First, find out what isn't true…

October 1, 2015

One step for Palestine a giant leap for mankind


ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-1e8
One step for Palestine a giant leap for mankind

The raising of the flag of the STATE OF PALESTINE!

http://webtv.un.org/watch/raising-of-the-palestinian-flag-at-the-united-nations/4521239871001

UN speech by Mahmoud Abbas

http://webtv.un.org/watch/palestine-general-debate-70th-session/4521133284001

May 24, 2013

Kerry and the Question of Palestine. In perspective


ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-19a

Kerry and the Question of Palestine.

In perspective

kerry is just another us politician

kerry is just another us politician

UNSC res 252 has EIGHT reminders…. Does Kerry really think they care?

May 10, 2013

The three No’s of Khartoum – no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel


ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-18N

The three no’s of the khartoum conference. “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel”

Right, wrong? Just, unjust? Reasonable? Biased? Antisemitic? Most importantly, what were the conditions that prompted the Arab states to adopt this stance?

2. The conference has agreed on the need to consolidate all efforts to eliminate the effects of the aggression on the basis that the occupied lands are Arab lands and that the burden of regaining these lands falls on all the Arab States.

3. The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.

This is simply a reflection of UNSC res 476 1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

No peace with Israel: While territory sovereign to Egypt was under Israeli occupation the two states were technically at war. In the eventual Egypt Israel Peace Treaty Israel was first required and agreed to begin withdrawal before peaceful relations were assumed.

No recognition of Israel: There is no legal basis for demanding recognition.

A) States plead for recognition

B) ” ..in the view of the United States, International Law does not require a state to recognize another state; it is a matter for the judgment of each state whether an entity merits recognition as a state. In reaching this judgment, the United States has traditionally looked of the establishment of certain facts. The United States has also taken into account whether the entity in question has attracted the recognition of the International community of states.” There are numerous UN Member states who do not recognize other UN Member States.

All states are never the less required to show “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”. This is reflected in UNSC res 242.

No negotiations: Israel is in breach of numerous UNSC resolutions, International Law, the UN Charter, relative conventions. There is no legal requirement for negotiations. For example the words ‘negotiate’, ‘negotiations’ do not appear in UNSC res242 on which the Egypt Israel Peace Treaty is based. Israel was and still is required to adhere to the law, negotiations or not. Egypt and Jordan were correct in refusing negotiations while Israel was in breach of its legal obligations in respect to their sovereign territory.

The signing of a negotiated peace treaty between Egypt and Israel was by default an act of recognition and; after Israeli withdrawal peaceful relations were assumed. Likewise with Jordan. Both are examples of what UNSC res 242 was formulated to achieve. The end of hostilities between UN Member States.

However, while Israel occupies non-Israeli territories in Palestine, the Golan Heights, Shebaa Farms, the Alghajar village UNSC res 425 and UNSC res 426, Israel is technically at war and those states have a right to “restore” sovereignty over their territories. Professor Stephen M. Schwebel / Elihu Lauterpacht

The Palestinians meanwhile are under no legal obligation to sign a peace agreement with an Occupying Power, to recognize an Occupying Power or to negotiate with an Occupying Power. Negotiations mean only one thing, the Palestinians forgoing some of their legal rights so that Israel may keep non-Israeli territory illegally acquired by war, illegally annexed and illegally settled by Israel since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

March 28, 2013

Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran? It’s irrelevant to the International Law


ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-18m

Propagandists trying to justify Israel’s illegal acquisition of non-Israeli territory are so stupid they beggar belief

Their narrative goes something like this: “Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran”

So what? It is entirely irrelevant to the Internationally recognized sovereign extent of the State of Israel and Israel’s responsibilities & illegal activities as the Occupying Power over non-Israeli territories.

Never the less …

The Quran is written in Arabic. Jerusalem translated to Arabic is القدس. The word “القدس” appears in 4 verses in Quran

I’ve been shown to be incorrect. Edited accordingly

March 27, 2013

The wholly holey olde Hasbara – Palestine vs Israel the I/P conflict – Israeli propaganda is really weird


ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-18d

The wholly holey olde Hasbara, is really weird

The Israeli narrative goes something like this: “The international court only gave an advisory opinion, not a binding legal decision” Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Request for advisory opinion)

Quite true and the court’s advisory opinion was that had they been asked to make a legal decision, binding law would not fall in Israel’s favour!

Only an idiot would proudly hold up the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice pointing to the illegality of Israel’s actions… while claiming it as some kind of evidence in one’s favour…

It’s

really

twisted.

A state which according to the UNSC is in breach of laws, the UN Charter and relative conventions adopted at the end of WWII in large part because of the treatment of Jewish folk under the Nazis is in respect to those laws behaving no better than the Nazis. That some folk seem to be as oblivious as the German population of their state’s crimes, should be ringing alarm bells.

It’s

really

twisted.

June 10, 2012

The Hasbara – Israeli Propaganda – Distortion 101 or how Hasbara bullsh*te is made


ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-112

How many times have you read accusations like “Under Jordan’s illegal occupation Jews were prevented access to holy places for 19 years”

Let’s first dispense with the silly “Jordan’s illegal occupation” theory. Under the Israel Jordan Armistice Agreement of 1949, Israel AGREED to Jordan being the Occupying Power over the territories subsequently renamed the West Bank. Jordan agreed to Israel being the Occupying Power over territories under Israeli military control.

Israel Jordan Armistice Agreement of 1949 Article VI

1. It is agreed that the forces of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom shall replace the forces of Iraq in the sector now held by the latter forces, the intention of the Government of Iraq in this regard having been communicated to the Acting Mediator in the message of 20 March from the Foreign Minister of Iraq authorizing the delegation of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom to negotiate for the Iraqi forces and stating that those forces would be withdrawn.

and

Article II
2. It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

Exactly how was it illegal?

The claim it was Jordan prevented Jews access to holy places for 19 years is also a fallacy. They prevented Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs! In fact, under the Armistice Agreement it was prohibited for citizens of either opposing state to cross the Armistice Demarcation lines.

Article IV

3. Rules and regulations of the armed forces of the Parties, which prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement with application to the Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI.

It is NORMAL for states to restrict the movements of citizens of respective hostile countries and even their own citizens originally from hostile states, curtailing and/or prohibiting their ability to conduct business, buy land etc. Japanese, Germans, Italians, were interned and/or deported by the UK, USA, Australia, during WWII and their assets were frozen. Unless they have opted to take up citizenship in a country other than that of return, thereby losing their refugee status, it is also normal to release and/or allow their return and to unfreeze their assets .

The Israel’s 1948 Emergency Regulations (Foreign Travel) Ordinance still current, prevents Israeli citizens or residents from entering the territory of any entity deemed to be hostile under Israeli law. The Jordanian controlled West Bank was such a hostile entity from 1948 til 1967. So too was Gaza, under Egyptian control.

From 1948 til 1967, Israeli Emergency Regulations prevented citizens and residents, Jews, Christians and Muslims, from worshiping in territories under the military control of Jordan. Naturally Jordan and Egypt did likewise. It is normal behaviour for hostile states.

So what is the point of this Hasbara morsel? How exactly does it effect the legal status of Israel’s Sovereign extent on which UNSC resolutions are based?

Fact is, it doesn’t. It’s just propaganda. Like the claims made about Mark Twain, it is of perhaps historical interest. It has no legal bearing what so ever.

May 4, 2012

UNSC Resolution 476 is in agreement with Iran. ” the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased”

Filed under: Iran, Israel & the Palestinians — Tags: , , , , — talknic @ 12:20 pm

ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-W8

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

Is there any difference in the essence of the following two statements?

1) “Israel must end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”

2) “The occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the pages of time

Resolution 476 (1980) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2242nd meeting on 30 June 1980

The Security Council,
Having considered the letter of 28 May 1980 from the representative of Pakistan, the current Chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, as contained in document S/13966 of 28 May 1980,

Reaffirming that acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible,

Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for protection and preservation of the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in the city,

Reaffirming its resolutions relevant to the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular resolutions 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980,

Recalling the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,

Deploring the persistence of Israel, in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,

Gravely concerned over the legislative steps initiated in the Israeli Knesset with the aim of changing the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,

1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

2. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly;

3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

4. Reiterates that all such measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council;

5. Urgently calls on Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by this and previous Security Council resolutions and to desist forthwith from persisting in the policy and measures affecting the character and status of the Holy city of Jerusalem;

6. Reaffirms its determination in the event of non-compliance by Israel with this resolution, to examine practical ways and means in accordance with relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations to secure the full implementation of this resolution.

Not only does the UNSC agree with Iran that the Zionist/Israeli regime/Government illegally in Jerusalem must end, it also threatens action via Chapt VII. Iran merely predicted the Zionist regime in Jerusalem would be wiped from the pages of history. It didn’t threaten as the UNSC has, with “practical ways and means”.

Furthermore, UNSC Res 476 tells us Israeli actions “constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East”.

Meanwhile, Israel’s illegally acquired eggs are all in one basket. The precious US veto vote preventing a UNSC Chapt VII resolution giving the law its full effect through “practical ways and means”.

Israel has breached its position of trust as the Occupying Power

Make up your own mind who has the law on th

November 17, 2009

Simple logic tells us Jerusalem is Palestinian. It’s in Palestine.


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

shortlink http://wp.me/pDB7k-il

UNSC res 476 tell us it “1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;”

corpus separatum has never been instituted. Jerusalem was never legally separated from what remained of Palestine after Israel declared its independence from Palestine.

FACT – Israel has defined boundaries between itself and Palestine: The Jewish Peoples Council accepted the borders outlined in UNGA res 181 and was recognized by the majority of the International Community of States, over riding the Arab States objections. The Israeli Govt will not inform you of this and other essential facts.

Israel has never legally annexed any territory outside it’s declared sovereign boundaries.

FACT – the entity of Palestine DID exist: At the fall of the Ottoman Empire, there was an entity called Palestine, it was administered by the British under the Mandate for Palestine. (occupation as a trustee). The currency was Palestinian. The postage stamps were Palestinian. The citizens of Palestine were all Palestinians. They had Palestine marked on their passports and papers. Even Jewish folk were Palestinians.

FACT – the entity of Palestine still exists: When TransJordan finally gained independence from Palestine in 1946, what remained of Palestine was still called Palestine. The name of Palestine was not changed, the area that became Jordan was renamed and now its citizens are all Jordanian. The folk who live in what remained of Palestine were Palestinians.

FACT – From 1946 till 1948 : the Palestinians, including Jewish folk, lived in the somewhat smaller, entity of Palestine that remained, still administered by the British under the Mandate for Palestine. BTW It is clearly a fallacy to say the Palestinians have a state in Jordan. At the time only the Palestinians living in the particular area that became TransJordan had a right to become Jordanian citizens. The Palestinians who did not live in that particular area, did not.

FACT – From 1946 to May 14th 1948 : even Jewish folk living in what remained of Palestine were still Palestinians. Jerusalem was in Palestine.

In 1947 the United Nations voted to present a set of conditions under which Palestine might be further subdivided, giving the Jewish Agency and the Arab States an opportunity, if they wished, to declare Sovereignty over borders recommended in Resolution 181.

UNGA resolution 181 was non-binding. There was no requirement for co-signing. It was after all, about Sovereign Independence. Neither party was obliged to accept it or declare sovereign independence over their apportioned lot. The conditions it contained were according to the law in respect to Declaring Sovereignty. Although UNGA resolutions are not binding, they often refer to Laws (all law is binding), Conventions, the UN Charter (all the UN Charter is binding) and UNSC resolutions which ARE binding. Never the less, the Jewish Agency considered it as binding.

The Laws surrounding a Declaration of Sovereignty and recognition by the majority of the International Community of States is binding. Sovereignty is irrevocable. Israel’s acceptance of the borders UNGA Resolution 181 detailed, was binding by virtue of the Declaration of a Jewish State within them and by the International recognition of Israel within those boundaries. Much like the recommended retail price of goods is not binding, until the purchaser signs the contract and when one buys goods, one signs a contract with the vendor, not with another buyer. The contract in this instance wasn’t with the Arab States, other wise they’d have to have signed simultaneously, nor was it with the UN. It was a unilateral undertaking on behalf of the world’s Jewish population to the ” comity of nations”

UNGA Res 181 was acknowledged by the Jewish Peoples Council and enshrined in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel and reiterated in the notification of Declaration to the International Community of Nations.. // Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15, 1948 “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” //

Shabtai Rosen, (rip) Professor of international law at Bar Ilan University “(a) Shortly after the signing of the Israel-Egyptian agreement, early in March. 1949, Israeli forces advanced south to the littoral into the area allocated to the Jewish State: in General Assembly resolution l8l (II) of 29 November 1947

On Israel accepting the conditions and Declaring Sovereignty over the borders outlined by UNGA resolution 181 in order to become a Sovereign State, what remained of Palestine, was an even smaller entity of Palestine. Still called Palestine.

Having informed the International Community of States of the Jewish Peoples Council Declaration of Sovereign Independence (see letter) and having been recognized by the majority of the International Community of States based on the information the Provisional Government issued, Israel was no longer a part of Palestine. Israel’s Sovereign territory was set, it’s borders defined and by default, also it’s borders with the ever shrinking, Palestine.

Link to this section
The UN has never executed it’s part of UNGA res 181 in respect to Jerusalem becoming a neutral entity. Nor was it obliged to as UNGA res 181 was not binding. By the Jewish People’s Council’s own pen, Israel had no Sovereignty over Jerusalem. It was and is not now Israeli territory. It’s status, like the rest of Palestine’s territories, has not legally changed in over 2,000 years. Far longer than the Jewish Kingdom existed. Jerusalem was and still is, legally a part of Palestine.

In declaring Sovereignty, Israel obliged itself of the legal obligations of Sovereignty. As a UN Member State it is also obliged to the UN Charter, resolutions and conventions it has ratified. In respect to Jerusalem, Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem was declared illegal by the UNSC. Legal annexation can only be through a treaty or by agreement, such as Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank as a trustee, asked for by and in agreement with the Palestinians.

It is often argued that the Palestinians could have also declared a state on the termination of the British Mandate over Palestine in May 1948. However, in order to declare Sovereignty, an entity must have full control over all it’s territories. The Palestinians were denied the privilege. By May 14th 1948, under Plan Dalet, the Jewish Agency was already in control of territories allocated for the new Arab State, making it impossible for the Palestinians to declare sovereignty, even if they wanted to. IN FULL

Israel is in breech of some 223 UNSC resolution, most of which are only reminders of previously unheeded resolutions. The US veto vote on the UNSC has only prevented action being taken against Israel for it’s gross violations of International Law. The Laws and Israel’s violations still stand.

The Palestinians only ask for their rights under the Laws, UN Charter and relative conventions Israel obliged itself to uphold. That these Laws, the Charter and Conventions were written in large part because of what happened to Jewish folk under the Nazi regime and the Jewish State sees fit to ignore and circumvent them, should ring alarm bells

Blog at WordPress.com.