First, find out what isn't true…

The Laws / United Nations / Occupation

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

If you can disprove any of the items here with logic and citations of official documents from credible sources, I will gladly remove the offending item. Till then, feel free to put up, sans abuse and personal attacks…..enjoy!

ShortLink http://wp.me/PDB7k-O

The UN is not perfect. It is an attempt to maintain order in a chaotic world. Understanding the UN, the UNSC their resolutions and UN Member’s obligations in respect to the Palestinian / Israel issue can be difficult. It takes time and effort and can’t be encapsulated with a few sound bytes.

link to this section
The UNITED NATIONS – MEMBERSHIP: Only Nation States can become Members of the United Nations. Non-state and even state entities, can be granted observer status. They can’t vote and the UN/USNC cannot pass resolutions directly against them. The UN can only advise and direct UN Member States on how they may treat Non-Members according to the UN Charter, Customary International Law, Laws of War, Conventions and UNSC resolutions.

The UN/UNSC cannot interfere in matters that are under the civil jurisdiction of Sovereign States. e.g., civil wars. Unless they threaten regional or world peace. They can issue a statement or adopt a resolution to make a statement condemning and/or asking them to modify their behaviour. A statement is not a resolution, nor does it carry any legal weight, although it may contain reminders of the UN Charter and the Law. The UN Charter and the Law are binding on all UN Members. Sanctions apply to the countries agreeing to them. It is the sanctioning countries who may not trade with the Sovereign State in question.

In an instance of civil war, the Government may request UN intervention or a majority opposition body may request intervention as in Lybia. Peace keeping forces have strict mandates which generally preclude them from engaging on behalf of or against factions or Government.

The UN / UNSC can only vote to issue a statement condemning Non-Members behaviour, even if they are engaged in hostilities with a Member State. However the UNSC can intervene if it considers an entity or a Nation State or a conflict is a likely threat to regional or International peace. When civil war crosses an acknowledged national boundary, it becomes an International or regional conflict.

Regional powers have a right and a duty to maintain peace in their region. They also have a right and a duty under Chapt XI, to protect non-self governed or undeclared entities in their region by attempting to expel foreign forces or by what might be called benevolent occupation.

link to this section
THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER: must be upheld by all UN Member States in it’s entirety. So too the Laws of War. Other obligations become mandatory and/or binding, once a Member State has signed to Conventions (ratification), Treaties & Peace Agreements, etc. A convention passes into Customary International Law when it has been ratified by the majority of Nations. Customary International Law is binding on all Nations.

link to this section
UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY (UNGA): It’s resolutions are non-binding suggestions, recommendations, advice, pleas, reminders of binding obligations via Conventions, the Charter, Law and UNSC resolutions.

UNGA resolutions can only ask or plea with Member States to adhere to their obligations and to uphold the Law. However, UNGA can ask the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to demand a UN Member uphold it’s obligations and/or the Law. UNGA can also ask the UNSC to take action. Meanwhile, all UN Members are obliged to uphold all the Laws and Conventions which might be emphasized or referred to in UNGA resolutions.

Some UNGA resolutions resolve merely to make a statement. Others set down conditions according to binding Law, conventions etc. If those conditions are agreed to by the party or parties concerned, they then become binding by the agreement, similar to any business or purchase contract. Until a contract is signed, it is only a proposal, once signed, it becomes an obligation on the party or parties signing. A declaration of Statehood or Independent Statehood is such an instance.

An example is UNGA Resolution 181, a much mis-understood non-binding resolution. Contrary to the belief that UNGA voted to create a Jewish and an Arab state, UNGA voted only to present a set of conditions under which either party could, if they wished, declare Sovereign Independence over the recommended boundaries. If a party accepted the conditions, they could bind themselves by a voluntary Declaration of Sovereignty.

A declaration of Sovereign Independence is not an agreement between the declaring party and the UN. Nor is it an agreement between other entities. It is a voluntary statement to the wider International Community of States of what an entity claims as it’s own and it’s intention to abide by the norms of International law. Recognition is acceptance of that declaration.

A Declaration of Independence cannot be conditional on what another party decides, because it is a declaration of independence from the influence and/or control of other parties. There is no article in UNGA res 181 requiring co-signing for exactly that reason.

It is a fallacy that Israel’s boundaries were not defined because the Arab States did not recognize Israel or res 181. Israel itself defined it’s boundaries by it’s own Declaration of Independence, accepting unreservedly and enshrining UNGA res 181 in it’s Declaration and announcing it to the International Community. The extent of Israeli Sovereignty was also confirmed in statements by the Israeli Government on May 22nd 1948 and June 15th 1949. to the UNSC.

Based on the notification Israel issued ,the majority of the International Community of States recognized Israel as a Sovereign state, over riding the Arab States’ 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.”

Recognition of Israel:
USA 15 May 1948 “… as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947…”

Russia 17 May 1948
Letter from Mr. Molotov stated: “Confirming receipt of your telegram of May 16, in which you inform the Government of the USSR of the proclamation, on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947, of the creation in Palestine of the independent State of Israel and make re-quest for the recognition of the State of Israel and its provisional government by the USSR. I inform yon in this letter that the Govern-ment of the USSR has decided to recognize officially the Stale of Israel and its Provisional Government.”

British 27 April 1950 The British Foreign Office issued a statement on May 17 to the effect that Great Britain would not recognize Israel for the time being because it had not fulfilled the “basic criteria” of an independent state. The British waited until a political party was elected to Govern the State of Israel, then granted de jure recognition, with conditions. The territories Israel had acquired by war, outside of it’s declared Sovereign Boundaries, were considered to be ‘occupied’. I.e., NOT Israeli Sovereign territory.
“His Majesty’s Government have also decided to accord de jure recognition to the State of Israel, subject to explanations on two points corresponding to those described above in regard to the case of Jordan. These points are as follows. First, that His Majesty’s Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it. Secondly, that His Majesty’s Government cannot regard the present boundaries between Israel, and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon as constituting the definitive frontiers of Israel, as these boundaries were laid down in the Armistice Agreements concluded severally between Israel and each of these States, and are subject to any modifications which may be agreed upon under the terms of those Agreements, or of any final settlements which may replace them.” Thus far nothing has replaced them.

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

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

Israel has never legally annexed any territory beyond it’s declared, recognized and acknowledged, Sovereign boundaries.

link to this section
UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL (UNSC): There are fifteen Member states in the Security Council. Only the five Permanent Members powers have the right to veto. China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States of America. The non-permanent members of the Security Council are elected for a term of two years.

UNSC resolutions can demand Member States adhere to their obligations and/or the Law. Usually referred to as Chapter V1 resolutions. Chapter V1 resolutions are often misconstrued as non-binding, when in fact they are issued based on binding law, conventions and/or the UN Charter. They demand peaceful settlement of issues, which is a BINDING obligation on the part of parties the moment they become a UN Member State.

Chapter V11 resolutions call for action if the obligations of Chapter V1 resolutions are not met. The decision to take action, is made by vote. If a Permanent Member abstains from voting, they are choosing not to be a part of the process. If enough UNSC members abstain, the resolution will fail.

This is not the same a a veto vote, where a Permanent Member can prevent a majority vote taking effect, by voting against a resolution. For instance, the US Power of Veto has prevented any action against Israel. This in no way negates Chapter V1 resolutions, it merely prevents action being taken. The Laws, Chapter V1 resolutions and obligations, still stand. Guilty but the sentence has been suspended.

link to this section
OCCUPATION: Occupation is not obligatory, it is completely voluntary. Occupation is usually agreed between regional powers under an armistice agreement. E.g., Israel AGREED to Jordan & Egypt occupying the West Bank & Gaza in their armistice AGREEMENTs. Their occupation’s were legal.

Likewise with Israel occupying the territories of Palestine. Although there was/is disagreement on how much of the “territories occupied” Israel should withdraw from (UNSC Res 242), common sense tells us that “territories occupied” and not withdrawn from, are still occupied. A glass of Palestinian water half emptied, still contains Palestinian water. It does not change into Israeli water, despite the Israeli froth surrounding the issue.

Occupation is exactly the opposite of acquiring territory. An occupier cannot unilaterally annex or change the status of “territories occupied”. It is the occupier who is responsible for maintaining order in the territories it chose to occupy.

The UN does not care which Member state becomes the Occupying Power over an entity, they do however, require the Occupying Power to uphold the UN Charter, Laws of War and the Conventions the Occupying Power has ratified, making them obligatory and binding on the signatory.

An Occupying Power must legally annex territory on order for it to become a part of their sovereignty. Legal annexation is only through agreement with the other party or via a treaty between the two parties.

It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war/force, regardless of who started and/or who wins a war, no matter which UN Member State is in control of territory outside it’s own sovereignty. Laws of War Art. 55. “The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.”

This is the basis of the Geneva Conventions, all civilians and belligerents (who comply with the Laws of War) are protected persons who might not have voted for or even been able to vote for the regime in power when war was waged.

It is often held that the Geneva Conventions do not apply because Palestine is not a state. i.e., not a High Contracting Power. However, we only have to look at who signed the ceasefires, armistice agreements and peace treaties. The reason the UNSC says the GC’s do apply, is because Israel’s wars were all with states fighting was over the territories of Palestine.

In fact, no war has been fought over or in the Sovereign territories of Israel. There are no UNSC resolutions calling for peace in Israel. No Resolutions calling for any Arab state to withdraw from Israeli territories. There has never been a War in Israel. No Arab state has invaded Sovereign Israeli territory.

All the ceasefire, armistice and peace agreements call for peace in Palestine and a resolution to the Palestine question. Israel ceased to be a part of Palestine May 14th 1948.

—-

Israel has not upheld it’s obligations as a UN Member State. In an attempt to have Israel do NO MORE than comply with it’s obligations, there have been 223 UNSC resolutions adopted against it. None of which would endanger or compromise Israel’s security or it’s rights as as Sovereign State. Many of which are reminders of previous, un-heeded, UNSC resolutions.

link to this section
The UN is biased against Israel:
The 223 UNSC resolutions (some of these Wiki links seems to have been bastardized) against Israel ask no more than the UN Member uphold it’s obligation to the UN Charter, ratified Conventions and Peace Treaties. The majority of the 223 UNSC resolutions re-iterate what has gone before. Like a bill, if you don’t pay it, you get reminders.

The US Power of Veto has only prevented action being taken, allowing Israel to ignore it’s obligations. This does not negate the Law or Israel’s legal obligations.
Q1: If a country has not adhered to the law or it’s obligations, is it biased to ask again?
Q1: Is it antisemitic, or hateful to ask that Israel abide by it’s legal obligations?

Avalon Law – Yale University A repository of documents relating to the Palestine / Israel issue

Advertisements

9 Comments »

  1. Hi Talknic,

    “If a refugee takes citizenship in another country they are no longer refugees. People who are not refugees have no refugees rights.”

    Didn’t Palestinians take the citizenship of another country? If so, will they not lose their refugee status?

    Comment by Anonymous — January 12, 2013 @ 2:05 am

    • Some Palestinians have taken up permanent citizenship in countries other than that of return. No longer refugees.

      Jewish ‘Palestine’ refugees (not from the Arab States) who sought refuge in Israel and who were assisted by UNRWA until 1950/51 when Israel took over their care, for the most part became Israeli citizens. No longer refugees.

      Similarly Jewish refugees from the Arab States (not ‘Palestine’ refugees) eventually took Israeli citizenship, others went to other countries and took up citizenship. No longer refugees. There are now no Jewish refugees from the 1948/49 war. Attempted bids for compensation from the Arab States now flounder on the legal point of their new citizenship and non-refugee status.

      Palestinians already living in Gaza and what became the West Bank were not refugees. In the West Bank they automatically became Jordanian citizens as a matter of course when Jordan temporarily annexed the territory as a trustee (see Session: 12-II Date: May 1950). Because the annexation was bilateral, by agreement with the Palestinians (self determination a la the UN Charter) and as a trustee, by its nature temporary, it was not condemned by the UNSC. (Unlike the unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel, which has been condemned as illegal). This temporary Jordanian citizenship automatically reverted to Palestinian citizenship when Israel took over responsibility for the West Bank in ’67. Palestinian citizens of the West Bank who were dispossessed during the ’67 war and who fled to other parts of the west Bank, Gaza, the neighbouring Arab states or elsewhere and who have not taken permanent citizenship elsewhere, still have RoR, but not under UNGA res 194 unless they, as some were, first dispossessed in the 1948 war.

      ‘Palestine’ refugees from the territory of the Mandate era per UNGA res 194 and its definition: Under the presumption that Israel would respect RoR and that there would be an end to the conflict sooner than later and in order to accommodate the Palestinians desire for RoR, Jordan could have passed convoluted and complex legislation inclusive of the territory they’d annexed, whilst attempting to preserve refugee status. It was far simpler to offer Palestine refugees in Jordan and in the annexed West Bank, full but temporary citizenship, thereby preserving their refugee status.

      It is an individual choice to retain refugee status by not accepting citizenship elsewhere. Individual rights cannot be bargained away. The best the State of Palestine can do in negotiations is argue for their rights to be respected.

      Comment by talknic — January 12, 2013 @ 6:49 pm


  2. “Tried research? Research requires a bit of study and more importantly throwing out any propaganda you might have picked up.”

    The same can be said of your effort, but according to the rules you established, we were going to discuss this “sans abuse and personal attacks”. Michael Dar, I assume uses his real name like I do, and appears to have legitimate questions, which you start answering with hyperbole and insinuation. Should I now add that from my long experience in discussing this issue this is typical of your ilk?

    “From the fall of the Ottoman Empire, there was a non-state entity called Palestine. Bits of Palestine have been chopped off at various times. What remains is Palestine. When Jordan Declared Sovereignty (1946), it created two entities. One Jordan. The other, the non-state entity of Palestine under the British Mandate. On Israel’s Declaration of Sovereignty, there were two entities created. One, Israel. The remainder the non-state entity of Palestine.”

    There is too much to do all at one sitting, so I want to focus on this.

    First, history did not start at the fall of the Ottoman empire. I have maps from the 1800s that show Judea and Samaria. Those Jewish places and the Jewish character of this specific region have existed thousands of years before Arabic became the popular language of the people living there. In terms of history and culture, no living society can match the overwhelming connection to the land that Jews have, which has nothing to do with genetics or race. This deep connection is exactly what was “recognized” legally at the fall of the Ottoman empire, but nothing was ‘created’ or ‘given’ to the Jewish people at the time. In fact, there was a movement to immigrate with the Sultan’s permission long before the collapse of the Sultan’s empire. In historical perspective, its popularity rose with the creation of the telegraph. Jews had survived for thousands of years in isolation before then, but instant communications made large scale coordination of the effort possible, in contrast to the steady but unorganized attempts for centuries before.

    To understand the root of the conflict it is instructive to understand that tribes like the Bani Sakher, Howeitat, Zuweida, Zilabia, Abbad, Adwan, Karak, Hadid, and a dozen more I can’t think of right now all accepted an armed invasion by the Hashemites and the subsequent colonization and tyranny that followed without so much as a bruised ego. These Hashemite colonists were fellow Arabs and Muslims, and they were stronger, so they were accepted. This is in sharp contrast to the peaceful Jewish immigration that the Arabs rejected. You can draw your own conclusions from this, but the fact is the first Jews immigrating did not come on the backs of camels with rifles in their hands, they came with money and a desire to either escape persecution or love of their ancestral homeland. The violence that ensued is directly predicated on the Arab rejection of white Jews, which contrasts sharply with their acceptance of the Hashemites.

    So it seems you accept the creation of Jordan on territory mislabeled Palestine, but reject the reconstitution of Israel. The problem is Jordan was created on dubious legal grounds on land that was meant to become part of the Jewish Homeland. There was never a movement to create a Jordan, the area was not autonomous under Ottoman rule, there is no culture, or language, or institution that is unique to ‘Jordan’ prior to British meddling in political affairs. In short, Jordan is a fabrication for political purposes only. The purposes of appeasing racist and bigoted cultural bias against the Jews. Today it is illegal to be a Jew in Jordan the ethnic cleansing has worked so well (it is also illegal to convert from Islam, but that is a separate issue). Further, the fabrication of Transjordan stole 76% of the land Jews were allowed to immigrate to. Without any history or uniqueness to set it apart from the whole of Arabia the country was even labeled after a geographic feature for lack of anything more substantial, yet you accept its legitimacy without dedicating a website to its demise.

    So between 1946 and 1948 the Jewish national home was divided into an Arab (76% of the land) and mixed (24% of the land) area. Though the overwhelming peoples were there before the Hashemite invasion the fact that Transjordan was Arab Palestine and the lion’s share of the land was dropped from the lexicon for political reasons. It is inaccurate to say “Jordan declared independence”, it was not called Jordan at the time, it was called “beyond the Jordan river”…Transjordan, and was referred to as a “province of Palestine” in documents at the UN until then for lack of any sort of historical claim by the locals or the invading Hashemites, in short there was no legitimate reason to create the country except as a weapon against Jewish aspiration and as a political expediency to placate bigots opposed to Jewish self determination.

    On Israel’s independence the borders were not fixed, nor were dejure borders allowed to form, because within a day the nascent state was attacked with the intentions to commit genocide against the Jewish population there. The mislabeled territory did not default to an independent Palestine, it was captured illegally and occupied by Transjordan for 19 years with no movement or complaint from the local non-Jewish population. The Jewish population being subjected to a thorough ethnic cleansing, even to the extent that the very historical Jewish names for the region, Judea and Samaria, were stricken from the lexicon and the ethnic cleansing term “west bank” (again, just like naming the fabricated state Jordan, because there is no, nor has there ever been, a cultural distinction of the people living there…aside from the Jews) used to replace them. Nowhere do you point this out, which does nothing to promote truth, since the absence of completeness is a lie in itself.

    Comment by Michael LeFavour — October 16, 2009 @ 5:55 pm


    • I’ll take the time and effort to address your un-substantiated claims, one by one. It might be wise in future if you’d provide substantiation for your assertions. I have actually covered most of what you assert.

      “The same can be said of your effort, but according to the rules you established, we were going to discuss this “sans abuse and personal attacks”.”

      …and ‘..with logic and citations of official documents from credible sources’ You’ve provided nothing but assertions and opinion.

      “Michael Dar, I assume uses his real name like I do, and appears to have legitimate questions, which you start answering with hyperbole and insinuation.”

      A) It is irrelevant whether we use real names or not. Only ideas and information are expressed here.
      B) Alleged “hyperbole and insinuation” which you have failed to point out. An accusation without evidence IS ‘hyperbole and insinuation’.
      C) I’ve actually pointed Michael Dar to precise references in respect to his questions, as I will your completely un-substantiated assertions.

      “First, history did not start at the fall of the Ottoman empire.”

      A) I didn’t assert that history did start at the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Never the less, I agree, it didn’t start at the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the ‘modern’ chapter of Palestine however, did.
      B) The history of the region didn’t begin with the appearance of Jewish folk in the region either. The early Jews also usurped. They were NOT the first in the region

      “I have maps from the 1800s that show Judea and Samaria. “

      So show them… Remember, at that point in history the territory was LEGALLY part of the Ottoman Empire. Your maps, they are Ottoman maps? Yes? You should also remember that Israel accepted the borders recommended in UNGA res 181 when it declared sovereignty over them. (Still enshrined in the Declaration of a Jewish State)

      “Those Jewish places and the Jewish character of this specific region have existed thousands of years before Arabic became the popular language of the people living there.”

      A) Irrelevant from the day Israel became a SOVEREIGNTY, with DEFINED territory (even though at the time it was exceeding those borders under Plan Dalet). Those territories have never been annexed.
      B) The region was also populated by a lot of people, far outnumbering Jewish folk. Say, was there a period when Jewish people outnumbered the other people in the region? Remember, controlling a territory is not the same.

      “In terms of history and culture, no living society can match the overwhelming connection to the land that Jews have, which has nothing to do with genetics or race.”

      Strange…The Australian Aboriginals go back 45,000 years evidenced in rock drawings, is still there. One can actually go see ’em. in chronological order. An un-broken link continuing even now. Judaism, Christianity, Islam are newbies, babies, a mere speck on the scale, with sometimes dubious and even mythical ties to the land.

      “This deep connection is exactly what was “recognized” legally at the fall of the Ottoman empire, but nothing was ‘created’ or ‘given’ to the Jewish people at the time.”

      As a homeland, not as a state. And since Israel’s Declaration of SOVEREIGNTY, it has had BORDERS. Israelis only have a right to build on Sovereign Israeli soil. Israeli Civil Law and courts only apply to Sovereign Israeli territory. It is illegal to institute Israeli law in Occupied Territories.

      Laws of War Art. 55. “The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.”

      “In fact, there was a movement to immigrate with the Sultan’s permission long before the collapse of the Sultan’s empire. In historical perspective, its popularity rose with the creation of the telegraph. Jews had survived for thousands of years in isolation before then, but instant communications made large scale coordination of the effort possible, in contrast to the steady but unorganized attempts for centuries before.”

      Irrelevant to the legal framework that exists today. Irrelevant to Israel’s illegal activities. Irrelevant to Israel’s actual sovereign territories.

      “To understand the root of the conflict it is instructive to understand that tribes like the Bani Sakher, Howeitat, Zuweida, Zilabia, Abbad, Adwan, Karak, Hadid, and a dozen more I can’t think of right now all accepted an armed invasion by the Hashemites and the subsequent colonization and tyr……. (etc etc etc all unsubstantiated).“…….This is in sharp contrast to the peaceful Jewish immigration that the Arabs rejected. “

      Ah yes, the ‘peaceful’ Lehi, Igun, Hagana, terrorists according to Mi5.

      “So it seems you accept the creation of Jordan on territory mislabeled Palestine..”

      A) Mis-labelled? It was called Palestine under the Ottomans, Palestine under the British Mandate over PALESTINE.
      B) And indeed, as I accept Israel, I accept Jordan. A sovereignty formed under the same guidelines as all states since the League of Nations.

      “…but reject the reconstitution of Israel.”

      You really should check before you spout.

      “The problem is Jordan was created on dubious legal grounds on land that was meant to become part of the Jewish Homeland.”

      A) Jordan was created by the same set of rules Israel was created by. The laws surrounding statehood and sovereignty.
      B) Read the actual words No mention of a separate ‘state’.

      “There was never a movement to create a Jordan, the area was not autonomous under Ottoman rule, there is no culture, or language, or institution that is unique to ‘Jordan’ prior to British meddling in political affairs.”

      So what? Hebrew culture and language didn’t suddenly appear out of thin air. The Jews DID conquer other folk 3,000 years or so ago.

      “In short, Jordan is a fabrication for political purposes only………..”

      Jordan was formed by the same laws and conventions as Israel.

      “Further, the fabrication of Transjordan stole 76% of the land Jews were allowed to immigrate to.”

      Pity there was no intention OR mention of there being a separate Jewish state when Trans-Jordan was granted independence. Or when Jordan became a sovereignty 1946. As a sovereignty, it can do what it pleases within it’s own territory. Whether one agrees or dis-agrees with what they do is another matter.

      “Without any history or uniqueness to set it apart from the whole of Arabia the country was even labeled after a geographic feature for lack of anything more substantial….”

      It was quite substantial. Unique in fact to that region. יַרְדֵן Hebrew in origin if I’m not mistaken.

      “….yet you accept its legitimacy without dedicating a website to its demise”

      A) Is this website dedicated to anyone’s demise? CHECK. No!
      B) Why would I bother dedicating a website to Jordan’s demise? Jordan was formed under the same guidelines as Israel and every other country since the League of Nations.
      C) ‘hyperbole and insinuation’ yours?

      “So between 1946 and 1948 the Jewish national home was divided into an Arab (76% of the land) and mixed (24% of the land) area.”

      No it wasn’t. Palestine was. There was never any intention that the Jewish homeland be a state or take up all of Palestine as a state

      “Though the overwhelming peoples were there before the Hashemite invasion the fact that Transjordan was Arab Palestine and the lion’s share of the land was dropped from the lexicon for political reasons. It is inaccurate to say “Jordan declared independence”……(etc etc etc all unsubstantiated).

      A) What is the point you’re trying to make? Israel is the Jewish National homeland and State. No more, no less than what it declared Sovereignty over May 14th 1948.
      B) Jordan did declare Independence, LEGALLY. In 1946. BEFORE Israel. Trans-Jordan was NOT a part of the British Mandate at the time Israel Declared Sovereignty, accepting the borders recommended in res 181. By doing so, Israel also accepted that Jordan was not a part of the newly declared Sovereign Jewish Nation State.

      “On Israel’s independence the borders were not fixed,”

      Strange, the main pre-condition of Sovereignty is to have defined borders so that recognition can be given for the claim of Sovereignty.

      “….nor were dejure borders allowed to form”

      They were defined when Israel declared Sovereignty. Israel accepted res 181 and ALL it contained. It is enshrined in the Declaration of a Jewish State. And don’t try UNGA res 181 was not binding. A Declaration of Sovereignty IS binding so too is the recognition of the majority of the International Community of States, over riding the Arab states objections. (democracy at work)

      “….because within a day the nascent state was attacked with the intentions to commit genocide against the Jewish population there”

      Strange. Israeli forces, already OUTSIDE of Israel’s newly declared sovereignty, were attacked, because they were outside of Israel’s newly declared Sovereign territories. What was attacked in Tel Aviv? A military installation perhaps? It’s quite legitimate to attack an enemy’s military forces once war has been declared, even within the Sovereign territory of the enemy.

      Now, can you put up a map showing what actual Sovereign Israeli territory was attacked? The Arab states did have the right to protect the territories of the non-state entity they represented, from all aggression and as the major powers in the region, they also had the right to institute law and order in the region under the UN Charter.

      There is no UNSC resolution condemning their Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine 1048. It wasn’t illegal. Because Israel was exceeding it’s newly declared Sovereignty.

      “The mislabeled territory did not default to an independent Palestine, it was captured illegally “

      Enough with your ‘mis-labelled’. The West Bank, (as it came to be known and is still known today), was captured according to the Laws of War. Israel agreed. Read the armistice agreement

      Article VI

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

      “…and occupied by Transjordan for 19 years with no movement or complaint from the local non-Jewish population. “

      Why should they complain? I’ve covered this section HERE The Palestinians ASKED Jordan to annex the West Bank. It was a legal annexation under the legitimate UN notions as a temporary trustee. Jordan didn’t claim the territory as it’s own, didn’t build illegal settlements, barriers, destroy farms, bulldoze homes, lock children up for throwing stones.

      The Jewish population being subjected to a thorough ethnic cleansing…etc etc etc etc…Nowhere do you point this out, which does nothing to promote truth, since the absence of completeness is a lie in itself.

      Unfortunate as it was, once the West Bank was under Jordanian annexation, the Jewish population was treated according to Jordanian law, a law the British had insisted on.

      Comment by talknic — October 17, 2009 @ 3:03 pm


  3. Here as some of the many questions I have been asking about the conflict and never received any convincing answer for.
    1. Why did the Arab-Israeli conflict all of a sudden become an Israeli-Palestinian conflict and when did that switch occured?
    2. Where did that previously unknown Palestinian specific identity/people came from and why? After all many Arabs refuted themself such a claim/notion and there was never (until quite recently) any reference to Palestinians in official documents. Documents like 224 don’t even mention them!
    3. Why is the (relatively minor)so-called Palestinian refugees problem the only one in world’s history to failed to find any solution. What are the real causes?
    4.Why didn’t the Jewish refugees from Arab lands get equal consideration in the UN and elsewhere; after all this dual refugee problem was the by product of the same conflict during the same period.
    5. Why did the so-called Palestinians (a non member state) received a preferential status in the UN, siege in sub-commission etc., have an individual well documented propaganda machine in the UN, have a authomatically renewed budget every year. Which enjoy a permanent and huge welfare support organization like UNWRA for the last 60 years. While more urgent, justified and worthier causes of scores of other peoples/refugees do not receive the same preferential treatment?
    6.How come a western style democracy like Israel is the only country in history to have been be brought before human right instances (since created in 1949) while for instance regimes like China, the USSR, N-Corea, Cuba and scores of other countries are left alone. Stalin-Mao-Castro-Mobutu-Bokassa-Idi Yamin, Saddam-Hussein, Assad etc.. are responsable for millions and millions of victims etc.?

    Comment by Michael Dar — October 9, 2009 @ 9:13 am


    • “Here as some of the many questions I have been asking about the conflict and never received any convincing answer for”

      Tried research? Research requires a bit of study and more importantly throwing out any propaganda you might have picked up.

      “1. Why did the Arab-Israeli conflict all of a sudden become an Israeli-Palestinian conflict and when did that switch occured?”

      “all of a sudden”? No, from the outset. It’s like an apple that has had parts consumed. What remains is apple.

      From the fall of the Ottoman Empire, there was a non-state entity called Palestine. Bits of Palestine have been chopped off at various times. What remains is Palestine. When Jordan Declared Sovereignty (1946), it created two entities. One Jordan. The other, the non-state entity of Palestine under the British Mandate. On Israel’s Declaration of Sovereignty, there were two entities created. One, Israel. The remainder the non-state entity of Palestine.

      “2. Where did that previously unknown Palestinian specific identity/people came from and why? After all many Arabs refuted themself such a claim/notion and there was never (until quite recently) any reference to Palestinians in official documents….Documents like 224 don’t even mention them!”

      Strange, they were all officially Palestinians under the British Mandate over Palestine. It was in ALL their official documents.

      “224”? You mean UNSC 242… Why should it. UNSC 242 was between Israel and the Arab states. It does say ‘states’.

      “3. Why is the (relatively minor)so-called Palestinian refugees problem the only one in world’s history to failed to find any solution. What are the real causes?”

      A) You find 3-4 million refugees minor? Many ALL their lives? Some displaced twice, once in 1948 and again in 1967.
      B) Non-recognition of RoR by the country of return and Israel’s refusal to keep within it’s Sovereign territory is the ONLY cause.
      C) They are ALL stateless.

      “4.Why didn’t the Jewish refugees from Arab lands get equal consideration in the UN and elsewhere; after all this dual refugee problem was the by product of the same conflict during the same period.”

      How many Jewish refugee are there? If a refugee takes citizenship in another country they are no longer refugees. People who are not refugees have no refugees rights.

      “5. Why did the so-called Palestinians (a non member state) received a preferential status in the UN..”

      They only have observer status. Which gives them NO preferences, no voting rights. (it is on this page at the top)

      “… siege in sub-commission etc., have an individual well documented propaganda machine in the UN, have a authomatically renewed budget every year.”

      None of which is factual.

      “… Which enjoy a permanent and huge welfare support organization like UNWRA for the last 60 years. While more urgent, justified and worthier causes of scores of other peoples/refugees do not receive the same preferential treatment?”

      They receive the same treatment, by different arms of the UN. UNRWA was formed because A) It was obvious that Israel was not adhering to it’s obligations B) All Palestinians are stateless. C) The protracted nature of the conflict.

      “6.How come a western style democracy like Israel is the only country in history to have been be brought before human right instances (since created in 1949)…”

      The UNHRC was only set up on 15 March 2006. What Nations other than Israel have been committing human rights offenses on ANOTHER PEOPLE since 2006?

      “… while for instance regimes like China, the USSR, N-Corea, Cuba and scores of other countries are left alone. Stalin-Mao-Castro-Mobutu-Bokassa-Idi Yamin, Saddam-Hussein, Assad etc.. are responsable for millions and millions of victims etc.?”

      China and the USSR have veto vote in the UNSC. As for the others, the UN deals in matters between Nations and what Nations may or may not do to non-state entities, not the internal issues of Sovereign countries. (it is on this page) The best the UN can do is try to help the victims through the UNHCR and the UNHRC etc which are bodies set up for all humans.

      Comment by talknic — October 10, 2009 @ 1:15 pm


  4. […] single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. LIE 17: Hamas is not a State, not a UN Member. The UN cannot pass a resolution against them. The UN can only express condemnation, which they […]

    Pingback by Netanyahu’s speech at the UN General Assembly 23rd September 2009 – full text « Talknic – Find out what isn't true, to see what is! — September 28, 2009 @ 5:28 am


  5. […] Ziofier is especially good at wiping the UN Charter, UNSC resolutions, International Law, Geneva Conventions, the responsibilities of States, Declarations of Sovereignty, […]

    Pingback by The Ziofier strikes unsuspecting Presidents, politicians, journalists, public contamination at all an time high. « Talknic – Find out what isn't true, to see what is! — September 28, 2009 @ 5:21 am


  6. […] against Israel? Israel DOES have 223 UNSC resolutions against it, according to which Israel HAS illegally acquired other folks territory by war and it HAS illegally […]

    Pingback by Ahmadinejad’s Speech at the UN General Assembly 23rd September 2009 – full text « Talknic – Find out what isn't true, to see what is! — September 25, 2009 @ 4:17 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: