Does Geneva Convention IV apply to the West Bank? The UNSC says it does!

http://wp.me/pDB7k-1fU
According to the Israeli narrative “Jordan illegally occupied Judea and Samaria” after the 1948 war.
Fact is, on the 3rd of April 1949 Israel signed an Armistice Agreement with the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom leaving Jordan legally in military control of what was official renamed the West Bank.

The Israeli narrative also tells us “Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank was illegal”.
The West Bank was legally annexed to Jordan by request of representatives of the majority of the legitimate inhabitants of the West Bank, in keeping with International Law concerning self determination

Unlike the unilateral annexation by Israel of East Jerusalem, which was condemned by the UNSC, there was no UNSC condemnation of the bilateral annexation of the West Bank by Jordan

The other Arab states demanded Jordan annex the West Bank as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950) in keeping with the UN Charter Chapter XI

By 1967 Jordan, including the West Bank, was a UN Member State and had ratified Geneva Convention IV. In other words, it was a High Contracting Power

UNSC res 228 tells us the West Bank was “the territory of Jordan“

UNSC res 476 tells us Geneva Convention IV is applicable http://wp.me/pDB7k-W8

By the UNSC resolutions, reaffirming and emphasizing binding Law/UN Charter/etc, the Israeli narrative is simply bullsh*t!

Further reading re-recognition of the annexation of the West Bank by Jordan thanks to D G Fincham:

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUS1948v05p2.p1138&id=FRUS.FRUS1948v05p2&isize=M

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUS1950v05.p0943&id=FRUS.FRUS1950v05&isize=M

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

The Hasbara is really stupid propaganda. Laws reaffirmed in UN resolutions are binding!

ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-1cV

You’ll see it again and again .. UN/UNGA and UNSC Chapt VI resolutions are non binding.

However, the UN Charter itself is binding on ALL Members in its entirety.

That matters be resolved peacefully in accordance with International Law and the UN Charter is binding.

UN Charter chapters re-affirmed and/or emphasized in an UN/UNGA/UNSC resolution are as a matter of course binding! They do not suddenly become non-binding just because they’re in a so called ‘non-binding’ resolution.

Similarly International and Customary International Law is binding. Laws re-affirmed and/or emphasized in an UN/UNGA/UNSC resolution are binding!

Likewise conventions that have been ratified by a majority of the International Comity of Nations automatically pass into Customary International Law and are thereby binding. The majority of Nations have ratified the Geneva Conventions. Geneva conventions re-affirmed and/or emphasized in an UN/UNGA/UNSC resolutions are binding!

Palestinians continue to die in their own country at the hands of the Occupying Power

15th May 1948 Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, “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.” Israel has never legally acquired any further territory!

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.

Israel agree to two states? Israel’s intentions were voiced to the Conciliation Commission on August 31st 1949. It’s actions since, show no change of plan.

15th May 1948 Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, “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.”

ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-l5

Despite the fact that the League of Nations Covenant Article 20 tells us Palestine was a state with provisional recognition, referenced in the very first line of the League of Nation Mandate for Palestine and in Article 7, one of Israel’s main assertions has been that Palestine has never been a state.

Another of Israel’s arguments is that because the Arabs refused to recognize UNGA res 181, Israel somehow has some extra special right to territories the Israeli Government itself claimed on May 22nd 1948 were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”  and under Israeli military control.  I.e., “occupied”

The arguments are not only nonsense, they’re entirely irrelevant.  States cannot simply take what is not their own without the express permission of the legal inhabitants.  Since at least 1933 it has been illegal (inadmissible) to “acquire” territory by war, furthermore it is illegal for other states to recognize territories acquired by war.  A fact confirmed by Schwebel, Lauterpacht & Herzog, who tell us territory may only be “restored” by war.  No Israeli territories have ever been taken.  Israel has never had to ‘restore’ any of its territories, it has been “acquiring” territory by war.

Israel is no different from any other independent state. What lies outside of Israel’s legal sovereign extent, is simply not Israeli.  Since Israel’s territories were proclaimed by the Israeli Government in their plea for recognition, no further territories have ever been legally acquired by Israel by any agreement and no state has ever recognized any territories acquired by war as Israeli.

Israel’s official 31st of August 1949 claim (as a UN Member state) to alleged non-state territories of Palestine shows “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area”  except for the Palestinian territories.   Israel’s claim was refused BTW, citing the Armistice Agreements.

The Egypt Israel Peace Treaty ensured Israel withdrew from all territories sovereign to Egypt before peaceful relations were assumed. Again eventually showing respect for the territory belonging to state in the region.

Not so with the West Bank as it is now known, which was legally annexed by Jordan at the request of the Palestinians.  Jordan’s annexation of that territory was as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950). Unlike the UNSC condemnation of Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem, there is no UNSC condemnation of the bilateral annexation by Jordan.  At the time of its capture by Israel in 1967, the west Bank was territory sovereign to Jordan, by then UN Member state and High Contracting Power. Which is why  the UNSC considers Geneva Convention IV to apply.

The vast majority of the International Community of Nations have already recognized Palestine as a state in accordance with the Palestinians 1988 declaration of statehood, where Palestine conceded 78% of their rightful territories for peace with Israel.  Israel’s reply was to ignore and create even more illegal facts on the ground.

Despite hundreds of UNSC resolutions affording Israel hundreds of opportunities to adhere to the binding Laws, UN Charter and relevant binding conventions those resolutions reaffirm and emphasize, why does Israel insist  maintaining its stance in respect to the territories “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” ?

Perhaps the answer lies in one line of  A) the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel “The state of Israel ….will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel“ and one line from; B) Deuteronomy 20:15 which describes how territories not belonging to neighbouring states should be treated.

…1948 …discussing the Declaration…

Ben-Gurion did not want to limit themselves from the outset: “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?”

It should be noted that A) the resolution contained the proviso as envisaged in this plan, B) the Jewish Agency’s final acceptance of UNGA res 181 is enshrined in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel and C) the Israeli Government asked to be and indeed was recognized per the frontiers outlined in the resolution. Furthermore, the resolution contained no clause requiring the Arab States to agree or co-sign, nor could it. It was an offer for “either” party to declare Sovereign Independence over a set of boundaries as envisaged in this plan, if they wished. It was not and could not be demanded or obligatory as it would go against the meaning of ‘independent’. The declaration of one could not be ‘dependent’ on the other. This was confirmed by the Jewish Agency itself prior to declaration Friday, 19 March 1948 Rabbi Silver replacing Mr. Shertok at the Council table as representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine stated:

“We are under the obligation at this time to repeat what we stated at a [262nd meeting] meeting of the Security Council last week: The decision of the General Assembly remains valid for the Jewish people. We have accepted it and we are prepared to abide by it. If the United Nations Palestine Commission is unable to carry out the mandates which were assigned to it by the General Assembly, the Jewish people of Palestine will move forward in the spirit of that resolution and will do everything which is dictated by considerations of national survival and by considerations of justice and historic rights.” “The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State.”

And again Security Council S/PV.271 19 March 1948 The representative of the Jewish Agency, Rabbi Silver:

“The statement that the plan proposed by the General Assembly is an integral plan which cannot succeed unless each of its parts can be carried out, is incorrect. This conception was never part of the plan. Indeed, it is contrary to the statement made by the representative of the United States during the second session of the General Assembly. The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State. 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.”

UNGA res 181 F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS

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. (Article 4 Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations)

In order to be accepted into the UN through a recommendation by the UNSC, Israel had to declare its independence “as envisaged in” the UN plan enshrined in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel and; the International Community of Nations granted recognition as asked by the Provisional Government of Israel.

Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel… ” 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.”

ShortLink to here In the following letter of the 31st August 1949 to Conciliation Commission Israel reveals : A) It’s intention to possess all the non-state (Palestinian) territories in the region. B) It’s admission, by stating it’s intention, that the non-state territories it had acquired by war by 1949 were not it’s own C) It’s admission, by stating it’s intention, that no part of Syria (the Golan) was Israeli. D) It’s admission, by stating it’s intention, that there would be no form of self determination by the Palestinians, relating only to the surrounding Arab states E) Via the final paragraph, if Israel didn’t get it’s way, it would not respect the recognized Sovereign integrity of the Arab states and their right to live in peace

31 August 1949 Addressed to the Chairman of the Conciliation Commission by Mr. Reuven. Shiloah Head of the Delegation of Israel and containing Replies to the Commission’s Questionnaire of 15 August 1949 I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of the Conciliation Commission’s memorandum of August 15 and to convey to you the answers of the Delegation of Israel to the questions submitted therein, 1. The Delegation of Israel is prepared to sign a declaration along the general lines suggested in Chapter I of the Commission’ s memorandum, subject to precision on the following specific points: (a) The Government of Israel considers that the solution of the refugee problem is to be sought primarily in the resettlement of the refugees in Arab territories, but it is prepared for its part, as already indicated to the Commission, to make it’s own contribution by agreeing to a measure of resettlement in Israel. (b) While the Government of Israel cannot bind itself in advance to the implementation of such solutions as the survey group may propose, it will undertake to facilitate the task of this group and to give full consideration to any proposals the group may put forward 2. The Delegation of Israel wishes to offer certain further comments on Chapter I of the Commission’s memorandum, in order to make its attitude perfectly clear: (a) The Delegation of Israel has taken note of the proviso that it is understood that the repatriated refugees will become ipso facto citizens of Israel and that no discrimination will be practised against them both with regard to the civil and political rights which they will exercise and to the obligation imposed upon them by the law of the land. The Delegation is astonished however,that there is no mention of any similar understanding with regard to the refugees to be resettled elsewhere. (b) The Delegation of Israel desires to stress it’s understanding that any repatriation in Israel as indicated by the Commission, would take place subject to financial assistance furnished by the International community and that such assistance would be extended to include the. resettlement of Jewish refugees from the Arab-controlled areas of Palestine (c The Delegation of Israel has already presented to the Commission a provisional estimate of the number of refugees which the Government of Israel would be ready to accept. It is desired, in this connection, to point out that the Government of Israel’s willingness to facilitate the task of the survey group rests within the framework of the contribution which it has declared itself ready to make to the solution of the refugee problem. (d) The Delegation of Israel desires to take this opportunity of reiterating its earlier statement to the Commission that the Government of Israel can agree to the repatriation of refugees to Israel only as part of an overall settlement of the refugee problem and of the Palestine conflict.

Link this bit 3. With regard to the territorial adjustments of which the Commission treats in Chapter II of it’s memorandum, the Delegation of Israel considers that in addition to the territory indicated on the working document annexed to the Protocol of May 12, all other areas falling within the control and jurisdiction of Israel under the terms of the armistice agreements concluded by Israel with Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom and Syria should be formally recognized as Israeli territory. The adjustment of the frontiers so created will be subject to negotiation and agreement between Israel and the Arab Government in each case concerned. 4, In this connection the Delegation of Israel desires to offer a number of observations: (a) The territorial adjustments proposed above has the following effects: (i) No territory forming part of Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom or Syria is added to Israel by this adjustment (ii) No territory ever awarded to Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom or Syria by any international instrument or held by them under any agreement is added to Israel by this adjustment. (iii) No territory in which Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom or Syria exercises authority or jurisdiction under the armistice agreements concluded pursuant to the Security Councils resolution of November 16, 1948 and endorsed by the Security Council’s resolution of August 11, 1949 is added to Israel by this adjustment. If the territorial adjustment proposed were not effected, territory awarded to Israel under an international instrument or held by it under the terms of an agreement (viz: territory in which Israel exercises authority and jurisdiction under, the armistice agreements concluded pursuant to the Security Council’s resolution of November 16, I948 and endorsed by the Security Council’s resolution of August 11, 1949) would be added to one or more Arab States. The Delegation of Israel holds, therefore, that only the territorial adjustment proposed above falls equally in its effects on the rights and position of each negotiating party, makes no encroachment upon existing sovereignties, and preserves the juridical status and actual, stability achieved by the existing agreements. This method of achieving a territorial settlement is furthermore, in precise accord with the resolution adopted by the General Assembly on December 11, 1948 calling upon the Governments concerned to extend the scope of the negotiations provided for in the Security Council’s resolution of November 16, 1948 and to seek agreement by negotiations conducted either with the Conciliation Commission or directly, with a view to the final settlement of all questions outstanding between them. 5, I venture to point out that paragraph 3 above is to be read in the light of the observations offered in paragraph 4, and to request that in any use which the Commission may make of this statement of the Israeli Delegations position, shall not be cited without the addition of paragraph 3. I am Yours faithfully, Reuven Shiloah

THE REPLY: 3 September 1949 addressed to Mr. Reuven Shiloah, Head of the Delegation of Israel, by the Chairman of the Conciliation Commission, Emphatically dismisses the notion. referring Israel back to the armistice agreements. “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” NB: (a) The territorial adjustments proposed above has the following effects: …etc etc The territorial adjustments proposed were not accepted, to the opposite effect. Actions speak louder than words. The ‘effects’ have been Israel has: A) failed to have “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” B) illegally acquiring by war, Sovereign Syrian territory (Golan ’67). (Israel was requires, agreed and withdrew from Egyptian territory BEFORE peaceful relations were assumed) C) illegally claimed non-state territories belonging to the Palestinians, prior to the question of Palestine being resolved. D) illegally annexed “territories occupied” E) illegally instituted Israeli Civil Law in “territories occupied” F) illegally built Israeli civilian infrastructure and dwellings for illegal settlers in illegally acquired and illegally annexed “territories occupied” G) illegally sold illegally acquired and illegally annexed “territories occupied” to illegal settlers H) has yet to write a constitution i) shown that it cannot be trusted J) As a separate state, taken away the Jewish right to live in all of Palestine, limiting Israeli Jews to only Israeli Sovereign territory unless, they become ILLEGAL settlers or citizens o Palestine or Syria (in the Golan). Furthermore, under the 1948 Israeli military ordinance, still current, it is forbidden for Israeli citizens or residents to travel from Israel into the territories of a hostile entity. Contrary to the Hasbara, the Israeli emergency Law of 1948 prevented Israeli Jews and Israeli Muslims, Israeli Christians et al, from worshiping in Jerusalem from 1948 – 1967.

It is of course quite common for countries at war to either expel or inter foreign nationals and/or possible 5th columnists and to freeze their assets.  It’s also common to repatriate then and release their assets at the close of hostilities.

Kerry and the Question of Palestine. In perspective

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?

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)

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

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.

The Hasbara. World’s worst propaganda – United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 was not binding and is irrelevant because the Arabs rejected it

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

How many times have you heard “the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 was not binding and is irrelevant because the Arabs rejected it”

Friday, 5 March 1948 Rabbi Silver stated to the UNSC

“Nevertheless, reluctantly but loyally, we accepted the decision which appeared fair and reasonable to the United Nations”

“We feel under the obligation to make our position unmistakably clear. As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision of the United Nations. We regard it as binding, and we are resolved to move forward in the spirit of that decision. “

Friday, 19 March 1948 Rabbi Silver replacing Mr. Shertok at the Council table as representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine stated

“We are under the obligation at this time to repeat what we stated at a [262nd meeting] meeting of the Security Council last week: The decision of the General Assembly remains valid for the Jewish people. We have accepted it and we are prepared to abide by it. If the United Nations Palestine Commission is unable to carry out the mandates which were assigned to it by the General Assembly, the Jewish people of Palestine will move forward in the spirit of that resolution and will do everything which is dictated by considerations of national survival and by considerations of justice and historic rights.”

“The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State.”

And again:
Security Council S/PV.271 19 March 1948 The representative of the Jewish Agency, Rabbi Silver:

The statement that the plan proposed by the General Assembly is an integral plan which cannot succeed unless each of its parts can be carried out, is incorrect. This conception was never part of the plan. Indeed, it is contrary to the statement made by the representative of the United States during the second session of the General Assembly. The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State. 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.”

UNGA res 181 is enshrined in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel

Someone is lying … You decide

The Hasbara – Israel vs Palestine – Is the UN really biased against Israel?

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

How many times have you heard “The UN is biased against Israel” ?

Rather odd if you consider the fact that the UNSC has offered Israel hundreds of opportunities to abide by binding Law, the UN Charter and relative conventions reaffirmed and emphasized in those resolutions. It has been Israel who has refused, preferring instead to increase its illegal fact on the ground!

Is the gas company biased for sending you a reminder when you haven’t paid your original bill? Of course it isn’t. It’s what you agreed to for being hooked up to the grid. Israel agreed to uphold International Law and the UN Charter in order to become a UN Member State.

Just one example of this so called “UN bias” is UNSC Resolution 252 which has EIGHT reminders, which only exist because Israel ignored the first. Are these reminders bias?

252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 452 (1979) 20 July 1979, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 June 30 1980 and 478 August 20 1980 …. Oh, and Israel’s annexation of the Golan was also condemned by the UNSC Res 497

The next step in the holey olde Hasbara is of course “Ah, but these are Chapter VI resolutions. Chapter VI resolutions are not binding”. Correct. However, the Laws (all law is binding), UN Charter (binding on all members in its entirety) and relevant conventions re-affirmed and emphasized in ANY UN/UNSC resolution, are by their very nature binding!

CHAPTER VI: PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
Article 33
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Does “shall” mean: “may”? “might”? “could”? “would”? “do you want to”? “would you like to”?

The Charter isn’t posing a question like; “Shall we dance?”. Nor are the Chapter VI resolutions, which more often than not “reaffirm” and “emphasize” binding laws and conventions. All law, by it’s very nature, is obligatory and;
All UN Member States are obliged to adhere to the Charter in its entirety.

Far from being biased against Israel, the UN/UNSC has given the Jewish state HUNDREDS of opportunities to meet its legal obligations. Far more than any other country on the planet! Israel’s claims of bias are propaganda nonsense.

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

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. (see also UNSC res 2334 of December 2016)
——————————-

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

Israel has no fixed borders? On May 22 1948 Israel confirmed it’s borders in a letter to the UNSC. The Hasbara does not explain, it justifies the usurping of the Palestinians

…It’s actually quite simple. If it isn’t the actual Sovereign Territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel, then by default it is the territory of what remained of Palestine on May 15th 1948. Non-self Governing Territories fall under the protection of the UN Charter Chapt XI…

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

How many times have you heard the notion that Israel has no borders with Palestine? According to the Provisional Israeli Government’s May 15th 1948 plea for recognition, the State of Israel was declared

“within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,”

Israel was immediately recognized as such by the US followed by Russia and; recognized as such by the majority of the International Community of Nations before being accepted into the UN and; the extent of Israel’s sovereignty was confirmed by the Israeli Government in a statement to the UNSC on 22nd May 1948, before Israel was accepted into the UN as declared and recognized, before the Armistice Agreements and; before Israel made the first claims to territories the Israeli Government stated (n 22nd May ’48) were “outside the territory of the State of Israel”.

On May 15th 1948 the extent of Israel’s Sovereign territories were clearly defined in the Israeli Government’s official plea for recognition to the President of the USA.

May 15, 1948 Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, “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.”

The US immediately recognized Israel as such. No more, no less. The British also recognized Israel as such and considered non-declared territories under Israel’s control by the time of British recognition, as occupied.

On May 22nd 1948 the extent of Israel’s Sovereign territories were clearly stated again in the Israeli Government’s Reply to the UNSC.

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

“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 [1]. The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed.”

The Israeli Govt goes on to use these phrases in the document:

“the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel” — “outside the area of the State” — “beyond the frontiers of the State of Israel”

Four instances where the Israeli Government, after having declared and been recognized, acknowledged limits to it’s territory. aka Borders, delineating the state of Israel from Palestine!

On 12 Aug 1948 an Israeli Government Proclamation says Jerusalem was “occupied”.

Jerusalem Declared Israel-Occupied City- by Israeli Government Proclamation 12 Aug 1948.

[1]

[1] “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. “

On June 15, 1949, Israel’s position on its frontiers, statement to the Knesset by Foreign Minister Sharett.

June 15, 1949 Israel-s position on its frontiers VOLUMES 1-2: 1947-1974
“As for the frontier between the State of Israel and the area west of the Jordan which is not included in Israel…”

ShortLink to this section http://wp.me/pDB7k-KL#firsclaims
On the 31st Aug 1949 Israel made it’s first official claim to territories beyond the extent of its sovereign frontiers. After accepting UNGA resolution without registering any reservations. After declaring Israel Independent of any other entity including Palestine, per the borders of UNGA Res 181 and; enshrining UNGA Resolution in the Declaration. After being recognized as asked & declared. After confirming what was “outside the territory of the State of Israel” to the UNSC and by proclamation declaring Jerusalem “Israeli-Occupied”. After being accepted into the UN, as recognized and based on the Israeli Government statements to the UNSC prior to the UNSC recommendation. Israel’s claim was rebuffed, citing the Armistice Agreements, specifically the Armistice Demarcation Line is not to “be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary”.

UN Charter

Chapt XI DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES . Israeli Declaration “Israel…will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations“ May 14th 1948.

Under the UN charter, the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible. The only manner in which territory can be acquired is by legal annexation. Israel has never legally annexed any territory

Consecutive Israeli Governments have been LYING to it’s own citizens and the world for 62 years.

Contrary to the opinions on why the British took so long to recognize Israel, the British waited until an Israeli Government was elected and waited until Israel was accepted into the UN as Declared and as recognized by the majority of Nations. The British also took into consideration the statements by the Israeli Government, granting de jure recognition of State and elected Government, with conditions.

ISRAEL (GOVERNMENT DECISION) HC Deb 27 April 1950 vol 474 cc1137-41 “His Majesty’s Government have also decided to accord de jure recognition to the State of Israel, subject to explanations on two points corresponding to those described above in regard to the case of Jordan. These points are as follows. First, that His Majesty’s Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it. Secondly, that His Majesty’s Government cannot regard the present boundaries between Israel, and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon as constituting the definitive frontiers of Israel, as these boundaries were laid 1139 down in the Armistice Agreements concluded severally between Israel and each of these States, and are subject to any modifications which may be agreed upon under the terms of those Agreements, or of any final settlements which may replace them.”

Nothing has yet replaced them. Israel has never legally annexed any territory to the “frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947”. It’s two attempts at annexation were condemned by UNSC Res 252 (+ 5 reminders) and UNSC Res 497, the Golan.

—–

These territories, “outside the territory of the State of Israel”, acquired by war, confirmed by the Israeli Government as occupied and never legally annexed to Israel, are quite simply not sovereign to Israel. As Professor Stephen M. Schwebel, after leaving office as a Judge of International Court of Justice, explains (citing Elihu Lauterpacht), a sovereign can ‘restore’ it’s own sovereign territory by war. It cannot ‘acquire’ territory by war.

Israel has never had to ‘restore’ any sovereign territory, it has never had any sovereign Israeli territory taken from it. In fact, failing to reach a peaceful settlement under Chapt VI of the UN Charter, Syria has a right to ‘restore’ the Golan by war. Likewise Egypt had the same right over the Sinai.

Detailed Partition Map.
Overlay for Google Earth with borders marked according to text of UNGA Res 181 (included)

Israel vs Palestine. Occupation is a position of TRUST. There is an OBLIGATION and a DUTY to PROTECT the occupied, their property and their territory.

…It’s actually quite simple. If it isn’t the “acknowledged” Sovereign Territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel,
then it’s the territory of what remains of Palestine since Jordan and Israel declared their Sovereign Independence from Palestine in 1946 & 1948.

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

Jerusalem Declared Israel Occupied City by Israeli Government Proclamation12 Aug 1948

Israel has never legally annexed any of this territories or any other territory it captured in the 1948/49 war.

The Occupying Power cannot legally annex without agreement with the civilian population of the territory being annexed, sans the citizens of the Occupying Power.

And Israel’s illegal annexation of east Jerusalem and the Golan, captured in the ’67 war were condemned by the UNSC.

Today Israel still occupies Palestinian territories, according to UNSC Res 1860 Jan 2009

CHAPTER XI: DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES
Article 73“Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end etc etc “

——
First, read the UN Charter, care fully. It is actually a fine document with noble aspirations. Perfect? No. Nothing is perfect. However nothing, by it’s very nature, simply doesn’t exist.

What does exist is a set of rules for when parties cannot, do not or refuse to resolve their conflicts. Many of the rules exist because of the fate of the millions who suffered the horrors brought on by the Nazis. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees exists in large part because of the dispossession and deaths of European Jews and countless millions of other innocent people.

The rules have been accepted by all UN Members, without reservation. A UN Member State cannot opt out of ANY of the UN Charter which BTW reminds UN Members of their obligations to International Law and conventions already ratified by the majority (passing into Customary International Law) before Israel became a member.

Under the UN Charter there is an obligation and a duty for the UN/UNSC and/or Regional Powers after having stated their intentions to the UNSC, to intervene when a UN Member state acts illegally outside the extent of it’s sovereignty. They’re the rules Israel unconditionally accepted in order to become a United Nations Member.

Under the UN Charter (Chapt XI) non-selfigoverned territories are to be afforded protection by UN Member States. Occupation is a position of TRUST. There is an obligation and a duty to protect the occupied, their property and their territory. There is an obligation to assist the occupied in achieving statehood with all their rights, in all of their rightfull territories.

Israel is doing exactly the opposite while the world stands by, terrified of being called Antisemitic if they dare criticize, even though justifiable criticism is founded in the very laws Israel swore to uphold. Influenced by the Hasbara provided by the squeakiest door in the building. Fearfull of what the little Red Heifer in the Middle East might do to the china shop if held to account.

Israel’s founders at the time of declaration were well aware of the legal implications of declaring sovereignty. Well aware of the UN Charter, Laws of War & Geneva Conventions, before committing to them. Israel’s legal advisers were not naive. They were aware of every word, every punctuation mark, every exacting detail. They know full well that as long as a resolution or the writing of a resolution is being disputed, no action can be taken. None more obvious than the delaying tactic of arguing over the word ‘the’ in UNSC Res 242.

Unless the Zionist Federation were idiots, and we know they weren’t, when Plan Dalet was launched they must have known Israel could not be held to account by the UN until it joined the UN. The UN cannot censure non-members. However, the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, says “it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. “

A search of the UNSC resolutions on the conflict from 14th May 1948 till admission to the UN reveals no direct demand or censure on Israel. After admittance May 11, 1949, we see the UN directly censuring Israel.

Israel’s narrative now is “The UN is biased against Israel, why doesn’t the UN censure the Palestinians, Hamas?”. Well, unless idiots are running the country, it’s BLOODY OBVIOUS!!

Could a peace agreement lead to an Israeli civil war? What are the implications were it to happen?

…It’s actually quite simple. If it isn’t the “acknowledged” Sovereign Territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel,
then it’s the territory of what remains of Palestine since Jordan and Israel declared their Sovereign Independence from Palestine in 1946 & 1948 respectively. Neither are a part of Palestine, nor is it a part of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel

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

Could a peace agreement lead to an Israeli civil war? Inconceivable?

1) Consider the number of lawlessness illegal settlers who will very likely object to any peace agreement especially if they’re faced with either becoming Palestinian citizens or being re-settled in what might become or what is already actual sovereign Israeli territory.

2) Hundreds of thousands of Israelis, Jewish and non-Jewish, live in complete ignorance of the fact that they OUTSIDE of Israel’s actual sovereign territory.

Israel has never legally annexed any territories to it’s declared sovereign boundaries. It’s declared sovereign boundaries are those it accepted under UNGA Res 181 – the basis of Israel’s recognition by the majority of the International Community of Nations (democratically over riding the Arab states legal objections) : Letter from the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15, 1948 “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” Also available as PDF from the Truman Library

Quite a vast section of Israel’s citizenry are simply not living in Israel. But for the sake of this article, let’s just consider the illegal settlers in “territories occupied” since 1967. These are not just small outposts set up by hardliners. They’re vast housing estates, whole townships. Israeli citizens in illegally annexed East Jerusalem are also illegal settlers.

Again, for the sake of this article, let’s for the moment consider were a civil war to break out. It would for the most part, likely be fought in areas outside of Israel’s sovereignty. Under the UN Charter events outside of the sovereign territory of states are of concern to A) Other Regional Powers, the Arab States. B) The UN/UNSC.

Under the UN Charter, which Israel voluntarily agreed to, the UN/UNSC and Regional Powers have a RIGHT to intervene when UN Member States act outside of their acknowledged sovereign territories. An Israeli civil war in “territories occupied” would be OUTSIDE of Israel’s sovereignty.

Petra Marquardt-Bigman purposefully misses the point, on behalf of Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians.

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

ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-rY
Petra Marquardt-Bigman typifies the insanity that has caused 62 years of grief for the people of Palestine.

From the Guardian’s CiF 28 Mar 2010 Obama’s other difficult partners

Ms Bigman asks

“Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu is presently seen as the chief obstacle to Middle East peace, but what of the Arab League?”

What of them? All they ask is that Israel abide by the law. The Arab League are not illegally acquiring territory. They’ve not illegally annexed anyone else’s territory. They’re not illegally instituting their civil law in illegally annexed “terriories occupied”. They’re not illegally building illegal civilian infrastructure for illegal settlers in illegally acquired and “territories occupied”. They’re not illegally selling land and illegally built homes for illegal settlers in “territories occupied”. They’re not holding any one else’s territory but their own. The territory they claim as rightfully theirs, has been acknowledged as rightfully theirs.

On the other hand, for the last 62 years Israel has and still is illegally acquiring other folk’s territories, ignoring International law and numerous UNSC resolutions. Yet Ms Bigman completely misses this disturbing and significant fact. So too the word ‘illegal‘. In order to justify her stance and point the finger every which way, it is simply is not allowed to enter the equation. The elephant cannot be acknowledged.

Having deleted the reason the US is currently asking Israel to uphold the law. Having completely ignored the reason that the Palestinians refuse to negotiate is because the elephant is still crapping on the carpet while saying it wants to negotiate without pre-conditions, except of course, the pre-condition to be allowed to keep crapping on the carpet and deny that it is.

Having completely missed the point in it’s entirety, Ms Bigman is like someone watching television from the back, with the power cord pulled from the socket, desperately trying to relate some sort of story to her readers, in order to shift the blame for all the elephant crap.

The crux of her finger pointing everywhere and anywhere but at the crapping elephant, is perhaps condensed into her final desperate attempt to skirt around the elephant.

“For their part, the Saudis and other Arab leaders seem content to look at the Arab Peace initiative as a “take-it-or-leave-it” proposition. As Prince Saud al-Faisal argued in an interview last year:”

“What can we do more than that? The land that is occupied is in the hands of Israel. We don’t have anything to offer Israel except normalization, and if we put that before the return of Arab land we are giving away the only chip in the hands of Arab countries.”

“The obvious problem with this argument is that, from Israel’s vantage point, it means that Israel is expected to give up land, and then hope that it will indeed get peace in return. It sure didn’t work out this way when Israel withdrew from Lebanon 10 years ago, or from Gaza five years ago. President Obama’s initial approach, which envisaged reciprocal confidence-building measures, was exactly what was needed; it is deplorable that there was no Arab support for his initiative.”

Her justification, while ignoring the stench of elephant poo, the fact that the Arabs States and the Palestinians actually do not have anything of Israel’s, is a concern that: after having cleansed the illegal settlers and their IDF body guards from “territories occupied” in Gaza. After having illegally had years use of free land, free water and cheap labour, while millions of dollars went into the pockets of illegal settlers and the fact that Israel is still illegally acquiring Palestinian territory, peace might not follow Israel’s withdrawal.

“Israel is expected to give up land, and then hope that it will indeed get peace in return. It sure didn’t work out this way when Israel withdrew from Lebanon 10 years ago, or from Gaza five years ago.”

A) Israel is not expected to ‘give’ anything. It is quite simply not Israel’s to give. Israel is expected to abide by the law

B) Israel still held Lebanese territory, (still claims Syrian territory).

C) Israel STILL occupies Gaza and the West Bank, still illegally claims 50% of the Palestinian’s rightful territories.

Of course it didn’t work Ms Bigman. Since 14th May 1948, Israel has been outside of it’s legitimate acknowledged boundaries. Claiming someone else’s territory. But let’s look at where Israel HAS stopped illegally claiming other folk’s territories.

Having skirted around and around, under and over the elephant, deaf to it’s trumpeting and blind to the dung she is treading into the carpet, Ms Bigman is as oblivious to it as she is to the fact that when Israel did withdraw from Egypt and Jordan, two of Israel’s deadly enemies. Who both objected to partition, who both fought wars with Israel over the Palestinian territories…

Israel

got

PEACE!

J-Street an alternative to AIPAC? On UNGA/UNHRC/UNSC resolutions, people who should know are as ignorant as their counterparts.

Shortlink http://wp.me/pDB7k-lU

With dismay I read that Hannah Rosenthal, head of the U.S. administration’s Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, a person who once served on J street’s board of directors, on the board of directors of left-wing group Americans for Peace Now. Who held senior positions in the Department of Health and Human Services during the Clinton administration, has no idea of how the UN operates.

Ha’aretz 24/12/2009 //“….having the UN single out Israel for 170 resolutions over the last five years – when everybody knows that Sudan is committing genocide and they have only five resolutions. When Israel is the only agenda item on the human rights council – I think it’s legitimate to look at this singling out, holding Israel to a different standard than the rest of the world. I think that crosses the line to anti-Semitism.” //

UN CHARTER Article 2
7) Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Sudan’s crimes, as horrific as they are, are committed upon Sudanese, in Sudan. The resolutions against Israel, UNGA/UNSC/UNHRC are for it’s actions outside of Israel’s Internationally recognized boundaries, actions that effect people who are NOT citizens of Israel in territory that is NOT Israeli.

The majority of UNGA/UNSC/UNHRC resolutions against Israel are reminders of previous resolutions, International Law, the Conventions, UNSC resolutions and the UN Charter. If you don’t pay the bill, you get a reminder.

For example, on Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem UNSC Resolutions 267 / 271 / 298 / 465 / 476 are reminders of UNSC Resolution 252 which is in itself a reminder of International Law. Had Israel upheld International Law, there’d be no UNSC resolutions against Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem.

So who is at fault? The UNSC, UNHRC or UNGA for reminding Israel of it’s UN obligations? Obligations Israel has FAILED to uphold.

It’s jaw dropping that a person of such position and experience can be ignorant of the UN Charter AND idiotic enough to repeat the “what about Sudan” propaganda mantra. Two wrongs never make a right and to be ignorant of the UN Charter is almost criminal neglect of her positions. That she tries to blame the UN, when it has been Israel ignoring it’s obligations, is even more of a jaw dropper!

If this is the level of understanding of how the UN operates in the alternative to AIPAC and in the U.S. administration’s Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, there is something terribly, terribly wrong!

//Rosenthal strongly believes that new and different voices need to be heard regarding Israel in the American Jewish community.

“We need to have as many people coming together to try and put an end to this crisis, the matzav [situation] can not continue – it’s unacceptable and that’s why I always paid my membership to AIPAC, but I have always paid my membership to Americans for Peace Now – because they all need to be supported and they all need to be at the table.” //

Ms Rosenthal seems to have forgotten one key element. They need to be EDUCATED!

Israel was attacked by five Arab States in 1948. What actual Sovereign Israeli territory did they attack?

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

ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-ki ( Revision 27th Dec 2009 – additional material )

Since childhood I was told that five Arab States invaded Israel immediately after Israel Declared Independence. That was good enough for me. How dare they. Then someone posed the question: “Which Sovereign Israeli territories were attacked and which UNSC resolution condemned the alleged Arab League invasion of Israel?”

What? That’s a ridiculous question. Of course they did. Israel was fighting for it’s life. We’ll have none of this nonsense. So in order to substantiate my beliefs, I began looking through UNSC resolutions for something condemning the Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine. In those days, it was books and the public library. A tedious business. Today the information is at our fingertips.

Here I’ve used the United Nations, Yale Law repository OnLine at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/scres049.asp, the Truman Library, Jstor, the Jewish Virtual Library and the Israeli Government website, Hansard. There is only primary source information, no citations from the likes of Ilan Pappé, Benni Morris. In fact I’ve never read anything they’ve written.

Rather than find what I was looking for, a UNSC condemnation of the Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine or confirmation that the Arab League had attacked Sovereign Israeli territory, I began to notice the UNSC resolutions seemed rather at odds with what I’d been told. The more I looked the more apparent it became that something was amiss in the rhetoric I’d been led to believe. Even the Arab League Declaration contradicted what I’d been told.

Link to this section

There was the story that Israel had no defined borders. Yet the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (entered into force on December 26, 1934), which required ” b ) a defined territory;” All those signatories would have required the same lest they breached the convention by recognizing a state without a defined territory.

The first item listed at the Yale Law repository, after Israel’s Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel , is the letter from the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15th 1948, informing him of the Declaration and on which the US based it’s recognition of Israel as an Independent Sovereign State.

In particular, it says “..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. “

Russia 17 May 1948 Letter from Mr. Molotov stated: “Confirming receipt of your telegram of May 16, in which you inform the Government of the USSR of the proclamation, on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29,1!>47, of the creation in Palestine of the independent State of Israel and make re-quest for the recognition of the State of Israel and its provisional government by the USSR. I inform yon in this letter that the Govern-ment of the USSR has decided to recognize officially the Stale of Israel and its Provisional Government.”

Australia 28 January 1949 “… on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947…”

New Zealand 29 January 1949 “It is the understanding of the New Zealand Government that the settlement of boundaries and other outstanding questions will be effected in accordance with the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 11 December 1948.”

All quite at odds with the notion that Israel had never defined it’s boundaries with Palestine in 1948 and the notion that UNGA resolution was irrelevant because the Arabs had rejected it. The first of the fallacies had fallen.

Link to this section

Next step was recognition. Was Israel given de jure recognition or de facto recognition? Here I went through a maze only to discover the British record shows recognition of Sovereignty (state) is different from the recognition of Government (the authority in power).

Hansard 27 April 1950 His Majesty’s Government have also decided to accord de jure recognition to the State of Israel, subject to explanations on two points corresponding to those described above in regard to the case of Jordan. These points are as follows. First, that His Majesty’s Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it. Secondly, that His Majesty’s Government cannot regard the present boundaries between Israel, and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon as constituting the definitive frontiers of Israel, as these boundaries were laid down in the Armistice Agreements concluded severally between Israel and each of these States, and are subject to any modifications which may be agreed upon under the terms of those Agreements, or of any final settlements which may replace them.

In announcing these two acts of recognition, His Majesty’s Government wish to reaffirm their conviction that the problem of Palestine is capable of solution by peaceful means, given good will and understanding on the part of all the parties concerned. It is their earnest hope that the steps they have now taken will help to create stability in the areas concerned, and will, therefore, make a contribution towards the peace of the Middle East as a whole. “

The British recognized Israel’s sovereignty over territories is bound by it’s Declaration of Sovereignty, not ‘facts on the ground’. Sovereignty is in law, of the state. The state in law is de jure, regardless of whether the Government in authority is provisional, de facto, or elected, de jure.

The Provisional Government was given de facto recognition by the USA. The Elected Government was subsequently given de jure recognition.

The USSR gave de jure recognition of the authority of the Provisional Government. Israel’s provisional Government was de facto, with authority to elect a Government to the state, which would, in law become de jure when a Government was elected. The USSR gave de jure recognition to this provisional authority.

Israel was a Sovereignty, (the State) recognized de jure, the provisional Government recognized de facto, the elected Government eventually recognized de jure and the British made it clear that Israel did not have Sovereignty over the territories it had captured by war by 1949. They were “occupied”.

Furthermore rather than Jordan’s control over the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) being illegal as I’d been led to believe, A) Jordan and Israel signed an Armistice Agreement, whereby Israel AGREED to Jordanian occupation. B) There is no UNSC resolution condemning 1) Jordan’s occupation, as a regional power, protecting the territories of Palestine OR 2) It’s temporary annexation as a trustee was requested by the Palestinians and was demanded by the Arab League, in accordance with the UN Charter covering regional powers and the notion of being a trustee. The Arab League was in accordance with legal procedure.

The refutation of the first fallacy confirmed and three more shredded, in one fell swoop. My interest was well kindled and ablaze by now, fueled in part by a hard to reconcile, indoctrinated partisan dis-belief and in part by an equally non-partisan and unbridled inquisitiveness.

Link to this section

If the Arab League had launched a war of aggression on Israel’s newly Declared Sovereign Boundaries, there would be the customary UNSC resolution condemning it. Right? See UNSC Resolution 660 on the invasion of Kuwait for an example.

The first UNSC resolution after the 14th May 1948, UNSC Resolution 49; May 22, 1948, asks all parties for a ceasefire. In UNSC resolution after resolution none bears a condemnation of the Arab States Declaration. What was going on? Was it a war of aggression or not? Were the Arab League actions legitimate? Legal?

What makes a war ‘legal’? Bouvier’s Law Dictionary tells us 6. To legalize a war it must be declared by that branch of the government entrusted by the constitution with this power. The Governments of the Arab League States did so. Informing the UNSC on 15th May 1948 . This of course does not tell us if it was a war of aggression. For that, we must look to a UNSC resolution, because all wars of aggression, even if declared, are illegal and customarily condemned by the UNSC.

The first thing that struck me, was all the UNSC resolutions on the War of Independence, say “in Palestine”. Surely the UNSC knew that as of the 15th May 1948 Israel, as an Independent Sovereign State, was no longer a part of the of Palestine. They’d also be aware that the boundaries of what remained of the Palestine after Israel declared, were defined by default by Israel’s declared boundaries and those of the neighbouring Arab states. Did the UN simply forget it was Israel who was invaded? Or is Israel the Sovereign state, in the non-state entity of Palestine?

The fact is, the UNSC was aware, as was the Israeli Government, who confirmed with the UNSC the extent of Israeli Sovereignty on May 22nd 1948 and on June 15th 1949

Link to this section http://wp.me/pDB7k-ki#armistice-agreements

So what actual sovereign Israeli territories were attacked? The armistice agreements should tell us.

The first article in the Egypt/Israel General Armistice Agreement also says ‘in Palestine’. Article 1 – “With a view to promoting the return to permanent peace in Palestine“

Withdrawal is first mentioned where it tells us Egyptian forces are required to withdraw from Al Faluja (Al Fallujah), which was NOT a part of the Declared Israeli Sovereign territories. (load the Google Earth overlay, then type ‘ Al Faluja Israel ‘ into the search box) It was, according to the Israeli Government, outside of Israel, occupied.

The agreement goes on in Article V to say:
1. The line described in Article VI of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Line and is delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolutions of the Security Council of 4 and 16 November 1948.
2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.
3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.
4. 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 Line defined in Article VI.

The Lebanon/Israel General Armistice Agreement Tells a similar story. “in Palestine”. Same “not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary”. Same “…prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement..” It also tells us in Article V – 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

It does NOT say ‘shall follow the international boundary between Lebanon and Israel’!!!

The Jordan/Israeli General Armistice Agreement Similar again “in Palestine”. Same “not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary”. Same “…prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement..”

Being an agreement, Israel agrees to Jordan occupying the West Bank! Another piece of information at odds with the rhetoric claiming Jordan’s occupation was illegal AND showing it was by AGREEMENT that Israelis, Jewish or non-Jewish, not enter the area.

It also says in Article VI – 6. “Wherever villages may be affected by the establishment of the Armistice Demarcation Line provided for in paragraph 2 of this article, the inhabitants of such villages shall be entitled to maintain, and shall be protected in, their full rights of residence, property and freedom. In the event any of the inhabitants should decide to leave their villages, they shall be entitled to take with them their livestock and other movable property, and to receive without delay full compensation for the land which they have left. It shall be prohibited for Israeli forces to enter or to be stationed in such villages, in which locally recruited Arab police shall be organized and stationed for internal security purposes.”

Israel AGREED that if people left voluntarily, they should be compensated.

Syrian/Israeli General Armistice Agreement Same, “in Palestine”. Same “not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary”. Same “…prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement..” It also adds, in Article V: “1. It is emphasized that the following arrangements for the Armistice Demarcation Line between the Israeli and Syrian armed forces and for the Demilitarized Zone are not to be interpreted as having any relation whatsoever to ultimate territorial arrangements affecting the two Parties to this Agreement.”

The two parties being Syria and Israel. Not Israel and Palestine. It also tells us the Armistice line is between ‘forces’, not ‘countries’.

Further to Article V: “5. (a) Where the Armistice Demarcation Line does not correspond to the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the area between the Armistice Demarcation Line and the boundary, pending final territorial settlement between the Parties, shall be established as a Demilitarized Zone from which the armed forces of both Parties shall be totally excluded, and in which no activities by military or para-military forces shall be permitted.”

As with Lebanon, it is telling us that in places, Syria borders Palestine. At the time of the armistice, Israel was a Sovereign Country, no longer a part of what was left of Palestine.

In all the UNSC resolutions and all the Armistice Agreements, nowhere is there anything about any Sovereign Israeli territory being attacked. No where are any Sovereign territories of Israel required to be withdrawn from. They all tell us Israeli forces were “in Palestine”. None mention the Palestine as being a part of the ‘final territorial settlement’. The UNSC Resolutions are between existing sovereign ‘states’.

You won’t find UNSC condemnation on the Arab League invasion of Palestine, simply because there is none. The Arab League States were UN Members and High Contracting Regional Powers and the British Mandate over Palestine had ended. Under the UN Charter Article 52 it was their right and as representatives of Palestine at the time, their duty to protect it from the aggression the Sovereign state of Israel had inherited from Plan Dalet, from the moment Israel declared. What had been a civil war, became a war waged by a state on Palestine.

So where did the armistice agreements leave the territories of Palestine that Israel controlled? Were they Israel’s to do as it wished? Were they automatically Israeli? Or occupied? What was their status?

Based on the Israeli Government’s statements of the 22nd May 1948 and 15th June 1949, the Laws of War tell us they were occupied. The British considered them occupied. Although Israel didn’t ratify the Geneva Conventions until July 1951, after it became a UN Member State May 11, 1949. At the time of the armistice agreements, Israel was not obliged to the Geneva Conventions. It was however through it’s Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel obliged to the UN Charter and subsequent notification, obliged to discharge “.. the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law”

International Law tells us that in order for a Sovereignty to acquire territories, it must legally annex them under an agreement or treaty. Now If I could just find the annexation document………… Perhaps there was something in regard to their status in the correspondence to the Conciliation Commission, prior to Israel’s acceptance into the UN.

Link to this section
A letter of the 31 August 1949, addressed to the Chairman of the Conciliation Commission by Mr. Reuven Shiloah, Head of the Delegation of Israel.
“3. With regard to the territorial adjustments of which the Commission treats in Chapter II of it’s memorandum, the Delegation of Israel considers that in addition to the territory indicated on the working document annexed to the Protocol of May 12, all other areas falling within the control and jurisdiction of Israel under the terms of the armistice agreements concluded by Israel with Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom and Syria should be formally recognized as Israeli territory. The adjustment of the frontiers so created will be subject to negotiation and agreement between Israel and the Arab Government in each case concerned”

There we have Israel’s intention is to acquire all of Palestine and an admission that at that point in time the territories of Palestine were not yet actual Israeli territory. There goes the argument that Israel has never wanted all of Palestine and the twaddle that they were Israel’s because it won the war.

The reply dated 3 September 1949 addressed to Mr. Reuven Shiloah, Head of the Delegation of Israel, by the Chairman of the Conciliation Commission, Emphatically dismisses the notion. referring Israel back to the armistice agreements. “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”

Now If I could just find the annexation document…………

What began as a search for something to substantiate my long held and firmly entrenched beliefs, had only shown their deep flaws.

All the UNSC resolutions tell us peace is sought “in Palestine“. They also tell us that the “question of Palestine” needs to be resolved. Not peace ‘in Israel’. Not the ‘Israel/Palestine question’. Not peace ‘in Israel and Palestine’. Why?

The ‘Israel question’ was resolved on the 14th May 1948, when the Jewish People’s Council Declared a Sovereign Jewish State within the frontiers of UNGA res 181 and Israel was recognized as such by the International Community of states. There is no question over it’s Sovereignty, it’s boundaries or it’s existence as a state.

The wars have been in Palestine, not Israel. The “territories occupied” have been in Palestine, not Israel.

The harder I look, the more the fallacies fall.

Link to this section
The Arab Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine, contradicts the notion that the Arab League was bent on a genocidal attack, threatening to drive all Jews into the sea. To be sure they were against Israel’s existence, based on legal grounds, but their Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine says: “The Governments of the Arab States emphasise, on this occasion, what they have already declared before the London Conference and the United Nations, that the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed.

Democracy!! Equal rights!! How dare they! Nowhere did the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine threaten Israel or threaten to actually institute the legal basis of their argument. It merely stated the legal case as a basis for protecting their ward as regional powers per the UN Charter. Israel was no longer a part of Palestine on the 15th May 1949. The Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine was given to the UNSC, making the war a legally declared defensive war. Which is why there is no UNSC resolution condemning it.

Meanwhile Israel continues to this day to take more and more territory. Ignore more and more UNSC resolutions. The “Palestine question” is when will they stop and what can be done about it!

The Ziofier strikes unsuspecting Presidents, politicians, journalists, public contamination at all an time high.

Shortlink http://wp.me/pDB7k-b0
‘Israeli’s’ become ‘Jews’, ‘the regime’ becomes ‘Israel’. ‘Jerusalem’ becomes ‘Israel’, (even though it’s not even in Israel). Quite incredible. The Ziofier can make people become conflationists at the drop of a cliche.

Your brain on Zionism – Katie Miranda is an illustrator, jewelry designer, and cartoonist living in Portland, OR.
– See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/your-brain-zionism

Even such luminaries as Edie Weisel are not immune from the dreaded Ziofier !

The Ziofier strikes across the board, rendering it’s victims unable to access important documents readily available to anyone with an internet connection.

If they have by chance actually ever read these documents, the Ziofier will immediately infiltrate that part of their memory bank and either wipe it completely or implant words with the opposite meaning. ‘delared’ becomes ‘covert’, ‘revealed’ becomes ‘hidden’ or ‘secret’. You can see the Ziofier at it’s best when it goes to work on UNSC Resolution 242 ‘acknowledgement of boundaries’ instantly becomes ‘negotiate borders’. Quite miraculous!!

The Ziofier is especially good with the UN Charter, UNSC resolutions, International Law, Geneva Conventions, the responsibilities of States, Declarations of Sovereignty, declared borders and the opinions of the International Court of Justice, wiping them completely off the map!

The Ziofier has altered 62 years of illegal acquisition of territory by war, illegal annexation, illegally instituting a foreign entity’s Civil Law in an Occupied Territory and the ignoring of 223 UNSC resolutions, into: “a peace loving neighbour”

The Ziofier has magically changed armistice lines into borders, where there were never borders before the armistice, altered the Balfour Declaration, the British White Papers of 1920 and 1939, UNSC Resolution 242.

During Cast Lead, the Ziofier was instantly able to change: the closure of all possible means of civilians escaping a war zone, into: “Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy’s civilian population from harm’s way” as ‘we attacked Gaza with some of the most modern and deadly military equipment in the world, not even allowing them to flee into the sea’.

The secret to the Ziofier’s success is it’s inbuilt fail-safe mechanism which immediately accuses people who might be immune, of being: Antisemites, Jew haters, Israel haters, self hating Jews, terrorist supporters.

The startling results of the Ziofier’s fail-safe mechanism can be seen in the veto vote being used in the UNSC, the press statements of Presidents, statesmen, senators, newspaper reporters, editors, TV anchormen, who all tremble in fear of the labels the Ziofier will instantly dish out.

Have YOU been Ziofied yet? Early symptoms include: Concern that people might think you’re an Antisemite, even if you’re not and there is no evidence that you are? Guarding every word, comma, full stop, upper casing of proper nouns, making sure that nothing you say can possibly be misconstrued, but knowing in the back of your mind that it will? Using anonymous email addresses where you normally wouldn’t because, although nothing you say or believe is in anyway Antisemitic, you know the lil’ ol’ Ziofier doesn’t dis-scriminate?

Propaganda, deception and blatant lies, from Israel, UK to the olde USA. ‘Journalism’ at it’s worst

First some background:

On Monday 21st September 2009, almost a year before required under the NPT agreement, Iran declares another small nuclear enrichment facility

General provisions Article 42 Pursuant to Article 8
design information in respect of existing facilities shall be provided to the Agency during the discussion of the Subsidiary Arrangements. The time limits for the provision of design information in respect of the new facilities shall be specified in the Subsidiary Arrangements and such information shall be provided as early as possible before nuclear material is introduced into a new facility.

This is precisely what Iran has just done.

IAEA’s Spokesman Marc Vidricaire:
said Friday, “I can confirm that on 21 September, Iran informed the IAEA in a letter that a new pilot fuel enrichment plant is under construction in the country.” In line with its guarantee to the IAEA for clarity on its nuclear activities, Iran informed the UN nuclear watchdog on 21 September that it is constructing a second plant for uranium enrichment.

UNITED NATIONS Sept. 23
Iran is willing to have its nuclear experts meet with scientists from the United States and other world powers as a confidence-building measure aimed at resolving concerns about Tehran’s nuclear program, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday.

Mohamed ElBaradei:
“They are not Fanatics” The director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency on what it’s like to negotiate with the Iranians. “They are not like the stereotyped fanatics bent on destroying everybody around them. They are not.”
Q) You focus on actual nuclear material. But the Americans have supplied the IAEA with the documents in question. The Iranians insist they are fake and refuse to talk about them. A) “A lot is in documents which we cannot share with the Iranians because of the need to protect sources and methods. Iran says, how can I tell you if it is fake or authentic if I am not getting a copy? So in many ways it’s like a merry-go-round.”

---

HIDDEN?? SECRET??
Any one with an internet connection CAN SEE IT on Google Earth
This is where we’re told it is Under a small hill.
But maybe it’s HERE Near an airstrip and maybe preparations for workers quarters
Or over HERE Also near the airstrip and possible preparations for workers quarters.

The first looks like a quarry. Nothing nearby. Under a small hill. Powell puke?

---

See how they deceive
A paragraph precedes the “quoted text” to give an impression, using words that are not actually in the “quoted text”
‘revealed’ ‘declared’ magically becomes ‘secret’ ‘clandestine’ ‘hidden’.

Deceptions bolded Comments green

TimesOnline Deception : West demands access to Iran’s secret underground nuclear site ‘declared’ as per the NPT agreement, becomes ‘secret’

President Obama, flanked by Gordon Brown and President Sarkozy of France at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, called the hidden facility a direct challenge to international nuclear non-proliferation rules and demanded that Iran act immediately by agreeing to full international inspections of its nuclear facilities. ‘declared’ as per the NPT agreement, becomes ‘hidden’

Guardian Deception :Ian Black (Journalist)
Q&A: Iran’s secret nuclear plant Preempts ‘declared’ as per the NPT agreement, becomes ‘secret’ Ian Black has created a first impression before giving the answers

Q) What does the news of Iran’s secret nuclear plant mean?
A) It shows Iran has not been telling the truth about its nuclear activities. Under the NPT agreement, Iran is not required to declare facility until just prior to the introduction of nuclear materials. It has just COMPLIED!

Q) Why has it emerged now?
A) On the part of the US and its allies the revelation is exquisitely timed to coincide with today’s G20 summit..It was declared as per the NTP agreement on the 21st September It seems unlikely that a revelation of such importance would have been made without rigorous checking of sources. Like the IAEA 21st September US officials have been quoted as saying the plant is not completed but is designed to hold about 3,000 centrifuges, enough to manufacture about one bomb’s worth of material a year. The assertion, by the author, is NOT “quoted”

Q) How will this information have been obtained?
A) Intelligence on Iran is a top priority for the US, Britain and other western governments, and for Israel, which calls Iran’s nuclear ambitions an existential threat. Israeli claims have in the past been treated with scepticism, so any information it acquired would have to be corroborated. It is known that two years ago the US managed to penetrate Iranian computer systems. There is a broad consensus that Iran does intend to acquire at least the “breakout” capability to build a weapon. The existence of Natanz was a secret until it was revealed by an exiled Iranian opposition group in 2002. A) It was obtained from the IAEA after it was DECLARED to the IAEA on Monday 21st September. B) Natanz was also declared according to the requirements of the IAEA NPT agreement

Haaretz Deception : Barak Ravid (Journalist)
The prime minister’s message, which he made in telephone conversations, came a day after evidence of a clandestine Iranian nuclear facility was presented by U.S. President Barack Obama and the leaders of Britain and France at the G-20 economic summit in Pittsburgh. …… Evidence of the clandestine facility was unveiled Friday by Obama and the leaders of Britain and France at the G-20 economic summit in Pittsburgh, where it overshadowed developments on regulating financial markets and reducing fossil fuel subsidies. ‘declared’ becomes ‘clandestine’. It was declared on the Monday before Obama made the announcement

Haaretz Deception : Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman
said on Saturday that the newly exposed nuclear facility in Iran was built for military purposes and was proof that the Islamic Republic is seeking atomic weapons. “I spoke this weekend with experts from the East and West,” Lieberman told Israel Radio. “No one has any doubt, according to the technical data that was published, it’s a military core. The disagreement has been done away with.” ‘declared’ becomes ‘clandestine’ ‘according to the technical data ‘that was published’, refinement is within the guidelines of the NPT agreement’

Haaretz Deception : Natasha Mozgovaya (Journalist)
Medvedev said revelations that Iran has secretly been building a uranium-enrichment plant raised serious concerns, and demanded Tehran come to the table at an international meeting next week with a cooperative attitude and evidence of peaceful intentions. preempts what is said with un-quoted misdirection ‘revealed’ becomes ‘un-declared’ even though it has just been ‘revealed’ as required, (aka ‘declared’). “We are counting on Iran – particularly in light of the newly revealed information about the construction of a new enrichment plant – to provide convincing evidence of its intention to seek to develop nuclear energy with purely peaceful aims,” Medvedev said in the statement.

Medvedev said the undeclared construction of an enrichment facility flies in the face of UN Security Council demands for Iran to stop uranium enrichment at its only declared enrichment facility. He suggested the UN nuclear agency should take steps immediately to investigate the second site and called for Iran’s full cooperation with the probe. preempts what is said with un-quoted misdirection “The revelation about the construction of a second facility only strengthens our determination to achieve concrete and verifiable results in the years-long international efforts for clarity on Iran’s nuclear program and its goals,” Medvedev said.

China responded to news of the secret neactor(sic) by saying that they hope Iran “will cooperate with the IAEA on this matter.” ‘declared’ becomes ‘secret’

J Post Deception : The American Jewish Committee executive director David Harris
said in a statement. “The discovery of this second facility fits perfectly into the web of deceit which Iran has woven around its nuclear program. Let’s recall that the regime also tried to conceal the Natanz facility from the outside world. We are compelled to ask: What else are they hiding?” Natanz was declared BEFORE nuclear materials were introduced, in accordance with the NPT guidelines

---

And so it goes, over and over and over. They’re either oblivious, naive, ignorant, stupid or just incredibly bad writers. However, if they’re professional journalists, I every much doubt it, because they’re the very things journalists are taught to AVOID!

Which leaves very few options as to why they’d willing propagate such transparent bullshite. Coerced? Compromised? Getting kickbacks? Or perhaps they’re just blatant liars?