is used as a generic term; reference is made to the establishment of a “Palestinian CITIZENSHIP”, not “Palestinian Nationality”…Thus in the British Palestine Passport issued during the Mandate period, in the field labeled “Nationality”, the text is filled in as “Palestinian Citizenship under Article() of the Palestinian Citizenship Orders in Council, 1925.””

                  That’s right. Next to “NATIONAL STATUS”

                  National Status PALESTINIAN

                  “In fact, the original reference to “Palestinian Citizenship” in the Mandate of Palestine, Article 7 specifically refers to the acquisition of citizenship by JEWISH immigrants to Palestine”

                  Indeed. PALESTINIAN citizenship could be achieved for newly arrived Jews. Meanwhile, Jewish and non-Jewish Palestinians were also citizens of Palestine. There was no exclusivity clause

                  “Israel didn’t “secede” from Palestine.”

                  It was Palestine that was partitioned by default of Israel being declared independent. Israel didn’t gain independence from the British, Palestine wasn’t British territory. The territory that became Israeli didn’t fall out of the ZioFairyFantasy sky. It was part of Palestine. When a state is declared in part the territory of an existing entity, it is called secession https://www.google.com.au/search?q=secession&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=8CS9WNDDGLPr8AfRno4g

                  “Lauterpacht didn’t claim that “restoring sovereignty” is the only legitimate way that territories are acquired by war. He gave the restoration of sovereignty by a country that was unlawfully invaded as an example of lawful acquisition of territory.”

                  ‘restoring’ territory is not ‘acquiring’ territory. It was inadmissible to ‘acquire’ territory by war BEFORE Israel the State of Israel was declared. Meanwhile, Israel had no territories taken and claimed by the Arab States, so there were no territories for Israel to ‘restore’.
                  .
                  1966 “You are referring to the Israeli raid on as-Samu’, but that was a punitive raid in response to a series of attacks on Israel by Fatah.. “

                  Reprisals by a State on another State for something a non-state actor did is illegal https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule145

                  //“[Lauterpacht] was spouting nonsense.”//
                  “First, you supply a reference to him as “a distinguished authority on international law”

                  Care to quote me on that thx False accusations are against the most basic of Judaisms common sense tenets. Strange how many defenders of Israel’s crimes resort to trashing Judaism

                  “and base your conclusions on his statement, then you claim he “was spouting nonsense” when it turns out he used his statement as part of a legal argument to vindicate Israel.”

                  Israel wasn’t restoring any territories. It had control of its territories by the 22nd May 1948. The war was in territories “outside the State of Israel” … “In Palestine”

                  //“Israel broke it (the Armistice Agreement) in 1966”.//
                  No it didn’t; even UNSCR 266, which harshly criticized Israel, acknowledged that Israel’s actions constituted “military reprisal”.

                  UNSC resolution 266 is on Cyprus (oddly enough I’ve seen that same error somewhere previously). UNSC resolution 228 acknowledged and condemned Israel for its reprisals . Did you think I wouldn’t check?

                  Reaffirming the previous resolutions of the Security Council condemning past incidents of reprisal in breach of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan and of the United Nations Charter,

                  Recalling the repeated resolutions of the Security Council asking for the cessation of violent incidents across the demarcation line, and not overlooking past incidents of this nature,

                  Reaffirming the necessity for strict adherence to the General Armistice Agreement,

                  1. Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property resulting from the action of the Government of Israel on 13 November 1966;

                  2. Censures Israel for this large-scale military action in violation of the United Nations Charter and of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan;

                  3. Emphasizes to Israel that actions of military reprisal cannot be tolerated and that, if they are repeated, the Security Council will have to consider further and more effective steps as envisaged in the Charter to ensure against the repetition of such acts;

                  4. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the situation under review and to report to the Security Council as appropriate.
                  https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/1A03C7BFB8D6C049852560C3004A4AAF

                  “The UN at the point did not recognize the sovereignty of any state “in Palestine” at this point,”

                  So what? Territories outside of Israel’s borders were simply not Israeli. Recognition of states BTW is outside the remit of the UN. States are already recognized recognized by the majority of the International Community of Nations before they are recommended by the UNSC for acceptance into the UN

                  ” and while mentioning “the Provisional Government of Israel” in this resolution, had used the term “Jewish authorities in Palestine” AFTER 14 May 1948 to describe the Provisional Israeli Government.”

                  So what? The Provisional Government of the State of Israel replied

                  REPLY

                  STATE OF ISRAEL
                  Office of the Acting
                  Representative at the
                  United Nations
                  Sir,

                  I am directed by the Provisional Government of Israel to the questions addressed by the Security Council at its 295th meeting held on May 18, 1948 to the “Jewish authorities in Palestine”. These questions were transmitted by me to the Foreign Secretary of the Provisional Government of Israel in Tel Aviv.

                  I have to point out that the designation “Jewish authorities”, which applied in the past to the Jewish Agency for Palestine and to the National Council of the Jews of Palestine (Vaad Leumi), now applies to the Provisional State Council and the Provisional Government of the State of Israel , jointly established by those bodies, and in which, since May 15, 1948, all legislative, executive and judiciary powers in the State of Israel are now vested.

                  I have the honour, Sir, to be
                  Your obedient servant,
                  (signed) Aubrey S. Eban

                  “Thus for example, UNSCR 50: “Invites the States members of the Arab League and the Jewish and Arab authorities in Palestine to communicate their acceptance of this resolution to the Security Council”
                  Thus for example what? The reply was by the Provisional Government of the State of Israel . The UNSC didn’t name Israel in UNSC resolutions until membership recommendation.. Thereafter the State of Israel is directly addressed. The UN doesn’t directly censure non-member states

                  Comment by talknic — March 6, 2017 @ 9:37 am

                  • – “The provisions of the two Conventions on land warfare, like most of the substantive provisions of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, are considered as embodying rules of customary international law. As such they are also binding on States which are not formally parties to them.”

                    Binding? Not getting into the merits of the above statement, the reference cited is the opinion of the ICRC,which is an NGO, not a world government, not a world legislator, not a world court, and not a world policeman. There is a principle of national sovereignty, and the FACT is that from a legal point of view, neither Israel nor any of its neighbors is party to the two Hague Conventions on land warfare, therefore it is not to be assumed that they are automatically “binding”.
                    But even if it is to be considered that they are applicable, then the wording and context of the relevant articles and the manner in which they they have been applied in the past are what ought to be taken into account, and not merely the opinions of those with a political axe to grind. Hague Convention of 1907, Art. 55 is talking about PROPERTY rights, and not ultimate sovereignty over territory. Thus, the Allies, by means of the Nuremberg Tribunal, prosecuted German individuals for war crimes and crimes against humanity in violation of the relevant Hague convention…but didn’t see the very same Hague convention as preventing them from terminating German sovereignty in areas where they had been a *RECOGNIZED SOVEREIGN*, divvying them up and reassigning them to the sovereignty of countries that had never owned them, and expelling all German citizens therefrom. And why? Because Germany was identied as the AGGRESSOR, and the Germans living in those lands were seen as aiding and abetting Nazi German aggression.

                    – “Jewish forces under Plan Dalet were already in territory outside the State of Israel the moment Israel’s independence was declared. Those territories have never been returned and are now populated by Israelis, which gives lie to your silly notion that there was no intention in Plan Dalet of acquiring territory. As if Ben Gurion didn’t know about Plan Dalet when he decided to omit mention of borders in the Declaration in order to illegally acquire even more territory than Israel was legally able to claim.”

                    -“Declared”, “Declaration” …The “declaring” was done while the Mandate was still in force, the Declaration isn’t even part of Israeli law, let alone international law, and doesn’t contain any formal commitment to boundaries, Partition Plan or otherwise.
                    Hardly a legally binding affidavit that anyone can hold the State of Israel to.
                    And I acknowledged that the Dalet Plan included the capture of areas outside the proposed Partition Plan boundaries of the Jewish state: “The goal of Plan Dalet was to establish effective control over the area of the proposed Jewish state and Jewish population centers OUTSIDE it.” What I think I said is that the Dalet Plan was NOT a plan for a “pre-emptive strike on peaceful Arabs, grab their land, and expel them”. It was the Palestine Arabs (and Arab irregulars from outside Palestine) who launched the pre-emptive war, attacking the Palestine Jews with the goal of PREVENTING partition and the emergence of ANY Jewish state in ANY borders.

                    – “Doesn’t alter the FACT that you first claimed Israel didn’t have any borders. Then suddenly it did have borders.”
                    It didn’t have formal borders. When I spoke of borders in certain contexts, I was referring to the proposed boundaries of the Jewish state per the Partition Plan which YOU take to be Israel’s borders. I don’t take those to be Israel’s borders and neither does the State of Israel. I take any armed action of foreign Arab forces across the boundaries of the former Mandate of Palestine to be an act of aggression, and so does the State of Israel.

                    – “Reprisals by a State on another State for something a non-state actor did is illegal https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule145

                    Again with the ICRC. If that statement were true, then the United States invasion of Aghanistan in 2001, due to the harboring of al-Qaeda by the Taliban government, would be completely illegal. Though it was not specifically authorized by the UN Security Council, it has been widely perceived to be a legitimate form of self-defence under the UN Charter, and the US later enjoyed NATO support during the war in Afghanistan.

                    The purpose of the raid on as-Samu’ was a reprisal against the town where it was believed the terrorists had originated. There was no intention to engage Jordanian forces, though a battle between Israeli and Jordanian forces did ensue.

                    – “It was the ISRAELI request for recognition that defined its borders, not mine . Go bitch to those responsible.”
                    There’s no one to bitch to because Mr. Epstein’s statement “to express the hope that the your government will recognize and will welcome Israel into the community of nations” was made on behalf of a “Provisional Government” that did not yet assume any powers and while the Mandate was still in force. In short, the State of Israel did not as yet exist.
                    And I have no reason to “bitch” to the US President who made the recognition, because he didn’t mention any boundaries or attach any conditions to said recognition, other than the fact that he was only recognizing the “Provisional Government” as a de-facto authority, and after the end of the Mandate.

                    That’s a lot less specific than the 1783 Treaty of Paris, Article 1 of which is the legal underpinning of United States’ existence as a sovereign country, and remains in force:
                    “His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”

                    – “How do you know what was Israeli territory if Israel had no borders?”
                    “BTW on what dates did Arab states invade Israeli territories?”

                    I used the quotation marks, as “Israeli territory”, to illustrate I am using YOUR definition, i.e. the territory of the proposed Jewish state per the Partition Plan. The attacks by foreign Arab armies on “Israeli territory” were primarily in the 15 May to 11 June 1948 time period, in the first phase of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Doesn’t matter if they didn’t “claim any Israeli territory as their own”. They were trying to prevent the emergence of a Jewish state in any part of former Mandatory Palestine, and thwart partition.
                    And Syria DID claim and occupy “Israeli territory” on the Sea of Galilee, which it controlled until June 5, 1967, and continues to claim till today.

                    – “Apart from Jordan, the Arab states were UN Members, there are no UNSC resolutions condemning any Arab state for invading Palestine.”
                    Gee, are you saying that Jordan was an occupier that usurped the old city of Jerusalem and the West Bank? That wouldn’t give it much of a leg up over Israel regarding the chain of events leading up to and including the 1967 War.

                    – “UNSC resolution 266 is on Cyprus (oddly enough I’ve seen that same error somewhere previously). UNSC resolution 228 acknowledged and condemned Israel for its reprisals . Did you think I wouldn’t check? ”

                    No actually it was an honest mistake (Res. 228 –> 1966 –> 266), and I hadn’t seen it before. I figured you would check and I acknowledged that the resolution “harshly criticized Israel”. What I said was that it acknowleged that Israel’s actions constitute “military reprisals”. They were not unprovoked attacks.

                    – “That’s right. Next to “NATIONAL STATUS”…”National Status PALESTINIAN”
                    Next to National Status, it says “Under the Mandate for Palestine Article Seven of the Palestinian Citizenship Order, 1925”.

                    Palestinian Citizenship Order, 1925, pertains to the establishment of “Palestinian Citizenship” of the “Territory of Palestine”, not to an independent national status of a nation state.
                    The origin of this Order lies in the Artice 7 of the Palestine Mandate:
                    “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.”

                    -“Indeed. PALESTINIAN citizenship could be achieved for newly arrived Jews. Meanwhile, Jewish and non-Jewish Palestinians were also citizens of Palestine. There was no exclusivity clause”
                    Just as is the situtation today in Israel: Israeli citizenship can be achieved for newly arrived Jews. Meanwhile, Jewish and Arab Israelis are citizens of Israel. There is no exclusivity clause.
                    I would LOVE to hear the PA declare that the laws of a future Palestinian state will include Article 7, wouldn’t you?

                    -‘Restoring’ territory is not ‘acquiring’ territory
                    Lauterpacht distinguishing lawful acquisition of territory from unlawful acquisition.
                    He gave the example of a lawful sovereign being attacked by an aggressor, and then reaquiring that territory by force as an example of LAWFUL acquisition. He didn’t say it was the ONLY example.
                    If tomorrow Germany invades western Poland, with the stated aim of reclaiming the Silesia region (over which it had indeed been the recognized sovereign, and lost sovereignty by decision of the Allies), that would be UNLAWFUL acquisition, despite its claim to sovereignty. It is territory changing hands as a result of the UNLAWFUL use of force that Lauterpacht says is illegitimate.

                    -“”First, you supply a reference to him as “a distinguished authority on international law”
                    Care to quote me on that thx False accusations are against the most basic of Judaisms common sense tenets. Strange how many defenders of Israel’s crimes resort to trashing Judaism”

                    Unbelievable. Once again, I need only copy and paste what was said.

                    Your full quote:
                    “Professor Stephen M. Schwebel – (NB: ‘Professor’ not as a Judge of International Court of Justice at the time) as quoted by
                    Mr. HERZOG (Israel):
                    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.””

                    My statement: “First, YOU SUPPLY A REFERENCE to him as “a distinguished authority on international law””.

                    I think I did spot you were quoting Mr. HERZOG. His quote on Lauterpacht being “a distinguished authority on international law” is the REFERENCE YOU SUPPLIED.
                    I can hardly think you disagree with that description, seeing as you based your conclusion on Lauterpacht’s judgement.

                    “States are already recognized by the majority of the International Community of Nations before they are recommended by the UNSC for acceptance into the UN”.
                    I never heard of this International Community of Nations. Is it another component of this imaginary world government?
                    Israeli ambassador Eban stated to the UNGA during Israel’s application for membership to the UN (5 May 1949), that by the date of its request for admission, Israel had secured the recognition of 19 states. That’s substantially less than half of the UN member states at the time. Is there any criteria in the UN Charter that States need to be recognized by a majority of some community of nations before they are recommended by the UNSC for acceptance into the UN? Chapter II deals with membership and doesn’t mention it.

                    – “The reply was by the Provisional Government of the State of Israel . The UNSC didn’t name Israel in UNSC resolutions until membership recommendation.. Thereafter the State of Israel is directly addressed. The UN doesn’t directly censure non-member states.”
                    …Because the UN did not yet acknowledge the sovereignty of any state in Palestine at that point, that’s why. Other states were referred to by name by the UN prior to their membership.
                    Thanks for supplying a reference to a letter by the Provisional Government of Israel acknowledging that legislative, executive, and judicial powers were invested in it only as of 15 May 1948…AFTER Mr. Epstein had made his famous “plea”.

                    Comment by Jacob D — March 6, 2017 @ 7:24 pm

                    • LOL The UNSC and ICRC have more validity than some propagandist trying to justify the usurping of the Palestinians

                      “Hague Convention of 1907, Art. 55 is talking about PROPERTY rights, and not ultimate sovereignty over territory.”

                      That’s right..It’s talking about the obligations of the occupying state, not sovereignty. ” 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.”

                      “Thus, the Allies, by means of the Nuremberg Tribunal, prosecuted German individuals for war crimes and crimes against humanity in violation of the relevant Hague convention…but didn’t see … b;lah blah … “

                      The court’s legal basis for its jurisdiction of was defined by the surrender document. Political authority for Germany was transferred to the Allied Control Council. In effect sovereign power over Germany.

                      “-“Declared”, “Declaration” …The “declaring” was done while the Mandate was still in force, the Declaration isn’t even part of Israeli law, let alone international law, and doesn’t contain any formal commitment to boundaries, Partition Plan or otherwise.”

                      The request for recognition did. Israel was recognized as requested

                      “What I think I said is that the Dalet Plan was NOT a plan for a “pre-emptive strike on peaceful Arabs, grab their land, and expel them””

                      Ben Gurion tells a different story. Purposefully omitting mention of borders in order to deceive so as to illegally acquire by war more territory than was due the Jewish State. If you think he didn’t know about Plan Dalet you have ZioRocks in your ZioHead

                      “It was the Palestine Arabs (and Arab irregulars from outside Palestine) who launched the pre-emptive war, attacking the Palestine Jews with the goal of PREVENTING partition and the emergence of ANY Jewish state in ANY borders”

                      Strange, in 1897 the Zionist Federation decided to colonize Palestine. It loaned money at interest and helped arm specifically poor Jews on condition that they put themselves in the front lines.

                      “It didn’t have formal borders. When I spoke of borders in certain contexts, I was referring to the proposed boundaries of the Jewish state per the Partition Plan which YOU take to be Israel’s borders.”
                      The Provisional Government of the State of Israel (which had no authority to give authority to Epstein to make a request on their behalf) said they were Israel’s borders. Were they LYING?

                      “I don’t take those to be Israel’s borders and neither does the State of Israel.”

                      So they were lying and you in turn are defending liars. AMAZING stuff.

                      “I take any armed action of foreign Arab forces across the boundaries of the former Mandate of Palestine to be an act of aggression, and so does the State of Israel.”
                      The UNSC didn’t, even tho four of the five Arab States were UN Members at the time

                      “Gee, are you saying that Jordan was an occupier that usurped the old city of Jerusalem and the West Bank? That wouldn’t give it much of a leg up over Israel regarding the chain of events leading up to and including the 1967 War.”

                      You’re spouting ZioPoop pal. Trying to put words in my mouth is so funny. Israel agreed via the 1949 Armistice agreement that Jordan would be the Occupying Power. Did Israel lie? Israel didn’t agree in the agreement?

                      Jordan’s subsequent bilateral annexation of what became known as the West Bank was by agreement with the majority of the legitimate citizens of the territory . Although at the time Jordan was not a UN Member state, it was in keeping with the UN Charter notions of self determination.

                      Furthermore and contrary to the Israeli notion that Jordanian annexation was condemned by the Arab States, the Arab States in fact demanded of Jordan that the annexation be as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950), in keeping with the UN Charter Chapt XI as a “sacred trust”

                      By 1967, the West Bank was a part of Jordan, a UN Member State and a High Contracting Party. Which is why GC IV applies as the UNSC has reaffirmed over and over and over

                      “Again with the ICRC. If that statement were true, then the United States invasion of Aghanistan in 2001, due to the harboring of al-Qaeda by the Taliban government, would be completely illegal. Though it was not specifically authorized by the UN Security Council, it has been widely perceived to be a legitimate form of self-defence under the UN Charter, and the US later enjoyed NATO support during the war in Afghanistan”

                      That a UNSC veto power can veto UNSC Chapt VII resolutions against itself is the source of the hypocrisy and a flaw in the UN system. Veto power states can virtually do whatever they like and protect whatever criminal states they wish from VII actions to remediate the situation even tho the state/s it protects are in breach of the binding Law, the UN Charter as reaffirmed in Chapt VI resolutions. BTW the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was not specifically authorized by the UN Security Council. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1386 You spout ZioNonsense

                      “There’s no one to bitch to because Mr. Epstein’s statement “to express the hope that the your government will recognize and will welcome Israel into the community of nations” was made on behalf of a “Provisional Government” that did not yet assume any powers”

                      Take it to the Zionist Movement and tell ’em your theory that there was no authority to request recognition. Tell ’em that Epstein was a liar, that the Provisional Government was lying. That Ben Gurion was lying. I’m sure they’ll be amazed.

                      But hey who am I to argue with someone who supports breaking the most basic of Judaisms common sense tenets. Isn’t that wonderful. And you’ve never heard of the Community of Nations and the recognition request was worthless because the request for recognition was authorized by a Government that had no power to ask for recognition. Say… You’re doing a great job!

                      “And I have no reason to “bitch” to the US President who made the recognition, because he didn’t mention any boundaries or attach any conditions to said recognition, other than the fact that he was only recognizing the “Provisional Government” as a de-facto authority, and after the end of the Mandate”

                      The boundaries were in the request. Recognition was per the request by the Provisional Government – “This Government has been informed that a Jewish State has been proclaimed in Palestine and recognition has been requested by the provisional Government thereof. The United States recognizes the Provisional Government of as the de facto authority of the State of Israel”

                      But who am I to argue with someone who posts in support of the State of Israel, a UNSC Resolution that shows condemnation of the actions of that state. It truly amazes

                      “What I said was that it acknowleged that Israel’s actions constitute “military reprisals”. They were not unprovoked attacks.”

                      The UNSC condemned those military reprisals. Reprisals by a state on another state for the actions of a non-state party are illegal

                      “Next to National Status, it says “Under the Mandate for Palestine Article Seven of the Palestinian Citizenship Order, 1925”.

                      Indeed. it does. National Status isn’t crossed out.

                      “Palestinian Citizenship Order, 1925, pertains to the establishment of “Palestinian Citizenship” of the “Territory of Palestine”, not to an independent national status of a nation state.”

                      Indeed. The State of Palestine, which had provisional recognition, was under the Mandate to be administered by the British until it achieved independence (the Mandate did not allow for partition). Under the .Palestinian Citizenship Order, as they chose to call the Nationality law, legitimate new arrivals were naturalized.

                      “The origin of this Order lies in the Artice 7 of the Palestine Mandate:”

                      Yes. The record shows I pointed it out to you

                      “I would LOVE to hear the PA declare that the laws of a future Palestinian state will include Article 7, wouldn’t you?”

                      Strange, you’ve been arguing against it

                      “Lauterpacht distinguishing lawful acquisition of territory from unlawful acquisition”

                      He was trying to justify the illegal acquisition of territory by war by the State of Israel and ended up talking about restoring the sovereign, when in fact Israel was NOT ‘restoring’ its sovereignty over territories that were never under Israeli sovereignty. IOW’s he was spouting the kind of twisted bullsh*t one comes to expect of supporters of the rogue State of Israel. ‘Restoring’ territory is not ‘acquiring’ territory

                      “I think I did spot you were quoting Mr. HERZOG. His quote ….”

                      That’s right. I quoted what was said of him by Herzog. It wasn’t my opinion. I am not Herzog
                      .
                      “I never heard of this International Community of Nations. “

                      I’m not surprised https://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22International%20comity%20of%20Nations%22%20-mondoweiss

                      “Other states were referred to by name by the UN prior to their membership”

                      Provide verbatim evidence of the UNSC directly censuring a non-member state by name

                      “Thanks for supplying a reference to a letter by the Provisional Government of Israel acknowledging that legislative, executive, and judicial powers were invested in it only as of 15 May 1948…AFTER Mr. Epstein had made his famous “plea”.”

                      That’s OK It goes to show what a pack of scummy liars you appear to admire

                      Have it your way. Epstein was a liar. The recognition of Israel by the US was invalid because the request for recognition was invalid. So too every other recognition based on the alleged Provisional Government’s request for recognition

                      Keep up the good work!

                      Comment by talknic — March 7, 2017 @ 6:36 am

              • – “The Armistice Demarcation Line should follow the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine.”
                “Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine.”

                That is a reference to the international boundary that was set up between the Mandate of Palestine and the Mandate of Syria and the Lebanon, long before Israel, Lebanon, and Syria became independent states. The State of Israel recognized it as the basis of its boundaries with Lebanon and Syria and did not claim land in Lebanon and Syria; it is Lebanon and Syria that attacked across that border, attacking Israel in areas that had been recommended for the Jewish state according to the Partition Plan. And in their military conquest of ANY part of the former Mandate of Palestine, Syria and Lebanon were in violation of international law. Article 5 of the Palestine Mandate states that “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power”. The continued validity of these terms continued to be guaranteed after the conclusion of the Mandate, per Article 80 of the UN Charter.
                Incidentally, Syria does not recognize the validity of the 1923 international boundary; Walid al-Moualem (as Syrian ambassador to the United States) stated that Syria has never recognized the 1923 international boundary, and that it will indeed make a claim to lands west of that boundary.

                – “’But since you insist on mentioning that these countries all signed the UN Charter”
                Why do you need to make false accusations? UN Members do not ‘sign’ the UN Charter”

                Am I?
                Here’s the conversation reproduced:

                “‘None of the parties in question was at that point a UN member or a signatory to the various conventions or to the UN Charter’
                Go spread your crap somewhere else pal.
                Lebanon 24 October 1945
                Syria 24 October 1945
                Egypt 24 October 1945
                Iraq 21 December 1945″

                The date you’ve mentioned (24 October 1945) is the date in which the UN Charter came into force, after having been signed (at the UNCIO conference in San Francisco) and then ratified by its founding members, which includes all of the above. All the above countries were signatories to the UN Charter when they became UN members.

                And once again, my original comment referring to ” the parties in question” was limited to the Jews and Arabs in Palestine, not to other countries which became involved from 15 May 1948 onward.

                Comment by Jacob D — March 6, 2017 @ 3:31 pm

                • ” That is a reference to the international boundary that was set up between the Mandate of Palestine and the … “

                  Strange. The LoN Mandate terminated midnight May 14th 1948

                  The source for Walid al-Moualem’s alleged, un-corroborated statement appears to be one Frederic C. Hof, a propagandist for the Zionist colonization enterprise. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/line-of-june-4-1967

                  No state has signed the UN Charter since the original states brought it into being. Changes to the Charter have since been by vote. New Member States either accept the Charter in its entirety or they don’t become members. New members do not sign the UN Charter

                  Comment by talknic — March 6, 2017 @ 11:09 pm

  4. Hello,
    most Arabs think that the Jewish people of Israel are counterfeit! Meaning that the
    so called European Jews are descended from Khazars! There is a genealogist by the name
    of Dr. Eran Elhaik from John Hopkins that is making these claims from DNA findings! Is there
    some truth to this or is this false??

    Comment by H.B. — January 26, 2014 @ 5:37 pm

    • It is irrelevant to the legal status of Israel’s sovereign extent and Israel’s ongoing illegal activities in non-Israeli territories. Likewise it is irrelevant to the Palestinians legal rights under the Laws and UN Charter Israel obliged itself to uphold.

      The Law and the UN Charter are not based on DNA.

      Comment by talknic — January 27, 2014 @ 10:38 pm

  5. Hello,
    A while back I asked a question about are the Christians mistreated in Israel
    but couldn’t find the response!

    Comment by H.B. — January 26, 2014 @ 5:26 pm

    • I don’t remember replying. Sorry.

      Jewish forces dispossessed Muslims and Christians in 1948/1949.

      In territories under Israeli occupation (but illegally claimed by Israel) Muslims and Christian Palestinians are treated the same. Atrociously.

      Meanwhile “in Israel” the government is still attempting to maintain a Jewish majority state, one might surmise that Christians are tolerated because Christians in the US are generally supportive of the Jewish state, despite it being in breach of International Law and the UN Charter.

      Comment by talknic — January 27, 2014 @ 10:53 pm

  6. Absolutely Incredible Site! A monumental achievement! The world owes you a great debt of gratitude!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    We wholeheartedly thank you for this amazing effort and display of courage!

    Comment by Ed — September 12, 2012 @ 12:56 am

    • Thanks. No courage, just determination to find some form of justice :-)

      Comment by talknic — September 12, 2012 @ 5:56 am

  7. Talknic pls email brel1@yahoo.com ref your excellent work on wikipedia.

    Comment by Er — July 18, 2012 @ 8:41 pm

    • LOL…. Now indefinitely banned from WikI/Pedia.

      To be honest, the I/P issue on Wiki is a thorough mess created by editors attempting to suppress information they don’t like. It should have a BIG WARNING SIGN for readers.

      Comment by talknic — July 19, 2012 @ 7:57 am

  8. Do you think hatred against Muslims is rising?

    Comment by Anonymous — December 28, 2011 @ 7:51 am

    • Yes. A full answer would require more time than I have at the moment. Needless to say there are millions of Muslims who have integrated peacefully into Western Society, whereas the Mid Eastern Arab States were for years under the thumb of Western suppression. Kept poor and back, in order to serve the West’s colonial and material interests. Muslims number some billion or so. If they were a real threat to the world, we’d have been living under their thumbs decades ago.

      Comment by talknic — December 29, 2011 @ 9:21 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: