then it’s the territory of what remains of the entity of Palestine since Jordan and Israel declared their Sovereign Independence from Palestine in 1946 & 1948.
ShortLink http://wp.me/PDB7k-6r … revised 11/05/2012
You’ll often hear people say something along the lines of ‘UNSC res 242 calls for Palestine and Israel to negotiate borders’. But UNSC res 242 does not contain the word ‘negotiate’ or ‘Palestine/Palestinians’. It was a resolution to stop hostilities between already existing states, all of whom had pre-existing borders between them. It is not about Palestinian statehood.
The Israeli/Egypt Peace Treaty states the purpose of UNSC resolution 242
“Convinced of the urgent necessity of the establishment of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East in accordance with Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338;“.
Israel agreed by signing the Peace Treaty! No?
Or you’ll hear ‘Israel has a right to ‘defensible’ borders‘ What gives Israel the right to more defensible borders than its neighbours?
UN Charter Article 2, 1. The Organizationis based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
The words ‘defensible borders’ do not appear in any International Law or in the UN Charter or in any UNSC resolution. It is another meaningless, delaying point to debate. Very similar to demanding recognition as “the Jewish State”, it has no legal basis.
Granting recognition is a unilateral decision made by Independent States. It cannot be demanded and; bear in mind, there are in the United Nations, Member States who do not recognize each other. No State has granted recognition to Israel as anything other than its official name, “the State of Israel”. Did Israel recognize anyone to get Independence?
Only the final wording of any resolution has legal bearing. Discussion and opinion voiced before and/or after the final draft, are only of historical interest.
UNSC resolution 242 is very PRECISELY worded. It is precisely worded in order that ‘other words’ are not needed. If it is to be interpreted then the actual words used must be explained. Not substituted with DIFFERENT words. UNSC Res 242 is beautiful in it’s simplicity. Perhaps why the apologists for Israel’s intransigence, in order to reach their contorted conclusions, must alter what is actually written.
Every word is labored and argued over and every day a resolution is being debated, it is delayed. In drafting UNSC res 242, debate centered around two elements “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict…” Logic tells us “territories occupied” and not withdrawn from, remain ‘occupied’ and; all UN Member States are obliged to the UN Charter Chapter XI governing the sacred trust of administering territories they have under military control.
As long as the debate over ‘the’ raged on, there was no final draft. No resolution. The carnage can continue.
Logic tells us “territories occupied” and not withdrawn from or legally annexed, are still occupied, no matter whose territories they might be.
They’re called “territories occupied” because A) the Laws of War say “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army” and; B) “it is inadmissible to ‘acquire’ territories by war“.
For any territory to change status, it must be legally annexed to become a part of an entity’s sovereign territories. Legal annexation is by agreement under the notion of self determination. I.e., do the people want their territory annexed. (e.g., US annexation of Mexican territories). Annexation upon an agreement is a matter of course unilateral if the territories are to become sovereign to the annexing party, independent of the previous or any other entity, state or non-state.
An occupier, cannot institute it’s own civilian law in “territories occupied”. It cannot build civilian infrastructure or civilian dwellings in “territories occupied” for it’s own civilian population. It cannot sell land in “territories occupied” to it’s own civilian population or anyone else. In fact, it is bound, by the UN Charter Chapt XI and the Geneva Conventions to PROTECT “territories occupied” on behalf of the occupied.
Of course, folk’ll argue that the Geneva Conventions do not apply because the Palestinian territories are not a state. However, the UNSC says they do apply and for two very simple reasons. 1) The UN Charter Chapter XI 2) the wars were between STATES. The ceasefires, armistices and peace agreements have been drawn up and signed between STATES. High Contracting Powers. The States have been fighting over and predominantly in what remained of the territories of the Provisional State of Palestine after Israel was declared independent of Palestine. No UNSC Resolution calls for peace in Israel.
——-
The most pertinent words used in the resolution are “acquisition”, “respect for”, “acknowledgement of”, “sovereignty”, “recognized”, “within”, “occupied” and significantly, “states”.
A few essential pieces of knowledge
1) UN/UNSC Resolutions: UNSC Resolution 242 was to end hostilities between the warring ‘states’. It’s not between Israel and the entity of Palestine. In fact, Palestine is not mentioned even though the resolution is about the ‘states’ at war over the territories of the entity of Palestine. The reason it is not mentioned, is simple and little understood, especially by those who argue that there are no UN or UNSC resolutions against Palestine because the UN is biased. This is a fallacy born out of either ignorance or perpetuated by people who are blinded by their own bias or by Ziofiers (Hasbarbarians), who knowingly and purposefully spread dis-information.
The UN cannot censure non-members. It would be ridiculous for example to expect a football club to demand someone who is not a member of the football club, to adhere to the football club rules. Like any club, the UN can only pass a resolution telling it’s Member states what they may or may not do in regards to non-members, according to the UN Charter (binding), the Laws of War (binding) and the Conventions the various Member states have ratified, (also binding). Like any club, it may pass a resolution to go to the police (the UNSC), however just as the police cannot make a non-member abide by the football club rules, the UNSC cannot make non-members abide by the UN rules. They. like the police can only enforce societies laws, can only demand that non-club members abide by the wider rules of Customary International and Humanitarian Law.
Propagandists of course, do nothing to dispel the fallacy. Instead of explaining the actual situation in order to foster understanding, they’ll willingly allow it to be perpetuated in order to generate conflict. They will even actively encourage the propagation of fallacies by deceitful means. For example RoR.
2) Geneva Conventions: UNSC resolution 242 is quite clearly between High Contracting Powers. “states” The Sovereign state of Israel and the Sovereign Arab states. The resolution says quite clearly: “states” and “sovereignty”. The ’67 war was between High Contracting Powers over an entity. Which is why the UNSC rules the Geneva Conventions do apply to the conflict, protecting the civilian population of the entity of Palestine, it’s territories and infrastructure. Forbidding any change of status, the settling of the Occupying Power’s civilian population etc.
3) Occupation: The UN doesn’t care which High Contracting Power finds itself in control of and subsequently becomes the Occupying Power over the territory of a non member. All High Contracting Powers must abide by the UN Charter, the Laws of War (and Geneva Conventions they have ratified), protecting the territories, the people, the infrastructure and the properties of those they occupy.
The Conventions are an expansion of the Laws of War, which do not allow an Occupying Power to institute their own Civil Law in an Occupied Territory. (Laws of War Art 55) They may only administer an Occupied Territory under Military rule.
4) Annexation: The only way territory outside one’s Sovereign boundaries may be acquired is by Legal Annexation. Legal annexation is by request or an agreement or through a treaty. Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank was at the request of Palestinian representative. The other Arab States demanded that the annexation be as a as a temporary trustee only. Unlike UNSC Res 252 against Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem, there is no UNSC resolution invalidating the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, it followed Customary International Law.
5) Previous conflicts: The “recent conflict” was the 1967 war. Not the war of Independence where, by 1949 Israel controlled some 50% of the Palestinian territories it agreed were not it’s own when on May 14th 1948 it accepted the borders recommended in UNGA res 181, declared Sovereignty over them and was recognized as a sovereignty by those borders by the majority of the International Community of States. (democracy at work folks, over riding the Arab states non-recognition). These territories came under Israel’s control via Plan Dalet, launched weeks before the Israeli Declaration.
There is no UNSC resolution condemning the Arab States Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine, 15th May 1948. Israel was already exceeding the borders it had just Declared Sovereignty over. The Arab States had every right to protect what remained of the entity of Palestine.
Although Israel could not ratify the Geneva Conventions until it became a UN Member State, it did declare that it would abide by International Law and the UN Charter, before becoming a UN Member State.
These territories, including Jerusalem, are not legally Sovereign Israeli territories.
6) The Palestinians : You will often hear the argument that there are no such people as Palestinians and or that Palestine is not and was never a country. That Arafat invented the ‘Palestinians’. This is another eagerly perpetuated fallacy.
From at least the fall of the Ottoman Empire, there was an entity called Palestine. It was administered by the British under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (benevolent occupation). When Jordan became an Independent Sovereign State in 1946 (initially TransJordan) what was left of Palestine was still called Palestine. It’s name was not changed. It’s citizens, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Bedouin et al, were all Palestinians. When Jordan declared independence in 1946, the Mandate over what was left of the entity of Palestine continued. The name was not changed. It’s citizens were Palestinians. Those who did not live in the area that became TransJordan, did not have a right to Jordanian citizenship.
When Israel Declared Sovereignty 14th May 1948, what was left of the entity of Palestine was still called Palestine. The area of the territory has changed, who has had control over it has changed, but the name has not changed since at least the end of the Ottoman Empire. It is still called Palestine. The people who live in Palestine are Palestinians.
“inadmissibility of the ‘acquisition’ of territory by war” If it is already the Sovereign territory of an entity, they have a right to ‘restore’ it by war, as a last resort. If it is not their sovereign territory, they do not have a right to ‘acquire’ it by war.
Stephen M. Schwebel – Judge of International Court of Justice The state of the law has been correctly summarized by Elihu Lauterpacht, who points out that:
territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the unlawful use of force. But to omit the word “unlawful” is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor’s charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territory change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign.
Link to this section http://wp.me/PDB7k-6r#unscresolution242
—– The resolution ——-
UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war [1] and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State [2] in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
* Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; [3]
* Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty [4], 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;2. Affirms further the necessity
* For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
* For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
* For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State [2] in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3. Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
[1] Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war… “Emphazising/Affirms” are reminders of the Law/s and obligations which form the basis of the resolution. All Law is obligatory/binding. (This also occurs in non-binding UNGA resolutions, where they Affirm, Emphasize & Recall the Charter, Laws, Conventions & previous UNSC resolutions, reminding parties of what IS binding.) Finally, “acquisition” is not “restore” (Stephen M. Schwebel)
[2] The resolution is ONLY about what already existing “states” must do.
[3] Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories “occupied” in the recent conflict;
The territories ‘occupied’ by Israel in the ‘recent conflict’ of course, were the West Bank, Gaza AND ‘sovereign’ territories of ‘states’ whose boundaries were ‘recognized’ as adjacent to the British Mandate over over Palestine, well BEFORE Israel Declared sovereignty. Egyptian and Syrian territories.
Let us presume for a moment that Resolution 242 allows Israel to retain control of some of the ‘territories occupied’ in the ‘recent conflict’.
If a country doesn’t withdraw from ‘territories occupied’, simple logic tells us that they’re still occupied! Added to which there are the territories of the entity of Palestine Israel had taken by 1949 and which it has never annexed legally or otherwise. There is no evidence, not even on the Israeli Govt website, that legal annexation under International Law took place. There is no recognition from any Nation State. NADA. NO THING. NOUGHT. NIL. ZIP. ZILCH!
UNSC Resolution 242 did not give Israel the right annex East Jerusalem. Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem was condemned as invalid by UNSC Resolution 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 UNSC Resolution 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969 UNSC Resolution 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, UNSC Resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, UNSC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, UNSC Resolution 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980
Why? Simple. They were A) Territories ‘acquired’ by war. B) The annexation was not via a treaty or agreement. C) They were and still are, “territories occupied”!
[4] “.. 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”
‘Acknowlegement of’. Not ‘negotiate’. Not ‘recognizable’ boundaries. ‘recognized’ boundaries. ‘recognized’ boundaries are boundaries that have been ‘recognized’.
No where in UNSC Resolution 242 does it refer to negotiating borders. The Arab states and the state of Israel, had their sovereign boundaries “recognized” before the 1967 conflict. The Arab states sovereign boundaries were, and still are, those shown bordering the British Mandate over Palestine in 1948. The words used are: “acknowledgement of” their sovereignty, and (the ‘acknowledgement of’.. it is one sentence) their right to live within them in peace etc.
UNSC Resolution 242 calls the ‘states’ to ‘work for a just and lasting peace’ between the already existing Arab sovereign states and the already existing sovereign state of Israel, within their recognized sovereign boundaries
It is born out in the peace agreements between Israel/Egypt and Israel/Jordan, where Israel was required to “respect”, give “acknowledgment” to and withdraw from “recognized” “sovereign” boundaries of the “states” in the region. The Peace Agreements mention UNSC Res 242 as the premise for the agreements.
link to this section
Let’s look at the ‘evidence’ the Israeli Govt website puts up . None of which is anything other than of historical interest. None of which alters the actual wording of the final resolution. – (my comments in green. Mis-representative statements are in red)
Statements Clarifying the Meaning of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242
–(In which we see, time and time again, the confirmation that these territories are OCCUPIED and “negotiations” replacing the actual words “acknowledgement of”)–Following are statements including the interpretations of various delegations to Resolution 242:
A. United Kingdom
Lord Caradon, sponsor of the draft that was about to be adopted, stated, before the vote in the Security Council on Resolution 242:“… the draft Resolution is a balanced whole. To add to it or to detract from it would destroy the balance and also destroy the wide measure of agreement we have achieved together. It must be considered as a whole as it stands. I suggest that we have reached the stage when most, if not all, of us want the draft Resolution, the whole draft Resolution and nothing but the draft Resolution.” (S/PV 1382, p. 31, of 22.11.67)Lord Caradon, interviewed on Kol Israel in February 1973:Question: “This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?”
Answer:”The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947 (sic), just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary…”
–(Search as I may, I cannot find the FULL TEXT of what was said beyond the ellipses. All roads seem to lead to the truncated version from mfa.gov.il. Never the less, see what else Lord Caradon had to say from the A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity. Washington, D.C., Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, 1981Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in a reply to a question in Parliament, 9 December 1969: “As I have explained before, there is reference, in the vital United Nations Security Council Resolution, both to withdrawal from territories and to secure and recognized boundaries. As I have told the House previously, we believe that these two things should be read concurrently and that the omission of the word ‘all’ before the word ‘territories’ is deliberate.” –(indeed, leaving Israel as the Occupying Power over territories occupied belonging to the entity of Palestine.)–
Mr. George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, on 19 January 1970:”I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. “I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said ‘Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied’, and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.” (The Jerusalem Post, 23.1.70) –(leaving Israel as the Occupying Power over territories occupied belonging to the entity of Palestine.)–
ShortLink to this section
B. United States of AmericaMr. Arthur Goldberg, US representative, in the Security Council in the course of the discussions which preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:”To seek withdrawal without secure and recognized boundaries … would be just as fruitless as to seek secure and recognized boundaries without withdrawal. Historically, there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area. –(This is incorrect. The Arab states were recognized as Sovereign, whose borders adjoined the British Mandate Palestine 1948, BEFORE Israel Declared Sovereignty. Israel’s sovereign boundaries were recognized by the majority of the International Community of States as a Sovereign State. Evidence of their Sovereign borders is contained in the 1949/50 armistice agreements. Eg, Lebanon’s border is stated as adjoining Palestine. In 1950, Israel was no longer a part of Palestine. Did the UN simply forget?)–Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered that description… such boundaries have yet to be agreed upon. –(They were agreed upon when Israel Declared Sovereignty and was recognized. The words are: “acknowledgement of”. When Israel declared Sovereignty it acknowledged what lay outside of the borders recommended by Res 181 were not it’s own. The International Community of States agreed and acknowleged that this was Sovereign Israel, also acknowledging what was not Israeli Sovereign territory.)–An agreement on that point is an absolute essential to a just and lasting peace just as withdrawal is… ” (S/PV. 1377, p. 37, of 15. 11.67)–(The agreement of course was to be reached between the ‘states’ whose boundaries, including Israel’s, were already acknowledged by their respective Declarations and International recognition)–
President Lyndon Johnson, 10 September 1968:”We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders. Some such lines must be agreed to by the neighbours involved.” –(The USA was the FIRST country to recognize Israeli Sovereignty. In doing so, the USA, in 1948 acknowledged that anything beyond Israel’s Sovereignty was NOT Israel’s )–
Mr. Joseph Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC “Meet the Press”):”That Resolution did not say ‘withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines’. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. –(The resolution said no such thing. The word negotiate does not appear, “acknowledgement of the sovereignty [4] , territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries)– In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties.” –(“in other words” not the actual words?? The parties are ‘states’. Not the entity of Palestine)–
ShortLink to this section
Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law and Public Affairs,Yale University, who, in 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs:
a) “… Paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces ‘from territories occupied in the recent conflict’, and not ‘from the territories occupied in the recent conflict’. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word ‘the’ failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines.”(American Journal of InternationalLaw,Volume 64,September 1970, p. 69) –(leaving Israel as the Occupying Power over territories occupied belonging to the entity of Palestine. Note he says “Armistice Demarcation lines”, not borders.)–b) “The agreement required by paragraph 3. of the Resolution,the Security Council said, should establish ‘secure and recognized boundaries’ between Israel and its neighbours ‘free from threats or acts of force’, to replace the Armistice Demarcation lines established in 1949, and the cease-fire lines of June 1967. –( But it does not say ‘establish’. It says: ‘acknowledgement of’ the ‘sovereignty’ [4], territorial integrity and political independence of every ‘State’ in the area and [‘acknowlegement of’ it is the same sentence] their right to live in peace within secure and ‘recognized’ boundaries.)–The Israeli armed forces should withdraw to such lines as part of a comprehensive agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in the Resolution, and in a condition of peace.” (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 68)–(leaving Israel as the Occupying Power over territories occupied belonging to the entity of Palestine.)–
C. USSR
Mr. Vasily Kuznetsov said in discussions that preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:”… Phrases such as ‘secure and recognized boundaries’. What does that mean? What boundaries are these? –(Israel’s Sovereign boundaries were recognized by Russia in 1948)– Secure, recognized – by whom, for what? Who is going to judge how secure they are? Who must recognize them? … There is certainly much leeway for different interpretations which retain for Israel the right to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its troops only as far as the lines which it judges convenient.” (S/PV. 1373, p. 112, of 9.11.67)–(Only ‘in other words’ rather than the actual words. The states are required to establish the security of the ‘recognized’ ‘sovereign’ boundaries)–D. Brazil
Mr. Geraldo de Carvalho Silos, Brazilian representative, speaking in the Security Council after the adoption of Resolution 242:”We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure, permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighbouring States.”–( the words ‘agreed upon’ and ‘negotiated’ do not appear. The actual words are ‘acknowledgment of’ and ‘recognized’ )– (S/PV. 1382, p. 66, 22.11.67)
ShortLink to this section
What the Israeli Government did NOT include from Lord Caradon – from ‘U.N. Security Council Resolution 242: A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity. Washington, D.C., Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, 1981.’
“It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt as a matter of fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. I was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted.” (p.9)
“The principal of “inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war” is clear. That requires a “withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territories occupied in the recent conflict.” And the Resolution went on to stipulate that withdrawal should be “to secure and recognized boundaries.” (p.10)
“The attempted annexation of East Jerusalem, repeatedly and unanimously condemned in the United Nations, and the policy of creeping colonization on the West Bank and in Gaza and the Golan have threatened any prospect of settlement and peace.” (p.10)
“These actions of the Israeli Government are in clear defiance of the Resolution 242.” (p.11)
“I do not retract the phrase I used long ago about the Israeli settlements in Arab land. They are indeed “signposts of destruction.” (p.11)
————–
While the Israeli Government is deceitfully omitting important statements from the sponsor of the resolution, Lord Caradon. While folk are busy concentrating on ‘from territories occupied’ in the ‘recent conflict‘. While they add ‘negotiate borders’ where it simply does not exist. They completely over look or ignore the fact that, even if Israel was not required to withdraw from ‘all’ of ‘the’ territories ‘occupied’ in the ‘recent conflict’, any ‘territories occupied’ in the recent conflict that it did not withdraw from, would still be ‘occupied’!
‘occupied’ territories not withdrawn from do not automatically become the territory of the Occupying Power unless they are legally annexed. Until such time, the Occupying Power is in fact obliged to protect ‘occupied’ territories, infrastructure and the civilian population.
… HOME …
If you must respond, please address the points, abuse will only show you for what you are….thx
First, find out what isn't true... 
Absolute nonsense, just because SOME Palestinians wanted Jordan there in the West Bank, “it’s legal to annex” a territory the Palestinians had just ethnically cleansed of Jews ( who had a legal Mandate to settle there – see Mandate for Palestine ).
You’re full of ****.
Don’t ever become an international lawyer.
Comment by Partyforever — September 30, 2014 @ 1:40 pm
thank you. regards ruedi
Comment by Ruedi Bosshart — September 30, 2014 @ 2:16 pm
hi
can you explain this:
“( who had a legal Mandate to settle there – see Mandate for Palestine ).”
and why UN res 181 nor 273 do not mention what you’re writing.
Comment by ruedi bosshart — September 30, 2014 @ 7:18 pm
@ partyforever
A) Unlike Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem which was condemned by the UNSC (UNSC res 252 & EIGHT reminders http://wp.me/pDB7k-W8), there’s no UNSC resolution condemning the requested Jordanian annexation of what was officially re-named the West Bank!
The legal custom of requiring a referendum or agreement before annexation was passed into Customary International Law long before Israel was declared. See the annexations of Texas, Hawaii, Alaska, under which the US adopted the legal custom of requiring and agreement or referendum of the legal population of the territory to be annexed. See also the illegality of acquiring territory by force (Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States 1933 Art 11 http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897 ).
UNSC res 476 tells us “Israel” is “the Occupying Power” and in breach of Geneva Convention IV for the simple reason that the West Bank was under the legal sovereignty of Jordan, a UN Member state by 1967 and a High Contracting Power.
B) It is NORMAL for countries at war to expel or intern possible 5th columnists and to freeze their assets. The US, UK Australia expelled and/or interned their own citizens with Japanese, German, Italian heritage during WWII. It is also NORMAL to allow their release and or return and the unfreezing of their assets after hostilities.
C) 1948 Israeli Law (still current) forbade the entry of Israeli citizens or residents from entering the territory of an hostile entity. Israel prevented it’s own citizens and residents from praying in territories under Jordanian control from 1948-1967
D) Israel proclaimed it’s boundaries as being ““within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” on May 15th 1948 in its plea for recognition, No country has ever recognized any further territories as Israeli.
“who had a legal Mandate to settle there – see Mandate for Palestine”
Uh huh. Problem
A) the LoN Mandate, FOR PALESTINE, Article 7 Gave Jews the right to citizenship of PALESTINE, not Israel! http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9fb163c870bb1d6785256cef0073c89f/2fca2c68106f11ab05256bcf007bf3cb?OpenDocument
B) The mandate, according to the Israeli Govt, expired midnight May 14th 1948 http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/declaration%20of%20establishment%20of%20state%20of%20israel.aspx
“You’re full of ****”
You bring no facts to the table!
Comment by talknic — October 1, 2014 @ 11:45 pm
A) They were the majority representative. There is no UNSC condemnation for the bilateral annexation by Jordan of what was then officially renamed the West Bank. Unlike the unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem which was condemned by the UNSC (Res 252). From the moment Jordan joined the UN until 1988, when Jordan signed the Peace Treaty with Israel and handed the territory back to the PLO, the West Bank was a part of the independent State of Jordan, a UN Member, High Contracting Power to GC IV. Read UNSC res 476
B) It is NORMAL for countries at war to expel or intern possible allies of an enemy. The US, UK, Australia interned or expelled German & Japanese US/UK/Australian citizens in WW2. It is also NORMAL to allow their return when hostilities are over IF they have not taken up citizenship in a country other than that of return. If they have taken citizenship elsewhere, they no longer hold refugee status.
Comment by talknic — December 25, 2015 @ 12:51 pm
excellent!
what an impressing selection of facts.
thousands thanks talknic.
may i ask a question:
your arguing stringently that the borders of israel are according 181.
but with this resolution:
“http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/67/L.28
UN General Assembly Resolution , Palestine
Published November 29, 2012”
palestine renounces the implementation of UNGA res 181 and therefore recognises israel in the 1949 ceasefire line.(green line)
thank you in advance
ruedi bosshart
ps:
is there an earlier UN resolution foreseeing a palestinian state within the “green line borders”?
thank you.
Comment by ruedi bosshart — December 15, 2013 @ 5:53 pm
“palestine renounces the implementation of UNGA res 181”
Please quote the document.
4. Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
Until Israel legally annexes the territory between it’s proclaimed frontiers of 1948 and those of 1967, those territories are not yet Israeli. Legal annexation requires an agreement between Israel and Palestine. There isn’t one yet.
For example, the US bought Alaska from the USSR. But Alaska didn’t become US territory until later when there was an agreement. Then the US legally annexed Alaska. Same for Hawaii, same for Texas. All by agreement before annexation.. By the US adopting that legal custom for acquiring territory, the US was instrumental in the custom eventually passing into Customary International Law.
I’m not sure there is an earlier resolution foreseeing a Palestinian state within the “green line borders”
Comment by talknic — December 19, 2013 @ 7:10 pm
Please quote the document..
i don’t have one!
i was just presuming.
thanks for everything
saludos
ruedi
Comment by ruedi bosshart — December 19, 2013 @ 8:41 pm
“but with this resolution:
“http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/67/L.28
UN General Assembly Resolution , Palestine
Published November 29, 2012″
palestine renounces the implementation of UNGA res 181 and therefore recognises israel in the 1949 ceasefire line.(green line)“
A) It’s only the draft of a resolution.
B) Resolutions only mean what they actually say. Not what people wish they say.
C) No where does it renounce UNGA res 181. In fact it recalls UNGA res 1981 “Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947″ http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/67/L.28
BTW The Jewish Agency accepted UNGA res 181 and claimed it was not necessary for the Arab states to also accept it http://wp.me/pDB7k-Yx …. and UNGA res 181 is enshrined in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. In the words of the Jewish Agency and the State of Israel, UNGA res 181 is an intricate and legally necessary part of Israeli statehood.
D) The draft resolution also says “an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and
viable State of Palestine” contiguous
and it says
E) “on the basis of the pre-1967 borders“
No borders were changed under the 1949 Armistice agreements. In fact they specifically say that ” 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question. “
There has never been an ultimate settlement to the Palestine question!
Comment by talknic — October 2, 2014 @ 12:26 am
I also wish to add that Israel confirmed that their borders were those of Resolution 181. Please refer to Israels response tot he UN in UN document number S/766 “Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947. In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard. The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed.”
Please note: “The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel”.
Comment by Peter O'Connor — December 21, 2014 @ 9:44 pm
Hi Peter,
Yes, it’s remarkable what’s available to us via the Internet. A great deal more than Israel’s propagandists would like known! MORE HERE http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk
Cheers
Comment by talknic — December 22, 2014 @ 3:42 pm
Can you please confirm what you are saying here: that the only occupied territory from which Israel should withdraw is that belonging to another sovereign state? If so, which territories are included?
Comment by Walk Tall Hang Loose — November 20, 2012 @ 4:15 pm
UNSC Res 242 says “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict ”
Logic tells us that “territories occupied”, never legally annexed to Israel and never un-occupied ….. are still occupied.
“..part of another sovereign state”
Uh? UN Charter – CHAPTER XI: DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter11.shtml
Comment by talknic — November 21, 2012 @ 7:20 am
Please can you confirm my understanding of what you are saying? That the territory from which Israel should withdraw is only that occupied territory which is part of another sovereign state? And if so, what territories are included?
Comment by Walk Tall Hang Loose — November 20, 2012 @ 3:50 pm
UNSC Res 242 says “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”
“..part of another sovereign state”
Uh? UN Charter – CHAPTER XI: DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter11.shtml
Comment by talknic — November 21, 2012 @ 7:17 am
Hi Talknic, your blog site is invaluable in explaining the many legal ramifications inherent in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, for that we are deeply grateful.
page, 111:Israel exists and is recognised as a State by the international community. It cannot be extinguished by any claim to its territory, whether advanced by the Palestinians or any other entity or State. In relation to the area bounded by the 1949 armistice demarcation lines, it has a stronger claim to title than any rival, but these lines delineate its maximum territorial extent. Historically Israel did not, and consequently cannot, claim title to all of the territory of Mandate Palestine, and similarly cannot deny the exercise of Palestinian self‐determination and the attainment of independence in areas beyond these lines.
Click to access file60534.pdf
Given that Israel is defined by its acceptance of the limits of UNGA181 and its subsequent sovereign declaration of the extent of Israeli sovereignty, are you able to shed some light on the comment in sentence 3:
” In relation to the area bounded by the 1949 armistice demarcation lines, it (Israel) has a stronger claim to title than any rival, but these lines delineate its maximum territorial extent.”
Comment by odogg64 — May 1, 2012 @ 11:10 pm
Hi odogg64 …
Sure. The authors are a bit sloppy. The sentence in question was based on the premise of ” the Permanent Court of International Justice observed in the Eastern Greenland case, in litigation involving competing claims to sovereignty over territory, it is most often the case that “the tribunal has had to decide which of the two is stronger.”
The Eastern Greenland case was between two already existing independent sovereign states, Denmark V Norway and: although the dispute arose via a Norwegian proclamation declaring that it had proceeded to occupy certain territories in Eastern Greenland, it was not a military occupation agreed to under an Armistice Agreement.
The I/P conflict on the other hand, concerns an already existing independent sovereign state, Israel, and its Military Occupation of the non-self governing territory of Palestine, under Armistice Agreements. Occupying Powers must abide by the relevant Armistice Agreement/s or; on an armistice failing, the Laws of War, the UN Charter, Conventions they have ratified and relevant UNSC Resolutions OR they must reach a peace agreement.
NB: There is no mention of peace ‘in Israel’ in any UNSC Resolution. Israel has been independent of all other entities since May 15th 1948, including Palestine. The Armistices all say “peace in Palestine”. Likewise all the UNSC resolutions since Israel was declared and admitted to the UN, with the exception of UNSC Res 242. UNSC Res 242 and its associated resolutions say “lasting peace in the Middle East”. Reason being UNSC Res 242 was between already existing States, with already existing borders between them. (nowhere does it say negotiate borders)
Armistice Agreements and UNSC resolutions refer to both ‘Israel’ and ‘Palestine’. Two separate entities. There is confusion generated by the fact that the area that became Israel was renamed. What remained of Palestine after Israel was declared, has never been renamed. The West Bank is only one part of Palestine.
Further down the page “Even if resolution 181 is legally irrelevant to the creation of Israel, it is nevertheless precluded from laying claim to all of the territory of Mandate Palestine by virtue of its own actions, namely its avowal that it was only created on part of that territory and thus it was not the successor to Mandate Palestine.”
True, except UNGA res 181 is enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel, it can’t be irrelevant. The Jewish People’s council officially accepted UNGA res 181 without registering any reservation. Having accepted and declared on the basis of UNGA res 181 and having been recognized on the basis of that acceptance and declaration, Israel has no right of “consistent objection”. Where as the Palestinians being represented by the Arab States actually have the right of consistent objection extending back to the 1920’s. On that basis alone, the Palestinians actually have a stronger claim to title.
E.g., Jerusalem was never declared or recognized as Israeli and corpus separatum was never legally instituted, never split for the non-self governing territory of Palestine. This is reflected in UNSC Resolutions 252, 267, 271, 298, 465, 476, 1860. NB: UNSC res 476 “1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;”
Hope this helps
Comment by talknic — May 2, 2012 @ 9:18 am
Thanks Talknic, I am sure it will help me gain a better understanding of the legalities involved, that is after I study up on the references you have kindly supplied.
Comment by odogg64 — May 2, 2012 @ 9:53 am
Hi again,
I’ve added some bits to the prior post
Comment by talknic — May 3, 2012 @ 6:15 am
[…] reply to your board posts with this article. Take time to read it carefully. Goes very in depth UNSC Resolution 242 – did not call for negotiating borders between Israel and the Palestinians… Chock full of info and 100% direct rebuttal of your Ignorant post/s. My specialty. You […]
Pingback by Stand With Israel — May 8, 2011 @ 3:48 am
Hey CJ you should come to Huffington Post sometime. Many Hasbarats there posting so much false info. I didnt know this was your page. Ive been using it as reference for a while now.
Guy From NYC Haaretz
Reuben from NYC Haaretz
TheRock Barkat on HP
Have a look at this gentlemans page
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/Israel%20and%20the%20Arab%20Coalition%20in%2019481.html
Comment by Anonymous — November 28, 2010 @ 3:54 pm
Hasbarats…pushing their Hasbarrow’s
CJ (Concerned Jew) I started using at Haaretz while I got this together after being completely locked out from the Guardian.
Avi Shlaim has been recommended by a few people. I’ve not read or referenced his work.
So much of the Israeli narrative is propaganda, from the outset. A veritable Hasbarrage…
I have no illusions about convincing the ‘Hasbarats’. They simply don’t want to know. However by dissing their twaddle readers can be shown the holes in the holey olde Hasbara.
Comment by talknic — November 28, 2010 @ 4:49 pm
How long did the olde kingdom last?
Comment by Don — September 1, 2010 @ 4:13 am
Let’s say 3,000 minus at least 2,010 = not as long as the region known as Palestine
Comment by talknic — September 1, 2010 @ 5:07 am
“””Today, in what remains of Palestine after Israeli Independence, the people of the non-state entity of Palestine can call themselves whatever they like, even P A L E S T I N I A N S.”””
True enuf
Let’s just not confuse the leftover Arabs with a coherent national group ‘Palestinians’
Palestinianism, really just anti-Israelism.
The PLO, of course, Tellingly set up in 1964 before any “occupation”.
OOOOPS!
To ‘Liberate’ Israel from the Jews, NOT the west bank from Jordan, who had annexed it and to which the 1964 PLO Charter Renounced claims.
OOOPS!
(what an amateur Akhmed you are!)
Had the Jews not won the 1967 war there would still be no ‘Palesine’ and no ‘palestinians’.. just Jordan and the territory of Gaza ruled reluctantly by egypt, who wants nothing to do with those Thugs then or now.
So ‘palestinians’ (You gotta love that fudgy word), have Israel to thank for their new nationality/identity.
–
Comment by Joe McMullan — April 19, 2010 @ 7:57 am
“Let’s just not confuse the leftover Arabs..”
‘leftover’? Meaning?
“…with a coherent national group ‘Palestinians’ Palestinianism, really just anti-Israelism.”
Strange that they existed BEFORE the state of Israel and thus far have been able survive everything Israel has done to them, without giving up on the hope of having their own state or returning to their rightfull homeland.
Say………..wasn’t that what we Jewish folk did? Admirable no?
Meanwhile, of course they’re Anti-Israel, Israel has taken 50% of the Palestinians rightfull territories. You’d just LOVE someone to do that to you….right? Be honest. You do know how to be honest?
“The PLO, of course, Tellingly set up in 1964 before any “occupation”. OOOOPS!”
“OOOOPS!” What? Jordan ‘occupied’ between 1950 and 1967 in accordance with the armistice agreement with Israel. Was Jordan’s occupation not an occupation? Both the Palestinians and Jordan knew that eventually, Jordan would have to hand over representation to the Palestinians were they ever to have an independent state.
To ‘Liberate’ Israel from the Jews, NOT the west bank from Jordan, who had annexed it and to which the 1964 PLO Charter Renounced claims
A) Israel was no longer a part of Palestine after 14th May 1948. Palestine is the territory remaining of the non-state entity of Palestine AFTER Israel declared it’s sovereign boundaries. Read the UNSC resolutions. Does it mention peace in Israel? No it says peace in Palestine. Guess why…a clue, it has something to do with the wars being fought IN Palestine, not Israel.
B) Jordan annexed as a temporary trustee in accordance with the UN Charter regarding regional powers and their duties to protect non state entities. Same notion as the British Mandate was set up under. There was no question of needing to ‘liberate’ it from Jordan. The PLO was required to renounce all other claims in order to be able to declare independence should the occasion arise. Jordan was required to hand over control to the PLO in order for that to happen and to finally renounce all claims. Jordan has done so according to the letter of the law. Israel has not and it still occupies.
“(what an amateur Akhmed you are!)”
Your idiotspiel has no place in rational discussion.
“Had the Jews not won the 1967 war there would still be no ‘Palesine’ and no ‘palestinians’.. just Jordan..”
Jordan was asked to annex by the Palestinians in order that there be rule of law. Jordan was forced by the Arab League to annex only as a temporary trustee. http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y#Gaza-part-of-Egypt-West-Bank-part-of-Jordan
Bi-lateral annexation is legal, so there is no UNSC Resolution condemning it. Israel’s unilateral annexation of “territories occupied” was not legal. So there ARE a number of UNSC Resolutions condemning it.
“.. and the territory of Gaza ruled reluctantly by egypt..”
How odd, Egypt fought a war on behalf of the Palestinians for it. It occupied as a regional power, did not annex, did not claim Gaza, ruled according to the GC’s and Laws of War. Did not settle. Did not illegally institute it’s own civil law. Protected the people and the territories.
“..who wants nothing to do with those Thugs then or now”
Strange that they twice fought Israel over Gaza on behalf of the Palestinians isn’t it? Such is the Hasbara mind, so full of bullsh*te it can no longer think.
As for the Palestinians being thugs. Do some maths. It doesn’t lie. By far the majority of Palestinians have never lifted a finger towards anyone. By far the majority of Palestinians have NOT been suicide bombers, have not fired rockets, have never harmed ANYONE.
More simple maths — By far the majority of Palestinians today, were not alive in 1920, were very likely only babies in 1948, did not take part in any war. None elected the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, none fought in his forces for Hitler. Have never dispossessed anyone. Have taken NO THING belonging to Israel or Israelis.
“So ‘palestinians’ (You gotta love that fudgy word), have Israel to thank for their new nationality/identity”
More simple maths — Palestine and it’s people existed under different powers for longer than Israel has ever existed in ANY shape or form. Start with Palestine has existed since roman times that’s some 2,000 years…Now, how long has the modern state of Israel existed? How long did ye olde kingdom last?
Comment by talknic — April 19, 2010 @ 9:09 am
“Palestinians” [are an] Arab people No one heard of before 1967 before Israeli governments certified this piece of Propaganda…
As has been noted many times before, prior to 1948, that is before Jews had begun to call themselves Israelis, the ONLY persons known as “Palestinians” were Jews, with the Arabs much preferrring to identify themselves as part of the great Arab nation.
– David Basch
“…Palestine does not belong to the “Palestinians” and never did. They did not even call themselves Palestinians until the middle 1960s. Before that, the word “Palestinian” meant “Jewish,” while the local Arabs called themselves simply “Arabs.”
The creation of the PLO by Gamal Abdul Nasser in 1964 was a brilliant ploy to distort the parameters of the dispute, largely for propaganda purposes.
It was inconvenient to have a conflict between 20-odd Arab states with an area 530 times greater than Israel, a population more than 30 times greater than Israel’s and enormously richer natural resources.
Far better to Invent a “Palestinian” nation that would be the eternal “underdog,” – a nation consisting partly of Immigrants from Syria and other Arab countries who came to benefit from the rapidly growing economy Zionist Jews created…”
– westerndefense.org
“There is NO language known as Palestinian. – There is NO distinct Palestinian culture.
There has NEVER been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians.
Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another Recent Invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9% of the Middle East lands. Israel represents 1/10TH of 1% of the landmass.
But that’s too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today. Greed. Pride. Envy. Covetousness. No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough….””
– Joseph Farah, Arab-American journalist
So before the creation of the State of Israel, who were the Palestinians?
ANSWER:
Until 1950, the name of the Jerusalem Post was THE PALESTINE POST;
the journal of the Zionist Organization of America was NEW PALESTINE;
Bank Leumi was the ANGLO-PALESTINE BANK;
the Israel Electric Company was the PALESTINE ELECTRIC COMPANY;
there was the PALESTINE FOUNDATION FUND and…. the PALESTINE PHILHARMONIC.
All these were JEWISH organizations.
In America, Zionist youngsters sang “PALESTINE, MY PALESTINE”, “PALESTINE SCOUT SONG” and “PALESTINE SPRING SONG” In general, the terms Palestine and Palestinian referred to the region of Palestine as it was. Thus “Palestinian Jew” and “Palestinian Arab” are straightforward expressions. “Palestine Post” and “Palestine Philharmonic” refer to these bodies as they existed in a place then known as Palestine.
The adoption of a Palestinian identity by the Arabs of Palestine is a Recent phenomenon.
Until the establishment of the State of Israel, and for another Decade or so, the term Palestinian applied almost exclusively to the Jews.
– ‘Palestinians’ – The Peace FAQ
Comment by Joe McMullan — April 18, 2010 @ 8:50 pm
“Palestinians” [are an] Arab people No one heard of before 1967 before Israeli governments certified this piece of Propaganda…”
Strange, under the British mandate all citizens of Palestine were issued with papers marked Palestine. They were Palestinian, whether Arabs, Arab Muslims, Jews, Arab Jews, Christians, Christian Arabs…etc.
“As has been noted many times before, prior to 1948, that is before Jews had begun to call themselves Israelis, the ONLY persons known as “Palestinians” were Jews, with the Arabs much preferrring to identify themselves as part of the great Arab nation. – David Basch”
Perhaps David Basch or you might care to explain why Saudis also identify themselves with the Arab Nation, yet they’re still Saudi. So too Iraqi’s, Yemeni’s, Jordanians et al. Australia was once a part of the British Empire, never the less we called ourselves Australians.
“Palestine does not belong to the “Palestinians” and never did”
Strange it was a semi autonimous region under the Ottoman Empire. It was called Palestine. It’s people were Palestinians. Under the British Mandate they were clearly Palestinians. In fact the Mandate required the British to try and form a state called Palestine, where there’d be democracy, equality and folk could build wherever they liked within it’s boundaries.
The Zionist Federation demanded a Jewish state in all of Palestine and only got a part. What remained was and still is called Palestine. It’s boundaries have changed, the controlling powers have changed, the name has not. It’s people are still called Palestinians.
” They did not even call themselves Palestinians until the middle 1960s.”
What you’re trying to twist, is that they had not chosen a name for their possible future state until the mid 60’s.
” Before that, the word “Palestinian” meant “Jewish,..”
Very funny.
BTW Read the UNSC resolutions from 1948 to the mid 60’s or the present.
“.. while the local Arabs called themselves simply “Arabs.””
Palestinian Arabs actually. I still fail to see how this allows Israel to illegally acquire territories outside it’s declared Sovereign boundaries.
“The creation of the PLO by Gamal Abdul Nasser in 1964 was a brilliant ploy to distort the parameters of the dispute, largely for propaganda purposes….”
It was a natural and legal part of Jordan ending it’s legitimate trustee annexation status. The PLO became the sole representative of the Palestinian people and their territories. Essential if an entity is to eventually declare independence. The PLO has had observer status at the United Nations since 1974. That’s PALESTINE Liberation Organization.
“There is NO language known as Palestinian. – There is NO distinct Palestinian culture”
How is this relevant to Israel illegally claiming territory outside of Israel’s Sovereign boundaries?
“There has NEVER been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians.”
Quite so. Never in the history of Palestine going back to the Romans and impossible to declare independence today as long as Israel occupies. http://wp.me/pDB7k-jA There was never a ‘state’ of Israel either, only a kingdom, once, a long long time ago.
“Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another Recent Invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc.”
Oh they’re quite distinguishable. The Arabs of those countries are citizens of those countries. The Arabs of what remains of the non-state entity of Palestine are not.
“Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9% of the Middle East lands. Israel represents 1/10TH of 1% of the landmass.”
So what? We are far fewer in number than the Arabs. In fact, we’re a tiny minority in the world. May 14th 1948 we were granted an area big enough to accommodate every Jewish person on the planet even today. It was accepted on our behalves. We did not pay a penny for it. (private, corporate or institutionally owned land is not Sovereignty).
“….But that’s too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today. Greed. Pride. Envy. Covetousness. No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough….””
– Joseph Farah, Arab-American journalist”
A) Israel has never made any concessions. Returning illegally acquired territory is not a concession, it’s a requirement of law.
B) The voice of a single Arab-American Journalist does not change the actual wording of the numerous UNSC Resolutions, the armistice agreements, the Peace Agreements or the actual Sovereign boundaries of Israel.
C) We can see by actual actions who is coveting other folk’s lands. No Arab state has anything of Israel’s. Israel has on the other hand illegally acquired Syrian territory and territories of the non-state entity of Palestine. http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y#look
“So before the creation of the State of Israel, who were the Palestinians?
Everyone who was a citizen of Palestine!
“Until 1950, the name of the Jerusalem Post was THE PALESTINE POST”
Amazing, it was in PALESTINE I guess.
“the journal of the Zionist Organization of America was NEW PALESTINE”
Wasn’t in Palestine, it was an American outfit. Never the less PALESTINE seems to indicate there was such an entity as PALESTINE.
“Bank Leumi was the ANGLO-PALESTINE BANK”
Amazing..ANGLO-PALESTINE ? WOW! Was it in PALESTINE by any chance?
“the Israel Electric Company was the PALESTINE ELECTRIC COMPANY”
The Palestine Electric Company was situated in the area that became Israel, of course it had a name change. Prior to that, it was a concession granted to Pinhas Rutenberg, to supply electricity to all of PALESTINE….
“there was the PALESTINE FOUNDATION FUND and…. the PALESTINE PHILHARMONIC.
All these were JEWISH organizations.”
Incredible..I guess they were in PALESTINE at the time. But what have they to do with Israel’s actual Sovereign territories and what it has illegally acquired outside of those boundaries since declaring them?
“In America, Zionist youngsters sang “PALESTINE, MY PALESTINE”, “PALESTINE SCOUT SONG” and “PALESTINE SPRING SONG””
Seems to indicate that there was a place called PALESTINE!!!
“The adoption of a Palestinian identity by the Arabs of Palestine is a Recent phenomenon”
Actually it’s not. Never the less, what should they call themselves and who has any say in the matter?
“Until the establishment of the State of Israel, and for another Decade or so, the term Palestinian applied almost exclusively to the Jews.
– ‘Palestinians’ – The Peace FAQ”
Very interesting twaddle…The history of the British Mandate tells us otherwise. The Balfour Declaration, the White Papers and all the UNSC resolutions since 1948 tell us there was such a place as Palestine and it’s people, Palestinians.
Today, in what remains of Palestine after Israeli Independence, the people of the non-state entity of Palestine can call themselves whatever they like, even P A L E S T I N I A N S.
None of what you have conveyed changes the Law. None of what you have conveyed changes Israel’s Sovereign Boundaries. None of what you have conveyed justifies the illegal acquisition of other folk’s territories outside of Israel’s Sovereign boundaries.
It’s all fluff and huff and puff in order to justify the usurping of the Palestinians from their rightfull territories.
Comment by talknic — April 19, 2010 @ 6:15 am
Your an IDIOT!
Comment by Anonymous — December 12, 2011 @ 5:14 am
What a remarkably erudite and information laden statement on your part. Filled with facts.
BTW That’d be “You are an IDIOT!” i.e, You’re an IDIOT!
Comment by talknic — December 12, 2011 @ 12:28 pm
Quoting above::
“””When Israel Declared Sovereignty 14th May 1948, what was left of the non-state entity of Palestine was still called Palestine. The area of the territory has changed, who has had control over it has changed, but the name has not changed since at least the end of the Ottoman Empire. It is still called Palestine. The people who live in Palestine are Palestinians.”””””
So according to YOU, ‘palestine/stinians’ are “what was left”..
NOT a coherent people.. YOUR WORDS… “What was left”.
Comment by Joe McMullan — April 18, 2010 @ 8:46 pm
Uh? You quote my words, then go on to say something different of them.
THIS is what I wrote “..what was left of the non-state entity of Palestine was still called Palestine”
Your rhetoric is the typical puke from someone trying to demean the Palestinians and justify the illegal acquisition of their territories.
Never the less, let’s look at what you’re trying to say… That somehow, because the Palestinians are in what was left of the entity after Israel declared, they are some how inferior? Not a coherent people?
Folk who’re that desperate to be-little the Palestinians, perhaps you should consider a shrink……
Comment by talknic — April 19, 2010 @ 3:56 am
No.
Israel obliged itself to uphold International Law. http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y
:-)
Comment by talknic — January 29, 2010 @ 7:38 am
Hi CJ,
I have heard the following argument before by many people, could you please tell me whether this argument has any merit?
Some folks say “legality” shouldn’t apply to Israel, since Israel has formidable power in the world. So, Palestinians might as well forget about the legalities of land and negotiate on what it’s left now.
Do you think this argument has any merit?
Thanks.
Comment by Anonymous — January 28, 2010 @ 6:14 pm
Hi there again (name?
‘CJ’ is short for Concerned Jew (of the atheist kind)
I think some of the ‘Israeli’ apologists are already crazy. Not all are Israeli or Jewish either.
Yes, there is heaps of stuff out there and it is a very confusing issue. What with Israel’s actual Sovereign Territories, Occupied Palestinian Territories, Occupied Jerusalem, disputed territories and of course heaps of propaganda.
The Jewish Virtual Library has a lot of information and a lot of biased ‘interpretations’ using ‘other words’, at least they have accurate source documents. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/
The Israeli Government also has accurate documents, but again with biased ‘interpretations’ http://www.mfa.gov.il
The Knesset http://www.knesset.gov.il/main/eng/home.asp
Likewise the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs http://www.jcpa.org/art/knesset6.htm
The International Committee of the Red Cross for ‘explanations’ of the Geneva Conventions & Treaties http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/TOPICS?OpenView
If you want the actual reports from the IAEA on Iran http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml
Comment by talknic — November 24, 2009 @ 7:42 am
Hi Talknic, thanks for your post. I really appreciate it. That Yale link you posted seems a very good resource. I will look into in more detail.
Actually, I always liked your comments on Haaretz and I always read your comments. The other day, you posted a link in Haaretz commentary section, and I followed that link and got here. I believe, you go by the name “CJ” there.
I wanted to get a hold of you since you seemed very reasonable man! guess I am already here. :-)
I tried to google this stuff, but since I am not a law person, I get really confused with so many websites telling me different things.
Thanks for your offer to help me, I will definitely come to your page more often, and tell my friends to come here. your page seems very resourceful.
PS: I love how you drive Israeli apologists crazy. LOOOOOL. :D
Comment by Anonymous — November 24, 2009 @ 6:53 am
Hi talknic, great posts. You seem to know a lot about international law. May I ask which books on international law you have read, maybe I will read them too. Thanks.
Comment by Anonymous — November 23, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
Hi there,
Gawks. I’m no legal expert, just really interested in seeing what is actually there. It’s complex and requires a lot of time, patience and cross referencing. I used to have books piled on books piled on books. I’ve given most away.
Now I travel a lot, so do it all on the internet. Keep a good bookmark index or file system. For example, a good repository for resolutions on the I/P issue is at Yale http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/mideast.asp
Perhaps the best advice is to NOT use news services and cross check what people assert. Read really carefully what is actually written. In other words, no ‘in other words’ :-)
Laws & resolutions are written as accurately as humanly possible in order that there is only one interpretation. Some folk will say, but there are many interpretations. An interpretation is an explanation of the words that are actually used. Every word and every tiny bit of punctuation is important. You cannot change the words of a law to explain it.
Resolution 242 is a good example. The resolution itself contains all one needs to know. I can’t believe the ignorance displayed by some of the folk I’ve cited in this article.
As I’ve pointed out, Res 242 is not between Israel & the Palestinians, it’s between Israel and the Arab states. The resolution itself says ‘states’ and there is no mention of ‘negotiating borders’.
‘negotiating borders’ are ‘in other words’ which completely change the meaning of the resolution. ‘negotiating borders’ not an interpretation of what IS there, it’s an attempt to change the meaning in order to justify a preconceived notion.
Google. If you’re really interested and want help, I’ll be happy to answer what questions I can…
Take care
Comment by talknic — November 23, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
Israel indeed accepted Res 181 and the Arabs did not and aggressed Israel. The land (East Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza) were indeed ‘illegally” occupied by Jordan and Egypt and the fact that there might not have been a specific UNSC resolution condemning them is completely irrelevent. Only 2 countries recognized that annexation G-Britain and Pakistan. Meaning no one else nor the UN did accept it. Besides scores of other illegal acts contrary to international law committed by many countries and regimes are totaly ignored by the UN. I suppose that an unprovoked attack on a UN member state by other member states is an illegal act in itself regardless of the UN’s handling (or ignoring) of the case. UN’s neglect to address a specific case does not authomatically make an illegal act legal! What was the pan-Arab onslaught on Israel meant to achieve if not the liquidation of the Jewish state? There intention was thus to invade Israel’s territory proper. They didn’t succeed and the armistice agreements lead to the legally recognized incorporation of the by Israel gained territory into Israel. The extensive even obsessive condemnations of Israel in the UN, while a huge quantity of world much serious problems are just ignored, only reflexts its moral bankrupcy. It’s run by corrupted members and represented by a majority of rogue states, dictatorships, oligarchies etc.
Comment by Michael Dar — October 8, 2009 @ 8:50 am
I’ll take the time and effort to answer your questions to the best of my ability, with evidence, most of which I have already covered in the various sections of this site. I’d appreciate it if you’d A) answer my questions, B) provide evidence for your assertions…thx
“Israel indeed accepted Res 181 and the Arabs did not and aggressed Israel”
Question) What actual Sovereign territory of Israel’s did the arab states attack? Remember, Israel accepted res 181 and declared SOVEREIGNTY. Sovereignty requires a set of defined borders. Israel’s Sovereign territory was recognized by the majority of the International Community of States, over riding the Arab states objections (democracy at work)
“The land (East Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza) were indeed ‘illegally” occupied by Jordan and Egypt and the fact that there might not have been a specific UNSC resolution condemning them is completely irrelevent.
‘might not’? WAS NOT! And it is completely relevant. Why was there not one? Did they forget? The answer is of course in the law.
Question) What makes Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories legal and the occupation by Jordan and Egypt illegal? Can you point it out in law? Israel and Jordan signed an armistice AGREEMENT, leaving Jordan occupying the West bank.
As it says ON THIS PAGE; The UN doesn’t care which power is in control of a non-state entity at the end of hostilities, as long as they adhere to the UN Charter, the Laws of War and the Geneva Conventions.
Israel has not. Both Egypt and Jordan did. Neither built illegal settlements. Neither claimed any of the territories for their own. Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only. It was legal because it was in agreement with the Palestinians.
“Only 2 countries recognized that annexation G-Britain and Pakistan.Meaning no one else nor the UN did accept it. “
Legality and recognition are two separate issues. For example, UN Member states are not obliged to recognize other UN Member states. Yet states, not recognized by some, are legal, sovereign, entities.
A) How many have recognized Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem?
B) Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem was condemned and called illegal by the UNSC.
“Besides scores of other illegal acts contrary to international law committed by many countries and regimes are totaly ignored by the UN.”
You’ll be able to put them up. Yes? You’ll very likely find they’re condemned. Action might not be taken because of the power of veto in the UNSC or because UNGAR cannot get a resoultion passed asking the UNSC to take action.
“I suppose that an unprovoked attack on a UN member state by other member states is an illegal act in itself regardless of the UN’s handling (or ignoring) of the case.”
Indeed. So too when a UNSC member vetos a resolution calling for action. The law remains, the obligation to uphold it remains. Only action is prevented.
UN’s neglect to address a specific case does not authomatically make an illegal act legal!”
QUite. Israel’s 223 UNSC resolutions for example.
” What was the pan-Arab onslaught on Israel meant to achieve if not the liquidation of the Jewish state? There intention was thus to invade Israel’s territory proper.”
What actual Sovereign Israeli territory did they attack?
“..the armistice agreements lead to the legally recognized incorporation of the by Israel gained territory into Israel.”
You’re spouting propaganda. It is illegal to acquire territory by war. The only way a territory can be acquired is by LEGAL annexation. Legal annexation requires a treaty or agreement.
” The extensive even obsessive condemnations of Israel in the UN”
It keeps breaking the law and NOT adhering to it’s obligations. All the UN asks is that it adhere to it’s VOLUNTARY obligations. Most of the 223 UNSC resolutions against Israel are only reminders.
“while a huge quantity of world much serious problems are just ignored, only reflexts its moral bankrupcy.”
Er no. Your statement reflects your ignorance and bias.
” It’s run by corrupted members and represented by a majority of rogue states, dictatorships, oligarchies etc.”
The actual membership statistics prove you wrong!
——-
Thus far, you have brought nothing of substance to the discussion, except the same tired old propaganda and fallacies
Comment by talknic — October 10, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
Congratulation nice homework! If I may I would like to stress that Judea, Samaria and Gaza were not lands belonging to any sovereign state, in fact they were illegally conquered and occupied by Jordan and Egypt after their illegal aggression of 1948 against the sovereign and recognized state of Israel. At best those lands could eventually be qualified as un-alloted lands (since Arabs refused the UN partitian plan)pending a negociated, peaceful, agreed-upon, guarantied final peace deal; over which Israel has a better claim than anyone else, as enforced by the League of Nations, recognizing the historic right of the Jews to re-build their national homeland on all of the region known as Palestine and of course the law of war regarding (Arab) aggressions and their territorial consequences. The real question is if the International community is committed and willing to strictly stick to previous legal rulings, or just ignore them to conveniently accomodate new realities. In case which rule of law becomes absolete and replaced with anarchy.
Comment by Michael Dar — October 7, 2009 @ 9:07 am
Michael Dar — October 7, 2009
“If I may I would like to stress that Judea, Samaria and Gaza were not lands belonging to any sovereign state”
Irrelevant. They did not belong to Israel either. Israel agreed they were not Israeli when it accepted the borders recommended in res 181, Declaring Sovereignty over ONLY the territories defined by those boundaries and was subsequently recognized by the MAJORITY of the International Community of States (democracy at work) by those boundaries. The International Community of States over-rode the Arab states objections and Israel was recognized as a Sovereign state.
What remained, were the territories of two non-state entities. An area for a potentially neutral Jerusalem and the territories represented by the Arab states (the Palestinian territories). Israel agreed to this when it declared. The corpus separatum was not instituted by the UN. Jerusalem remained legally within the non-state entity of Palestine.
UNSC res 242 tells us it is inadmissible to ‘acquire’ territory by war/force, (aggressive or defensive). Acquisition is different from a Sovereign re-claiming sovereign territory (see Stephen M. Schwebel – Judge of International Court of Justice http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y#JFNA). The acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible because it is A) Illegal. It is illegal because B) the civilian population may not have voted for, or even been able to vote for, the regime in power when war was waged. It is the very basis of the Geneva Conventions protecting civilians and their territory. 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.”
A state, sovereign or otherwise, can only acquire territories outside it’s boundaries by legal annexation. Legal annexation is only by treaty or agreement. Treaties and agreements are by their nature bilateral.
” in fact they were illegally conquered and occupied by Jordan and Egypt”
Can you show any evidence of this alleged illegality? Perhaps a UNSC resolution condemning them? Should be easy, yes? Fact is, there is no condemnation because the Arab States had every right to protect the territories of the non-state entities from Israeli aggression. AND Israel AGREED to Jordan occupying what became the West Bank. Read the armistice AGREEMENT.
” after their illegal aggression of 1948 against the sovereign and recognized state of Israel.”
Can you show any evidence of this alleged illegal aggression? Perhaps a UNSC resolution condemning the Arab States Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine? Perhaps you can tell me what actual Sovereign Israeli territory was attacked by the Arab states.
Jewish forces launched a preemptive civil war in the months preceding May 14th 1948. From the moment Israel was declared independent from the non-state entity of Palestine, what was a civil war became a war waged by Israel (a state) against a non-state. If you’d care to read the UN Charter, you’ll find that the Arab States, as regional Powers, had a right to invade PALESTINE in order to protect non-Israeli territories from what became Israeli aggression the moment Israel inherited those Jewish forces OUTSIDE of it’s newly declared Sovereign boundaries
“At best those lands could eventually be qualified as un-alloted lands (since Arabs refused the UN partitian plan)”
The MAJORITY of the International Community of States over-rode the Arab states objections and recognized Israel as a Sovereign State, by the borders it accepted in res 181, which is enshrined in the Declaration of a Jewish state. What lay outside of those Sovereign territories was NOT Israeli.
“…pending a negociated, peaceful, agreed-upon, guarantied final peace deal;”
Says nothing of this in the Israeli Declaration OR in any recognition afforded by the MAJORITY of the Community of States OR in it’s acceptance into the United Nations OR in UNGA res 181. NOR is any ‘negotiation’ mentioned anywhere in UNSC Res 242.
“..over which Israel has a better claim than anyone else, as enforced by the League of Nations, recognizing the historic right of the Jews to re-build their national homeland on all of the region known as Palestine..”
‘fraid not. The league of nations mandate says nothing about a state “on all” of the region known as Palestine. In fact its says this, verbatim Article 7 The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
” and of course the law of war regarding (Arab) aggressions and their territorial consequences.”
UNSC res 242 and Laws of War. Art. 55. tell us it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war/force, (aggressive or defensive). Reason being that the civilian population may not have voted for, or even been able to vote for, the regime in power when war was waged. It is the very basis of the Geneva Conventions protecting civilians and their territory.
“The real question is if the International community is committed and willing to strictly stick to previous legal rulings, or just ignore them to conveniently accomodate new realities. In case which rule of law becomes absolete and replaced with anarchy.”
Save your silly notions for playschool. It has been Israel who has ignored the law and some 223 UNSC resolutions which are all based in Law. Israel has only been protected from any action being taken by the US veto vote in the UNSC, this in no way negates the law or Israel’s obligations to adhere to it. Which is why there are 223 UNSC resolutions against Israel, most of which are reminders of the UNSC resolutions it has not adhered to.
You have brought no evidence at all to this discussion. This site is dedicated to showing primary source documents and their EXACT wording. It would afford you to read it and learn instead of propagating fallacies.
Comment by talknic — October 7, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
Bravo. Very well done. I appreciate the level-headed and fact-based approach. Keep up the good work.
Comment by mark t. — August 29, 2010 @ 6:18 am
Thanks.
Feel free to add any information. I’ll gladly incorporate it.
Comment by talknic — August 29, 2010 @ 7:32 am
[…] 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 224. […]
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 @ 5:28 am
[…] Ladies and Gentlemen, All of Israel wants peace. Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. LIE 32: It was demanded that Israel withdraw from Sovereign Egyptian territory Res 242 […]
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 25, 2009 @ 3:57 pm