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
ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-1bM
An analysis of some of the information available relating to the deaths of Nadim Nuwara and Mohammad Abu Thaher in Beitunia on May 15th 2014 in the occupied State of Palestine
“He fell forward. A bullet would have knocked him away from the fire, he should have fallen back…” Bullsh*t! A rabbit isn’t even knocked away from the fire of a .22 bullet
The Palestinians ask for their legal rights under the Laws and UN Charter Israel agreed to uphold.
Meanwhile, “Israel, the Occupying Power” makes demands that have no legal basis what so ever. Read UNSC res 476, one of EIGHT reminders to Israel of its legal obligations and giving Israel the OPPORTUNITY to adhere to the law. Unfortunately the Jewish state has failed to live up to the promises it made when it was proclaimed and when it became a UN Member state.
ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-19a
Kerry and the Question of Palestine.
In perspective
UNSC res 252 has EIGHT reminders…. Does Kerry really think they care?
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)
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
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.
ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-ZZ
How many times have you heard the phrase “Land For Peace”?
Or perhaps “UNSC Resolution 242 said borders must be negotiated”?
The Israel / Egypt Peace Treaty tells us three major points that contradict Israel’s stupid propaganda.
A) The purpose of UNSC Res 242 was to end hostilities between already existing UN Member states, resulting in peace agreements between those states.
B) Withdrawal by Israel from Egyptian territories was to begin BEFORE peaceful relations were assumed
C) No borders were negotiated. Egypt’s borders were set when it became an independent state, BEFORE Israel was declared.
From the Peace Treaty:
Article II Determination of Final Lines and Zones
1. In order to provide maximum security for both Parties after the final withdrawal, the lines and the Zones delineated on Map 1 are to be established and organized as follows:
…until Israeli armed forces complete withdrawal from the current J and M Lines established by the Egyptian-Israeli Agreement of September 1975, hereinafter referred to as the 1975 Agreement, up to the interim withdrawal line, all military arrangements existing under that Agreement will remain in effect, except those military arrangements otherwise provided for in this Appendix.
Within a period of seven days after Israeli armed forces have evacuated any area located in Zone A…..
Within a period of seven days after Israeli armed forces have evacuated any area located in Zones A or B…
The Parties agree to remove all discriminatory barriers to normal economic relations and to terminate economic boycotts of each other upon completion of the interim withdrawal.
As soon as possible, and not later than six months after the completion of the interim withdrawal, the Parties will enter negotiations with a view to concluding an agreement on trade and commerce for the purpose of promoting beneficial economic relations.
1. The Parties agree to establish normal cultural relations following completion of the interim withdrawal.
2. They agree on the desirability of cultural exchanges in all fields, and shall, as soon as possible and not later than six months after completion of the interim withdrawal, enter into negotiations with a view to concluding a cultural agreement for this purpose.
Upon completion of the interim withdrawal, each Party will permit the free movement of the nationals and vehicles of the other into and within its territory ….etc etc
Again, from the Israeli Government:
March 26, 1979
The President,
The White HouseDear Mr. President,
I am pleased to be able to confirm that the Government of Israel is agreeable to the procedure set out in your letter of March 26, 1979, in which you state:
“I have received a letter from President Sadat that, within one month after Israel completes its withdrawal to the interim line in Sinai, as provided for in the Treaty of peace between Egypt and Israel, Egypt will send a resident ambassador to Israel and will receive in Egypt a resident Israeli ambassador.”
Sincerely,
Menachem Begin
From the Peace Treaty:
Convinced of the urgent necessity of the establishment of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East in accordance with Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338;
Israel was left as the Occupying Power over Palestinian territories captured during the ‘recent conflict’ (1967) and; territories occupied by Israel in 1948/49, not recognized as Israeli by any country and never legally annexed to Israel.
ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-Mn
UNSC Resolution 242 says NOTHING about ‘defensible borders’
LOGIC: No matter how much of other folk’s territory an entity acquires for ‘defensible’ borders, it will still be next to the people whose territory it is acquiring.
QUESTION: Why has one entity in any region the right to have more ‘defensible’ borders than any other entity in the region?
Fact is, it hasn’t. UN Charter Article 2
“The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.”
If Palestine is recognized by a 2/3rds majority of UN Member States, game over for Deuteronomy 20:15. Game over for being an Occupying Power over what will legally be recognized as a “Regional Power”. There is no requirement that they be powerful, nor do they have to be a UN Member State.
Of course defensible borders are a military advantage, however, the Jewish People’s Council accepted and declared boundaries “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947”, which did not include territories already under the control of Jewish forces at the time of declaration.
They did not include the territories Israel confirmed were not it’s own on May 22 1948
They did not include the territories Israel attempted to claim on 31st August 1949
They did not include the territories Israel has ‘acquired’ by war, or illegal annexation, or illegal settlement, since declaration. None of which has been legally annexed.
QUESTION: If the territory is genuinely acquired for military purposes, aka, defense, why is it being populated with …. ahem….Israeli civilians?
The Laws of War and GC’s are there to protect ALL civilians, especially NOT having the Occupying Power’s civilians in occupied territories for the simple reason that the occupied have a right to armed resistance in which the Occupying Power’s civilians might become collateral statistics The Occupying Power has a duty to it’s civilians to ensure they are NOT in territories acquired by war, in order to safeguard them. Israel in fact endangers it’s citizens by encouraging and assisting them to settle in occupied territories!
QUESTION In order for an entity to defend it’s civilians illegally in illegally ‘acquired’ territories, from those whose territories it has illegally acquired, is it logical for Israel to further incur their wrath by attempting to acquire even more of their territory to protect the territory you have already illegally ‘acquired’?
The answer is of course, no. Consecutive Israeli Governments have been more than irresponsible, they have been incredibly … STUPID!!
First, find out what isn't true...