Arutz Sheva is an Israeli news service associated with the settler movement.
I find former pastor, turned politician and political commentator, Mike Huckabee’s recent statements in Jerusalem quite inflammatory and incredibly uninformed. I am an evangelical pastor volunteering for 3 months in Israel/Palestine with an international Christian organization called Ecumenical Accompaniment Program for Palestine and Israel. Let me share my perspective of a few of Mr. Huckabee’s statements based on the “facts on the ground” as I understand them here in Israel/Palestine.
Huckabee: “My question is how would the government of the United States feel if Prime Minister Netanyahu began to dictate which people could live in the Bronx, which ones could live in Manhattan, and which could live in Queens. The Jewish settlers' have the right to build anywhere in the place that God gave them.”
There is a semblance of logic here but East Jerusalem is not Israel’s territory to control. It is territory which it occupied by force in 1967 and illegally annexed as part of Israeli Jerusalem soon after its conquest. True, the US might not like being told who can build in the Bronx or Queens, but that analogy doesn’t apply here. It is more like the New York National Guard invading Newark, New Jersey, annexing it as part of New York City, and then severely restricting the residents in any construction while a flood of New Yorkers invaded with official support and few building limitations. Iraq conquered Kuwait by force of arms and felt it had every right to relocate Iraqi civilian population into Kuwait City but the US and the world community did not take too kindly to that whole scenario. Oh, and by the way, such a right of Jews to build wherever they want in this occupied territory is ILLEGAL. The Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory, states very clearly that “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
Huckabee: “If Palestinians want an independent state, they should seek it from Arabs — not Israel. There are vast amounts of territory that are in the hands of Muslims, in the hands of Arabs.”
The aspiration of Palestinian nationhood is not based on a request to Israel to magnanimously give up a chunk of its sovereign territory to provide space for a Palestinian nation. It is based on international law calling upon the state of Israel to relinquish territory they have occupied and controlled by force of arms. Israel’s very right to exist is based on the UN mandate to partition Palestine, granting Israel nationhood with boundaries established through the negotiated armistice of 1948. They have no international right to control the occupied Palestinian Territories. If those occupied territories were returned to the former sovereign control of Egypt in the case of Gaza, and Jordan in the case of the West Bank, then we would be talking about calling upon Arab countries to release these territories for a Palestinian state. It is the height of injustice and ignorance to suggest that Palestinians vacate a land that they have occupied for hundreds and hundreds of years to give way to the State of Israel, the vast majority of whose population has come to this region in the last 100 years. Such a suggestion means that the 1.5 million in Gaza and 2.5 million in West Bank would follow in the footsteps of the 700,000 who fled as refugees from the area mandated for Israel in 1948.
Huckabee: “This place is the place that God gave them."
As a fellow pastor I believe I understand what Mr. Huckabee means when he talks about this being Israel’s “God given land”, but my understanding of a just, loving and merciful God would never relegate the 4 million Palestinians who are indigenous to this area to the dust pile of history to make way for the nation of Israel. It is my belief that God not only cares about the Israeli people but He also passionately cares for and walks among this gracious, industrious and determined Palestinian people.
It is most alarming to me that Mike Huckabee, who at one time had his eye on the Oval Office and may yet again, would make such uninformed, provocative and unconstructive statements in the midst of this tension filled area. May it be that more knowledgeable, balanced and productive voices from America be raised up.
Wayne Smith has been a pastor at Praise Covenant Church in Tacoma, Washington for the past 10 years.
“The right of Jews to live anywhere in the land of Israel.”
Why don’t Palestinians have that right ? And why isn’t it called Palestine?
Glen Beck is on TV now telling you and his audience why: that the Egyptian situation is “not a matter of a government policy issue, but a matter of EVIL”. MB is evil, and HAMAS is a spawn of the MB. “It’s a matter of black and white.” There’s no issue: He says polls show the American people support Israel by a wide margin, and most don’t even want any foreign aid going to the Palestinians where HAMAS is in charge.
The number one Republican candidate. That says a lot about the sorry state of the Republican party.
Thank you Wayne. Pat Buchanan famously called the US Congress “Israeli-occupied territory”, but if Huckabee is elected US President, the settlers will clearly have one of their own in 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
He doesn’t have a hope in hell of being elected President. Palin is a liability and compared to Huckabee she is a lefty.
I met a crowd of Christian Zionists in Lausanne and they are freaks waiting for Jesus to come back down to earth in line with the book of Revelations in order to destroy the Jewish people in the Rapture. This stuff is extremist and is no base upon which to win the White House. Huckabee is going to be savaged if he gets anywhere near the nomination. Which he won’t.
I heard that in the end days jews can convert and rapture up too. Imagine what the zionists really think of useful tools such as Huckabee.
The Rapture business is a reminder of the undisguised racist anti-Semitism of its believers, happy to sacrifice Arabs (including fellow Christians) now, and Jews in the future. White racists like Huckabee believe they are using Zionist Jews for their ends at the same time Zionist Jews believe they are using white racists for their ends. Our media would have us believe that there is equilibrium in this freakish equation.
seafoid, what were you doing at Laussanne? curious Christian asking.
ana saakin fi Swisra
Those Christian Zionists were the most repulsive people I have ever met outside Israel. I asked about human rights and they said g-d had destroyed the Jewish people in the Shoah for unfaithfulness and he would destroy the Palestinians too.
Huckabee makes my skin crawl; I wanna puke every time I listen and see him. His mouth movements remind me of Gomer Pyle’s. Thank lucky coincidence I was born in a country with some semblence of separation of church and state.
I wonder if would be fun to have a group of people tailing Huckabee around in his Iowa and New Hampshire campaign appearances, pointing out that the good former reverend has become a spokesman for a bunch of bellicose racists–who not coincidentally have nothing but contempt for American Christians. Such small groups always catch press attention and get their message out.
See my posts below.
>> Huckabee: “ … The Jewish settlers’ have the right to build anywhere in the place that God gave them.”
>> There is a semblance of logic …
The moment Hucksterbee invokes gawd, any semblance of logic is lost.
Then again, maybe gawd thinks that the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians was “necessary” to create “a good in the world”.
He sure looks like he’s been getting educated with much aipac meat and gravy.
well technically Israel doesn’t have the right to decide that any where in palestine. international law hasn’t recognized unilateral annexations since before WW2. there is a reason at munich the british pushed for the cheks to agree to give up their land.
pjdude
” international law hasn’t recognized unilateral annexations since before WW2. ”
In the interest of precision, three points.
1) When the majority of nations have ratified an International Convention, it becomes Customary International Law.
2) Annexation has been Customary International Law since the 1800′s. (see the annexation of Texas by the US)
3) There is a ‘twist’ to legal annexation.
A) It requires a referendum of the citizens of the territory being annexed to first agree to want to be annexed. (see the US annexation of Texas)
B) Annexation upon an agreement is then unilateral if the territories are to become sovereign to an independent annexing party. I.e., independent of the previous or any other entity.
perhaps i should have said unilateral annexation without the consent of those whose land is being annexed
Actually, a unilateral annexation, as was Israel’s of both the West Bank and the Golan Heights, is a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention, as is the settlement enterprise. So nothing Israel has done as an occupying power in the WB, EJ and GH is legal. But, they have only been the occupying power for 44 years so they may need time to sort it all out. On the other hand, the US was the conquering occupying power of three facist countriews: Italy, Germany and Japan and took only 5-7 years to sort it all out and leave each with reasonably stable democracies that have stood the test of some 60 years. No settlements, no annexations, just get it done and get out, as we did. One of the high water marks of American civilization.
Pardon my cynicism, I’ve had my first martini.
Lets not forget that just a few months ago the chief rabbi of the right wing Shas party, part of Netanyahu’s coaliton, declared that the only function of the “goyim” (his word, not mine) was to serve the Jews. Interestingly enough, there was no outcry from the Jews of Israel or the U.S. or any outcry from the “goyim” in Congress who constantly serve Israel at the expense of their own country.
Guess that Huckabee has no problem being a servant. He does his job well.
I ain’t worried. It won’t happen. The republicans need a competent (is there such a thing?) fiscal conservative, not a bible thumper like Bush but worse – again: is there such a thing possible?!.
The republicans need a money guy who’s also a tough guy but appears not a war guy, certainly not a god guy (they just had one for eight years and it’s too soon to wear same mask/brand).
The republican eggheads know they need a money guy and Hucks ain’t ‘money’ exactly.
But hey… it’s a free(ish) country – let him get up there on the big stage, let him play that stupid bass/base with two fingers.
No effing sweat! And like as if those israeli guys in the video get to decide for real on anything like that; that what THEY WANT counts for more than what the Connecticut republicans deem is in the interest of their fortunes and stocks portfolios.
Very few republican millionaires trust Huckie with their money interests. It boils down to this.
So… like… Phil is fearmongering?
romney is a natural for old school conservatives but he’s mormon. christianistas don’t like mormons. the gop ticket is doomed w/out the christians, there are just not enough of them.
If you don’t want to cry about our democracy, at least the republican primary season should be good for a few laughs.
I live in Iowa so I’ll get to see all these bozos first hand and up close (shiver).
I should add–when these folks starting coming to Iowa small towns like mine, they generally only draw 25 or so people at the outset. I live in a town of c. 25,000 and each one of these pimps will visit 5 or 6 times.
I think I’ll round up some of my buddies to hand out leaflets/picket at Brother Huck’s events. I’m thinking of handouts that would detail the plight of the Palestinian Christian community–maybe with some quotes from the Christian mayor of Bethlehem about the effects of the occupation on his city. I think that would really resonate with many of his Christian supporters here in Iowa.
I like it a lot. There’s a lot of talent on this side, so it shouldn’t be hard to get good leaflets produced for pretty much nothing. This could be one of the big political stories of this fall.
The Des Moines Register is a pretty good newspaper and covers the caucuses extensively, generally assigning a reporter to each candidate. While Des Moines is 120 miles south of here, the newspaper is religiously followed by the national press corps (or corpse) for issues, events, the “feel” of the candidates, insights into the locals, etc., etc.
I would be very enthused if the Register would pick up on this, and will try to make it an issue here locally.
great idea pineywoodslim.
Les, in a word, No.
No, no, no, no, no.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
I think Huckabee’s beliefs regarding Israel are horrible, but that doesn’t make him a racist. He’s a fundamentalist/literalist, and that’s why he thinks as he does. There are many African-Americans who think the same way. Recently, ironically enough, I spoke to an American Indian who supported Israel all the way–and I happen to know that he’s also a fundamentalist. A very nice guy, by the way. His theology on this matter is askew and it leads him to bad results.
I’m frustrated by it, too, believe me!
“I think Huckabee’s beliefs regarding Israel are horrible, but that doesn’t make him a racist. He’s a fundamentalist/literalist, and that’s why he thinks as he does. ”
This doesn’t matter very much. Yes, he believes as he does because crackpot beliefs that make him disregard the rights of Palestinians–it doesn’t much matter that the beliefs are religious rather than some pseudoscientific gibberish about race. Though it would not surprise me if he does harbor some beliefs about Arabs being naturally violent as sons of Ishmael.
Racism and religious bigotry are similar in their practical effects on how people think and act towards the unfavored “Other”.
I’m making a distinction between those who are predisposed toward loving others and yet who make mistakes because they’re holding on to incorrect theological beliefs and those who have completely cut free from any type of love for other people and have decided only to think of themselves/their group.
You’re right, in one sense–the Other suffers the same at the hands of the former and the latter. But in another sense it does matter–when we assign guilt and responsibility we typically do look at motivation.
I’m not saying I know that Huckabee, deep down, is a person who genuinely attempts to love other people, however messed up that love gets in its execution. But I don’t feel that we should conclude he’s a racist simply because of what seems to be his unconditional support for Israel. (And I believe the same thing about Jews who unconditionally support Israel–that we can’t really know what’s motivating them on the basis of the information we’ve been given.)
Also, one can think that people groups (“races,” if you will) differ on various traits and still not use such information as grounds for hate or even haughtiness. For example, if an African-American felt that in all likelihood his fellow (West) African-Americans were indeed better sprinters than European-Americans, such a person won’t necessarily, inevitably begin hating/despising the Other. Hate is still a choice.
Implicitly, your arguments suggest that if the facts came down the pike in a certain way then hatred of one’s fellow men in fact would be justified. Yes, I’ll admit, this gets complicated, and I can’t parse all my thoughts on this matter. I guess it might be true that some “factual” beliefs about others probably aren’t congruous with loving them. So I guess it all depends on what facts (or “facts”) we’re talking about. (And, no, I don’t believe that Arabs are naturally more violent than other groups, by the way.)
Wishing death to both Arabs and Jews sounds like racist anti-Semitism to me. Rapture justifies such racism. Racists will turn to Christian Rapture or whatever justification.How many Rapture believing African-Americans and Indians support the ethnic cleansing of Arabs, including Christian Arabs? Ethnic cleansing is racist and when its victims are Arabs it is anti-Semitic racism, whether its supporters claim justification because of Rapture or because of Zionism.
I like Huckabee clearly intending in being in the Republican mix. If the Tea Party people are anything they see themselves as patriots. So let the Republican party, already in the midst of a fight essentially with same, start to deal with its folks like Huckabee who, while just visiting Israel I believe, went about calling for us to release Jonathan Pollard … so as to prove to Israel we are its friend.
The idiocy here is so blinding it’s hard to believe even the most faithful of the Republicans aren’t going to be insulted by same. Not to mention perhaps realizing that Huckabee—a pastor—is obviously lying about his reasoning why he wants Pollard released: It ain’t to prove anything to Israel, instead he simply wants Jonny-boy released so as to corral one more jew into Israel so the End Times can commence.
Let the contradictions fester I say. Or let the Republican Party shrink itself even further to representing only Southern Baptists. More’s the better….
we are friends with a family who was campaigning for Huckabee at the last election. our families became friends and i told him very candidly Huckabee believed in ethnic cleansing and asked him how he justified his support for H? several months after this encounter he hosted a university screening of “With God On Our Side” a film exposing Christian Zionist support for Israel and the cost Palestinian Muslims and Christians pay for this. this year he has promised me he is not campaigning for H. he is a twice published Christian author, professor and blogger. small victory, but i am still grateful for it. nip those crazy ideas in the bud.
Horray Lydda!
I just love those one-on-one victory stories!
awesome to the 9th!
“i told him very candidly Huckabee believed in ethnic cleansing and asked him how he justified his support for H? ”
jut about every American president believed in, tolerated or actively promoted and justified ethnic cleansing, so H would fit right in. Glad to hear some American Christians are coming around to see there might be something wrong with this? Better late than never
Glad to hear some American Christians are coming around to see there might be something wrong with this? Better late than never.
Did you miss a word? Did you mean to say American Christian Zionists? Because I can assure you that there are American Christians that KNOW that ethnic cleansing is wrong, and they aren’t just “coming around” to see this now.
OMG(oodness) “the land of Israel”
How smoothly it rolls off the tongues of the Greater Israel propagandistas
It makes one wanna reach for a puke bucket
The ‘land of Israel’ is the territory legally within it’s sovereignty. The territory legally within it’s sovereignty is today the same as when Israel was declared. link to wp.me
how is the land that Israel declared its and in its “sovreign” borders legally theirs. by ISrael’s creation annexation through warfare was prohibited by custemary internatioal law
Its seems like he is calling for the resettlement of millions of people based on their….ethnicity? religion?
“If Palestinians want an independent state, they should seek it from Arabs — not Israel. There are vast amounts of territory that are in the hands of Muslims, in the hands of Arabs.”
I can remember a little old called Helen Thomas being accused of saying something like that. Although she clarified that she hoped both people would live in peace….it didnt stop just about everyone, press secretaries, blogs, newspapers, doctors, roofers, heck even the President of the United States from chimming in to say that type of talk is beyond the pale, not acceptable, etc.
Of course we all know that no one in the mainstream press will take Huckabee up on what he said. Talking about resettling Arabs just doesn’t raise alarms in the US.
Theres a lesson somewhere in there.
it the arrogance of Israel and its supporters. the palestinians should be given other people property because those that stole it don’t want to give it up. the thugs like huckabee need to understand the palestinians should get palestine because it is rightfully theirs
pjdude
I don’t understand your lower casing of ‘p’alestine, ‘p’alstinians… ? link to wp.me
Huckabee: “This place is the place that God gave them.”
I am not sure if this would be accepted by a title search.
One of the least clear things in the Bible is how God had any right to give Kana’an to Jews. Apparently, the place had plenty of conventional owners. Not surprisingly, there is a paucity of documentation.
While there is a pile of cuneiform tablets showing that Lord Ashur gave Kana’an to Assyrians, Lord Marduk to Babylonians, Lord Osyris to Egyptians and Ahura Mazda to Persians. Roman Emperors simplified the process, being Divine themselves.
In any case, details are available in
Amazon.com: Complete Idiot’s Guide to Biblical Mysteries
www.amazon.com › … › Fun Facts › Curiosities & Wonders – Cached -Similar
I did a longer piece on Huckabee’s outrageous statements last Thursday but it didn’t make the cut here at Mondoweiss–probably too long or buried by the Egypt crisis. It’s on my blog at irishmoses.com. Here’s the link: “Governor Huckabee’s Chosen People”.
For those still interested, I discuss at some length:
• How Huckabee’s recognizing the validity of Jewish settlement rights throughout “the biblical Land of Israel” would create a Old Testament argument that Jews can invade and settle all of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and a good portion of Iraq up to the Euphrates River. There’s one theory out there that the biblical “Land of Israel” even extends to the Tigris River. I guess the Palestinians should be considering Uganda as a spot for their homeland as there ain’t gonna be much of Arabia left when the Israelis get done.
• How Huckabee’s plan could result in a further ethnic cleansing of about 5.4 million Palestinians from Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
• How Israel’s claim for indigenous rights to Palestine going back 3500 years has no legal basis unless I have a claim to return, claim land and settle in Ireland (from my paternal side) or England (maternal side).
• How any genetic connection Jews have to Palestine is shared by the Palestinians which started in pre-Judaic times, then Judaic, then Christian and now Muslim and other. So, in other words, the Palestinians and Jews are all blood brothers and blood sisters, or, in biblical terms, all Sons [and daughters] of Abraham.
• How the only legal claim to a portion of Mandate Palestine flows from Balfour through the League of Nations through the UN to UNR 181.
Apparently all the Republican candidates are lining up for their own supplication trips to the Israeli altar. It will be interesting to see if they try to one-up Huckabee on Israel’s true borders or try to duck these issues. Here is a hilarious piece on one of Huckabee’s big bucks Zionist supporters from Tikun Olam.
Gil Maguire
irishmoses.com
irishmoses “How the only legal claim to a portion of Mandate Palestine flows from Balfour through the League of Nations through the UN to UNR 181.”
It flows from, but is not legal by, any of the above.
1) The Balfour Declaration was only a statement. It had no actual legal basis and if it was binding, it was only binding on Great Britain.
2) The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine .. Article 7. The state to be formed under the tutelage of Britain, was to be Palestine.
The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine was a Class A mandate which gave the entities under tutelage in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22 Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), provisional recognition as Independent States. The provision was that they were subject to “the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone”
NB: However, the Mandate ended BEFORE the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel came into effect, at “one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time” An entity cannot be independent under occupation.
3) UNGA Res 181 was non binding. Nor could have been in a matter of two entities potentially declaring themselves ‘independent’. Independence is unilateral by nature. No UN resolution or law can demand an entity declare independence.
UNGA Res 181 outlined the legal conditions under which either party could declare Sovereign Independence over the territories delineated in the resolution, if they wished.
4) The only legal right Israel has to exist or to any territory, is by the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel and it’s subsequent acceptance by the majority of the International Community of Nations.
The majority over ruled any objections and like International Conventions which, when ratified by the majority of states pass into Customary International Law, Israel’s sovereignty became irrevocable.
However…
5) The subsequent acceptance by the majority of the International Community of Nations was based on the statement issued to them by the Provisional Israeli Government 15th May 1948.
Talknic,
Thanks for the history. Balfour, an ambibuous document at best, certainly had no legal standing at least until it was ratified by the League of Nations which gave Britain control to do what it wished with the Mandate as the mandatory power. When Brits stated they would abandon the mandate and the UN assumed the League of Nations power, it was up to the UN to figure out what to do next. Partition was the decision. I still stuggle with the impact of no ratification by the security council. Your state recognition point seems to clear that up. Israel legally exists because it declared its independence which was accepted by a majority of nations, however its state limits are governed by Israel’s statement to the UN you quoted. Based on that, Israel is legal only within the boundaries of UNR 181. That raises a couple of questions: 1) What is the legal status of the Palestinians? 2) Does the UN retain jurisdiction over the mandate portions set aside for the Arab State in the Partition Plan?
Talknic what about the UN charter which says that states can only legally be created through self determination. there is no rational nor logical way to claim that Israel creation was an act of self determination.
pjdude
This is the basis of my stance.
Despite of one might think of the ridiculous notion of declaring an Independent Sovereighty over a chunk of land on behalf of a people, regardless of where they live, regardless of their citizenship, regardless of their family lineage, ethnicity, race or heritage. (to be Jewish is the only requirement)
Despite the fact that the people on whose behalf the State was declared, did not elect the body declaring statehood on their behalf, nor was there are referendum asking those who did live in the region
Despite the fact that the Zionist Federation did not even originate in the region and wasn’t present in the region until 1936.
Despite the fact that Herzl wasn’t from the region, didn’t live in the region, even though during his life time he could have lived anywhere in Palestine. (ironically, he is not even buried in Israel)
Despite the fact that they had no Government or Government institutions, had not renounced violence, were being armed and financed from outside the region, were committing acts of terrorism.
Despite the fact that even as Israel was being declared, Jewish forces under Plan Dalet were outside of the extent of the territories being declared, slaughtering, dispossessing and razing non-Jewish homes.
Despite all the above, the Declaration was accepted by the majority of the International community, over riding any legal and/or moral objections.
When the majority ratify a convention it passes into Customary International Law, likewise a Declaration of Sovereign Independence becomes irrevocable when the majority of states recognize it.
On that basis and that basis alone, like it or not, Israel exists as an Independent Sovereign State “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″, as stated in ISRAELI Government documents.
It is irrefutable that Israel had defined, declared, recognized, acknowledged borders BEFORE it was accepted into the United Nations and BEFORE it first attempted (31st August 1949) to illegally claim any territories outside the extent of it’s sovereignty. [[ Had Israel tried to claim territories acquired by war before it was accepted into the UN (May 11, 1949) it would not have been accepted into the UN ]]
Aquire: obtain that which is not within the extent of one’s sovereignty
It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war and having not legally annexed any territories, Israel’s actual legal boundaries are the same as the day they were declared.
That is the Homeland State of the Jewish People, the legal extent of the ‘Land of Israel’. No more, no less.
Whatever preceded Declaration and recognition, including the ‘Historic’ Homeland of the Jewish People, is now of historical interest only.
The violence that occurred, no matter who caused it or how many died or why, or how one might feel about it, is irrelevant to the legal status of Israel as of “one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”
Israel and it’s citizens, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Arab, Bedouin, whatever, have no legal, moral or religious right to one inch of territory beyond the line in the sand drawn by the Jewish People’s Council May 14th 1948.
Israel did not exist until May 14th when it was declared Independent of any other entity, including Palestine. Israel has never been ‘in Palestine or a part of Palestine. Israel is Israel. Palestine is Palestine.
Israel occupies Palestine, Israel is obliged at the very least, to the UN Charter, in particular Chapter XI.
>> talknic February 10, 2011 at 7:02 am
Great couple of posts. Thank you for the information.
So because they supported ISrael the custemary law that the majority had signed on to is irrelevant???
So your saying since countries agreed that the Israel should be allowed to keep conquerored land even though previously it had become customary law that a state cannot gain land through warfare. I sorry but what your arguing is the destruction of the rule of law. the moment we except that exceptions can be made we destroy the law. Even though most countries have accepted Israel legally under the international law that those same countries fought for in world war 2 the land Israel has claimed cannot be its as it was gained through warfare.
Israel is occupied palestinian land. just because countries turned a blind eye to the law doesn’t mean those laws don’t exist or aren’t applicable.
all must be equal before the law or the law doesn’t exist. what your arguing is special treatment is ok so long as you can get people to sign off on it.
pjdude February 10, 2011 at 7:01 pm
“So because they supported ISrael the custemary law that the majority had signed on to is irrelevant???”
Not at all. Israel was Declared under an UNGA Resolution, within the recommended frontiers in the Resolution. No more, no less. That’s what the majority recognized.
The legal status of hostilities in Palestine before the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel, was civil war between factions within a non-sovereign entity under occupation.
With Jewish forces outside of the territories being declared, even as they were being declared, at “one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time” the civil war became a war waged by the ‘nascent’ State of Israel, on Palestine.
The majority have since repeatedly reminded Israel, amongst a lot of other things it is obliged to, that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. To that end, no territory that Israel has acquired by war or illegal annexation, is legally recognized as Israeli.
all of Israel was acquired through warfare not a single square Angstrom was gained through peaceful means. I don’t know about other countries but for the US to vote in favor of the partitan and to recognize Israel was by ignoring signed treaties a violation of the US constitution.
Why didn’t my links show up? I cut and pasted my comment from a document that had the links but they don’t show up in my comment. Why? What do I need to do differently?
irishmoses February 8, 2011 at 1:08 am
If they are linked like this talknic the link itself doesn’t cut and paste. Cut and paste is text only.
It will work if the links you cut and paste are the full hypertext mark up — http:*//*www.*talknic.*wordpress.*com — (sans the asterisks)
With a link like this talknic you’ll need to :
Copy and paste the text.
Then right click on the (original) link, copy the address
Then use the HTML tag to encase the text <a href=”http*://*www*.talknic.wordpress.*com”> talknic </a>
Again, sans the asterisks I’ve had to use to stop it from automatically being converted by the blog bot (an automated script)
Huckabee is a very intelligent politician. He is also appealing to many Americans. He knows how to pick issues that appeal beyond his base.
“Huckabee is a very intelligent politician. He is also appealing to many Americans. He knows how to pick issues that appeal beyond his base.”
Yup. The average American is a fucking idiot, and the sad part is, that average American is smarter than half the population.
Huckabee and his ilk are a danger to the USA; they are always trying to collapse the wall between state and religon while pretending not to be doing so. Huckabee would be most happy if our state was offiically characterized as “a Christian and democratic state.” But he’d gladly settle for “a Judeo-Christian and democratic state.” There’s a big problem with institutionalized Christianity, especially as it is announced from the pulpits of evangelical Christianity–from there, the “proposition nation” is an evil to be circumvented at every opportunity. Has any congress person made the oath of office on a koran or any seminal religious document other than the old/new testament? Is the USA becoming less democratic, and more bible-beltish? Isn’t that why Obama recently told Americans he got up in the morning and went to sleep at night waiting for God’s consultation? If so, isn’t this growing danger being given more power by Israel Firsters? What do the evagelicals have in common with the religious nuts in Israel taking over the government and its military there? What does it mean politically these days to be a self-described “American,” or “Christian,” or “Christian American?” How many Americans would love to see Muslim Americans’ civil rights diminished? Hasn’t that already been happening under the mask of “homeland security” and “Iran sanctions?” We are to look to Israel for guidance like Hagee and Huckabee do?
“I agree that Israeli democracy is in trouble, and I support some of the political reforms proposed by Carmon et al.; but I think they are confused about the root of the problem — and hence about the solution we should be aiming for. This confusion is illustrated by their appeal to “the classical Jewish spirit,” supported by Biblical quotations: it is a plain fact that for every Bible verse which seems to promote tolerance and coexistence, there are ten verses (at least) that promote xenophobia, intolerance, discrimination and racism. Anyone who thinks that legitimizing “violence and bloodshed aimed at non-Jews” requires “systematic distortions of the Torah” has not read it. So if we want a liberal democracy, sending people to Jewish sources for inspiration is not a good idea.”
link to norighttobelieve.wordpress.com
Sending people to the likes of the intentionally ignorant Huckabee for inspiration is similarly not a good idea.
I did a little research on the “God gave this land to the israelis” idea.
Moses led his folk through the swamp into the Sinai, that at low tide could be crossed easily on foot, so no parting the sea was required, as quoted in the Bible.
The land of today´s Palestina-Israel was fully occupied with a dozen city/states, such as Jericho, Naob, etc. Moses appointed Joshua to form an army and destroy one after the other all those states, killing all, icluding women and children, so they do not have to fight them again!!! Do we see a resemblence to the tactics today?
So God did not give that land to anyone, but the israelis took it in a bloodbath, just as they are doing it today. And certainly we cannot take a book of legends seriously, although it has certain historical parts, as a basis for a claim on a piece of real estate.
The UN has no right or power to take a land from a population and give it to another, so in my opinion the declaration and approval the state of Israel is illegal since the very beginning.
European jews took it by force, killing and driving out the population who lived there for thousands of years, so Israel is an illegimate state!
but — the earliest zionists, back in the first decade of 1900s, did buy up a good bit of land, from Arabs and Turks of Ottoman empire. Much of the dealing was done in secret and by trick, but there was an exchange transaction, for some of the land.
As well, Jews lived among the Palestinian Arabs and those Jews owned land as well.
As to the “UN having no right to take land and give it to another — by the Balfour Declaration Great Britain “gave” to Baron Rothschild a “homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine.”
Two problems: 1. Great Britain did not have that right, and
2. Great Britain and France had divided the same land and given it to others, with the Sykes Picot Agreement.
Great Britain twice gave away land it did not have rights to give.
Psychopathic god February 9, 2011 at 11:12 pm
” the earliest zionists, back in the first decade of 1900s, did buy up a good bit of land, from Arabs and Turks of Ottoman empire. Much of the dealing was done in secret and by trick, but there was an exchange transaction, for some of the land”
Under the Mandate, anyone immigrating to Palestine was required to take up Palestinian citizenship. If they were a citizen and owned ‘real estate’ in the ‘territory’ of Palestine, it gave them no more right to say what became of the ‘territory’ of Palestine than someone renting ‘real estate’ or even a landless bum living under a bridge. ‘territory’ belongs to all citizens of an entity, which is why when annexation is proposed, there must be a referendum of all the citizens within the entity. (see annexation of Texas by the US).
Institutions such as the Colonial Trust et al cannot become citizens nor can companies owned by non citizens. They quite simply, had no right to say what became of the ‘territory’ of Palestine even though they owned ‘real estate’.
What was purchased was a minuscule amount of ‘real estate’ compared to the amount of ‘territory’ declared as the Jewish Peoples Homeland State of Israel, for which Israel paid not one penny. The amount of ‘real estate’ bought, is simply insignificant when compared to the territory Israel declared plus that which it has illegally acquired since declaration
“As well, Jews lived among the Palestinian Arabs and those Jews owned land as well”
They owned ‘real estate’ and only if they were actually citizens of Palestine did they have any right say what became of the ‘territory’.
“Two problems: 1. Great Britain did not have that right, and
2. Great Britain and France had divided the same land and given it to others, with the Sykes Picot Agreement.
Great Britain twice gave away land it did not have rights to give.”
There are mis-conceptions in respect to the British. From the moment of their recognition of Israel, the British have considered territory controlled by Israel outside of Israel’s declared Sovereign extent as occupied
The Mandate given the British was to foster independence for the people in the territories, per the LoN Charter and later the UN Charter Chapter XI.
Under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine the Brits had a right to pass responsibility of tutelage for territory East of the River Jordan to another Power, Article 25(?), which they did. Under the tutelage of France, Jordan became an Independent State on behalf of the people in the territory.
How does this reconcile with ‘giving’ land away in Jordan?
In respect to what remained of Palestine, the same applied under the Mandate. Due to the Zionist Federations determination to have a separate Jewish State, the turmoil they generated in the area and the inability to reach a consensus amongst the population towards becoming a Palestinian state, a partition plan was suggested (non-binding) BY THE UN, in the hope that it would bring peace to the area. The apportionment was grossly unfair, favouring the Zionist Federation
In order that either of the parties be able to declare independent sovereignty, they had to be independent of any other control. The Mandate had to end. The Brits were not in control at “one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time”, on the day in which “..the British Mandate over a Palestine expired”.
Because there were Jewish forces in control of territories apportioned to the Palestinians (proposed Arab State) at the time the British Mandate expired, the Palestinians could not legally declare effective Independence or Independent Sovereignty, even if they had wanted to. ( they were not obliged to BTW). There has never in the entire 2,000 year + history of Palestine, been an opportunity for them to declare Independence
Huckabeenejad.
wrong, Gaius Baltar.
Ahmadinejad has nothing whatsoever in common with Huckabee.
Ahmadinejad is protecting his country from attempts by Israel and US and others to subvert it, overthrow its government and destabilize its population and economy. You may not like being told to mind your own business, but that — and nothing more–is what AN is telling the west.
Huckabee is being an arsehole.
Theo – that would apply to the USA, New Zealand, Australia and a host of other nations as well
speaking legally or morally?
Djinn February 9, 2011 at 1:36 am
” that would apply to the USA, New Zealand, Australia and a host of other nations as well”
It would have. However, based on those past injustices, it has been illegal to acquire territory by war since at least 1845. See the US annexation of Texas … by a referendum of the citizens of Texas.
the way I see it we can recognize Israel as legit or we can recognize international law as legit. we cannot recognize both as legit as they are mutually exclusive ideas. international law prohibits territorial acquisition through warfare. like it or not all of Israel was gained through warfare.
I think the “Jewish State” portion (the original 57 percent of Mandate Palestine) that came from the 1947 UN Partition Plan was legal and was then recogized by a majority of nations, hence ratified. See Talknic’s comment above (#43). The extra 21 percent conquered in 1948 and the post 1967 acquisitions are all illegal as are the subsequent settlements and annexations.
I disagree with the partitian plan being legal. the UN charter says that states have to be created through self determination. I see the UN charter like the US constitution the over reaching rules for the body that in cannot legally act in opposition too. also their is an argument the general assembly resolutions are nonbinding. the UN deciding the political status of palestine rather than the palestinians is not self determination
i agree with you, irish, this is the thrust of Strawson’s book on Partition: the world agreed, they overrode the Arabs but there was a majority vote under a global constitution. but then: arab opinion was dismissed, and the un plan was never implemented as you observe. and Palestine papers indicate what we all know, the arab consensus position of 2002 was in turn ignored throughout peace process…
so where does that leave partition today?
PJ Dude,
I know what you saying but it really is more a matter of being unfair rather than being illegal. Brits conquered Palestine/Syria from Turks who had conquered and ruled it before. Brits did Balfour (but were on the verge of making a deal to give Palestine to Turks even after Balfour). League of Nations legalized Brit role as temporary Mandate power and included Balfour language in the document but gave Brits full authority to interpret Balfour as they would. Brits gave Trans Jordan (Palestine east of Jordan river) to King X and had League of Nations authority to do so. Brits tried to resolve but got nowhere and withdrew.
UN inherited a mess from Brits in 1948. While Partition was not ratified by UNSC because Palestinians had rejected, two thirds of UNGA had approved. I think Talknic’s quote at #43 above seals the deal for Israel when Israel gets a majority of countries to accept its existence as a state along the lines of UNR 181.
All of this is clearly unfair to the Palestinians, including the fact that they were denied access to the ICJ to hear their case. Still, it is probably legal at that point as I doubt even the ICJ would try to reverse everything 64 years later.
To answer Phil’s question on the status of Partition, I think an ICJ analysis would find Israel the legal Jewish State entity for the 57 percent set forth for that purpose in UNR 181, but anything acquired by Israel after that has no legal basis unless Israel accepts the Palestinian offer to give Israel the 21 percent it conquered in 48 in return for modified Green Line borders and an Arab Initiative settlement. I believe ICJ has an advisory opinion (2004 on the status of the wall?) that also found the settlements (and the annexations?) violated the 4th Geneva Convention.
The question is how do you get to the point where the UN can reassert its authority to resolve the status of the remaining 43 percent of the Mandate which it intended as the Arab State in the partition plan? I am doing a piece on my blog about that. Essentially, the US needs to decide that since it is a vital US national security interest that the I-P matter be resolved, it needs to take direct and immediate steps to make that happen and give up on the negotiated settlement approach which makes no sense at all since Israel has no legal claim to any of the 43 percent set aside for an Arab State, let alone the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
I think the US, working with the Quartet, should devise a solution to borders, refugees, Jerusalem, security, and sanctions for noncompliance, along the lines of both the Geneva Accord and Arab Initiative then bring it to the UNSC for approval effective at a date certain (October 1, 2011 has a nice ring to it). I call this Plan B. If Israel can conclude a negotiated settlement (Plan A) with the Palestinians before that date so be it; if not, Plan B (and sanctions scheme) take effect on that date.
This obviously would require a herculean effort by Obama, including major bully pulpit efforts and lots of publicity about the negative effects of our relationship with Israel and how it has cost the US thousands of deaths starting with RFK, 300+ US Marines in Lebanon, various embassy bombings, bombings of troops and sailors in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, 9-11, Iraq war, Afghanistan, Pakistan, loss of Turkey, Lebanon, etc., etc. He would need a blue ribbon panel of elders to confirm the damage and losses and pressing need for a resolution. If he is willing to risk all to do this (as was Eisenhower in 1956, only on a smaller scale) he could prevail and even win the next election. Unfortunately, he is no Eisenhower. All hat and no cattle as they say. I don’t think he has the backbone or cojones for major confrontation of any sort. Too bad; had lots of promise and gives great speech.
If I’m wrong about his character, Egypt and the democracy movement could provide the tipping point for a major change in US Middle East foreign policy, depending on how it all shakes out.
Interesting times.
Gil Maguire
link to
Phil,
John Quigley, the author of “Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice,” disagrees with you:
He writes: link to farm6.static.flickr.com
See post:
link to mondoweiss.net
As one can see, calling the partition plan of 1947 “legal” is quite a stretch.
Avi
The Partition Plan is considered to be illegal under the UN Charter, (the basis of the Arab States objections – see Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine)
However — UNSC Res 181 was A) not law, B) non-binding C) was only a recommendation, based in law. So it can’t really be illegal or legal.
Had it been binding, which it couldn’t, (Independence is by it’s nature unilateral, one can’t demand an entity declare independence), it would have been illegal.
One could say it was an unfair notion, contrary to the UN Charter
On the other hand, acceptance by the majority of the International Community of States makes a Declaration of Independent Sovereignty irrevocable. It IS binding on both the declaring entity and on all other states, once recognized by the majority of the International Community of States.
BTW…. the International Community of States are not the UN. Israel was recognized by entities who were not UN Members. Furthermore, recognition is not an obligation, there are UN Member States who do not recognize each other.
It’s not within the UN or UNSC Mandates to recognize states in order that they come into being. The UN/UNSC can only remind, reaffirm, point out the legal basis under which they may become states. UNGA Res 181 was such a resolution, non binding.
Only when they have become Independent States can the UNSC then recommend them to be accepted as UN Members.
Only when they become UN Members States can the UN/UNSC pass resolutions directly relating to their activities. (e.g., there are no UNSC resolutions against Israel link to un.org
until it became a UN Member Resolution 72: The Palestine Question (11 Aug)
That the UN has never passed a resolution against Palestine because it is biased, is pure Hasbara bullsh*te . Palestine is not a UN Member state. The football club cannot censure non-members, it can only tell members how they might behave towards non-members (UN Charter Chapter XI)
a decleration of indepence is not irrovackable. for that to be true it would mean that a right to self determiantion is immpossible if the people in the territory later decide to change their mind.
pjdude February 10, 2011 at 7:06 pm
a decleration of indepence is not irrovackable. for that to be true it would mean that a right to self determiantion is immpossible if the people in the territory later decide to change their mind”
Under Customary International Law since at least 1845, a change of mind or annexation of territories in which citizens of an entity live ( to another entity), must be decided by a referendum. See the annexation of Texas by the US.
you have proved my point. the change you mention there is an expression of the right to self determination. the very right Israel’s existence denies the palestinians
pjdude February 11, 2011 at 7:46 pm
““you have proved my point. the change you mention there is an expression of the right to self determination. the very right Israel’s existence denies the palestinians”
Israel denies it to the Palestinians. Yes. Against Customary International Law and the UN Charter.
In respect to Israel, on recognition of a convention by the majority of the International Community of Nations/States, the convention passes into Customary International Law.
It’s the same for a Declaration of Independence under Customary International Law. When the majority of the International Community of Nations have recognized a Declaration of Independence, statehood becomes irrevocable.
As an Independent Nation, it is then up to the people, by referendum or vote, to change the status (of whatever) . This IS self determination by the people of an Independent Sovereign Nation.
Hi Phil..
“.. where does that leave partition today?”
With the exception that it describes the borders accepted as the Jewish People’s Homeland State (detailed GoogleEarth overlay) and the fact that it is enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel, it’s only relevant as an historical document.
The line was drawn in the sand by the Jewish People’s Council, May 14th 1948. Israel was declared and recognized “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,” to come into effect “at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time”.
By default, territory bounded by and not within the extent of the Independent Sovereign States of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Israel, is Palestine
Quite simple really. Any complication arises on Israel’s refusal to recognize it’s own legal boundaries as defined by the Government of the State of Israel.
A bit more on UNGA Res 181
“..un plan was never implemented”
Israel implemented it’s part…..It is STILL enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the state of Israel. Confirmed by the Israeli Government on May the 15th 1948 to come into effect “at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time”
It was further confirmed May 22nd 1948 and June 15th 1949 in Israeli Government statements to the UNSC and again by it’s demands of 31st August 1949.
What remained of Palestine after Israel became independent of Palestine, is still Palestine. It’s status, including Jerusalem, which the UN did not implement as a corpus separatum, has never legally changed in over 2,000 years.
Talknic your coming across as an apoligist for ISrael to me( thoiugh that might because I take a far harder stance than most and am unwilling to accept any transgression againt international law as valid) the fact remains that what they declared theirs was not land they were residents of that they took through conquest.
by your logic if I got a bunch of people together invaded a country and managed to take land declared it independent and had people ok that it would be legal. but the fact remains international law says land cannot be gained by conquest
pjdude February 10, 2011 at 7:10 pm
” Talknic your coming across as an apoligist for ISrael to me”
Gawks.
“the fact remains that what they declared theirs was not land they were residents of …..”
Quite.. and the only instance post 1845 where //the ridiculous notion of declaring an Independent Sovereignty over a chunk of land on behalf of a people, regardless of where they live, regardless of their citizenship, regardless of their family lineage, ethnicity, race or heritage. (to be Jewish is the only requirement)// has been acceptable by the majority of the International Community.
Whether we agree or not, it is the consensus of the majority. (International democracy at work). Israel legally exists as recognized “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″
A line was drawn in the sand BY the Zionist Federation via the Jewish People’s Council, delineating the boundaries of the Jewish Homeland State of Israel and making commitments to adhere to the UN Charter and International Law. Israel’s boundaries were confirmed BY the ISRAELI Government
Based on the words of the Israeli Government at the time of recognition, my homeland state, Israel, should be held accountable to it’s own undertakings, A) By the all Jewish People, on whose behalf it was declared B) By the Israeli Government C) By the International Community
Anything beyond Israel’s delineation of itself, is simply not Israeli.
—
As a bottom line and based on Israel’s own words and undertakings, my stance is that:
Israel should adopt a constitution and hold the first legal election in it’s 62 year history, according to it’s Declaration.
Because it is impossible to write a constitution for a democratic Jewish State in keeping with the Declaration (it has gone around in a circle of irreconcilable concepts), Israel should simultaneously withdraw from all territories outside of it’s SELF IMPOSED legal Sovereign extent. Israeli settlers who consent to becoming Palestinians be left to that fate.
Pay reparations to the entity of Palestine for years of having to host refugees.
Pay reparations to the Arab states for hosting refugees for 62 years, fighting numerous wars on behalf of the Palestinians and their LEGAL rights. To say the Arab States have done nothing for the Palestinians is drivel.
Recognize RoR for the few thousand Palestine refugees, who are all over 62 years of age and who qualify under the UNHCR statute and subsequent conventions, which do not allow for lineal descendants, to return to within the actual extent of Israeli Sovereignty. Pay reparations for those who return, for 62 years of hardship. Pay reparations AND compensation for those who do qualify and choose not to return.
Pay lineal descendants reparations for lost inheritances.
The notion that RoR be tied to a peace deal between Israel and Palestine is completely bizarre to say the least. Those granted RoR would not be in Palestine, would not be Palestinians. They’d be Israeli citizens FFS!!! (‘scuse my language, but the stupidity of the Israeli demand simply is mind boggling)
Last but not least, apologize. A) to the Palestinians B) to Israeli citizens who have been un-wittingly caught up in the stinking situation through the lies been told them by consecutive Israeli Governments for 62 years C) to the International Community.
The above is of course an ideal based in Law, the UN Charter, numerous UNSC resolutions and statements by the Israeli Government in 1948, showing that they were fully aware of Israel’s legal territorial status and obligations.
It would necessitate a huge peace keeping force for at least a decade, which should also be paid for by Israel, whose ‘facts on the ground’ have made the mess.
It would send Israel bankrupt and likely result in an Israeli civil war, predominantly fought outside of Israel. Such a scenario would have horrific consequences for Israeli and Palestinians alike.
I don’t expect my bottom line to become a reality. Israel’s ghastly, blind, greedy, religiously driven ‘facts on the ground’ have created a nasty, festering, gangrenous sore, for which there is no easy cure.
To that end and in keeping with the notions of self determination, it is not my remit, I’ll go with what the Palestinians decide. They have been incredibly patient, forgiving and incredibly generous in their concessions.
—–
In answer to anyone who says I blame it all on Israel, damn right I do. It was not Palestine imposed on Israel. It was not Palestine preventing Israeli Independence. It was not the Palestinians preventing Jewish folk from settling anywhere in Palestine. It has not been Palestinians slowly wiping the Israelis off the map
Talknic,
Thank you for a wonderful analysis. You have clarified the legal issues surrounding UNR 181 for me. Your analysis and conclusions need to be at the forefront of the I-P issue which tends to get buried in debate about the meaning of the missing “the” in UNR 242 and how much of the West Bank Israel is obliged to return. This focus cleverly disguises the fact that almost 40 percent of the land Israel occupies west of the Green Line it has no legal claim to as it was not included in UNR 181 which Israel basied its declaration of independence and claim for statehood on.
Good work. Bravo!
Gil Maguire
pjdude,
You attach too much purity and precision to the law. The law is an imperfect tool at best. Jury decisions offer a window into its weaknesses. One jury finds OJ Simpson criminally innocent, another finds him civilly guilty. There are huge numbers of jury verdicts in the US being overturned based on DNA evidence now showing long-imprisoned defendants were really innocent.
A couple of quotes I like:
“The law is an ass.” Charles Dickens
“If you want justice go to a whorehouse. If you really want to get f*cked, go to court” Primal Fear (movie).
While the Palestinians certainly got f*cked by the law, I agree with Talknic that Israel’s claim to the 57 percent of Mandate Palestine set forth in UNR 181 was made legal by a majority vote of nations.
Gil Maguire
I cannot accept that as valid. To me to accept that argument is to say there is no international law just the whim of the powerful. The states in question made certain agreements in treaty about what constitutes a state, what is a legal creation of a state, and what is a legal acquisition of territory. To accept that simply because they ignore the agreements they have made and to accept something in clear violation of standing agreements as legal simply because a majority of states( some who may or may not have been threatened to do so) is to say there is no law.
your accepting that an illegal act can confirm a legal right. once you have done that you have said all that matters is power I cannot accept that.
what talknic is saying is just ignore those agreements we made they don’t matter. to accept Israel as legal like he says makes it impossible to complain about gaza the west bank and all the dead civilians because the “laws” are irrelevant. you basicly want to void one of the fundementals of the rule of law.
pjdude February 11, 2011 at 7:55 pm
“The states in question made certain agreements in treaty about what constitutes a state, what is a legal creation of a state, and what is a legal acquisition of territory. To accept that simply because they ignore the agreements they have made and to accept something in clear violation of standing agreements as legal simply because a majority of states( some who may or may not have been threatened to do so) is to say there is no law.”
Not so. It was actually within keeping with the law.
Prior to “one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” the legal status of hostilities within Palestine was a civil war. There was no Israel, no Israeli’s. They were all Palestinians.
There was no acquisition of territory by war by any legal entity until AFTER “one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”
legal entity or not the territory was still gained through warfare
pjdude February 12, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Agree to disagree without being disagreeable?
Gil, the OJ juries were not weak at all (although you may disagree with either sitting jury’s finding/verdict). Both juries followed the jury instructions. In the USA, the standard of proof in a criminal trial is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In contrast, a weaker standard of proof is applied in civil trials, “a clear preponderance of evidence,” or “clear and convincing evidence”, or similar verbiage.
I’m also from the US and an attorney. You are correct on the standards of proof, criminal vs. civil. My point was only that law is not science and is prone to a fair amount of vaguery, imprecision, and often plain unfairness. In the OJ criminal trial you had prosecutors who were largely inept and a judge blinded by the media attention. In the civil case the plaintiff attorneys were brilliant and would have prevailed even with a criminal standard of proof.
As in most legal controversies, there are different laws involved that can give conflicting results. Ultimately, it is up to a court or jury or some other body to resolve the conflicts and make a decision. Sometimes the decisions are grossly unfair. If the decision is not appealable, the losing party is stuck with it. UNR 181 was not an act by Israel, legal or illegal. Israel accepted those borders and then asked for international recognition of those borders as its state. It got that recognition. End of case. No further appeal possible. Israel did not use force to gain its legal (UNR 181) borders. The extra 21 percent it conquered in 1948 and the further 22 percent it conquered in 1967 are illegal acquisitions.
Gil Maguire
Most law, to some degree, does represent the whim of the powerful: writing the laws, selecting the judges, etc. At best it is an imperfect tool. The newly created UN was trying to resolve a huge mess with a limited amount of time to do it. The very flawed partition plan was the result. Israel cleverly used the partition plan as a basis for asking for recognition of its borders under 181 and as a state. It got that legal recognition. On the other hand, as Talknic has so effectively pointed out, Israel is stuck with its UNR 181 borders as the limits of its legal state. This may yet create some interesting legal dilemmas for Israel.
Gil Maguire
um Israel did use force to gain the illegal( UNR 181) borders. the UN cannot violate its own charter. its doesn’t matter what people accepted. the UN charter says countries must be founded trough self determination which is defined as the people of a territory deciding their own political status. that didn’t happen. your’s and talknic’s argument is basicly that there is no law. once you have ok’d the undermining or the ignoring of a perviosly accepted piece of law you have said there is no law. The law either exists and violations of it are called illegal( like Israel) or there is no such thing as a body of law. there is no middle ground.
also I don’t know about all countries but I do know my own(the Unites States) and under the US constitution the American recognition of Israel is by violating signed treaties unconstitutional.
Now I am willing to accept the partian plan a way to net peace. but I cannot say it is legal nor gives Israel legality. the only way for Israel to be legal is if it is accepted by the palestinians them selves.
to say Israel is legal is to claim their is no right to self determination. to claim other wise is to be an apoligist for Israel
pjdude February 12, 2011 at 1:38 pm
“Israel did use force to gain the illegal( UNR 181) borders”
Israel didn’t exist when the borders were recommended by the General assembly.
You, I and BALFOUR :
“The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant [of the League of Nations] and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine than in that of the ‘independent nation‘ of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country though the American Commission is going through the form of asking what they are.”
—-
UNGA Re 181 was non-binding, neither legal or illegal. It could be accepted by either/and/or/neither of the parties. It was an attempt to stop hostilities. It didn’t. It didn’t because Israel, after accepting and being recognized under UNGA Res 181, ignored it (yet cited it in order to be accepted into the UN), ignored it’s own undertakings under it and it’s own Declaration and has ignored every UNSC resolution on the matter since becoming a UN Member State
UNSC Res 181 unfairly allocated Israel more than an equal share of the territory. Israel still wanted more. Israel has illegally taken more and if recent revelations via WikiLeaks are to be believed, will not be satisfied with anything the Palestinians offer.
Although Israel is a rogue state in every sense, it is never the less a recognized Independent Sovereign State. As such, those responsible for it’s recognition are duty bound to force it if necessary, to adhere to it’s obligations.
I can only speak as one Jew amongst the world’s Jewish population on whose behalf Israel was declared. I would like to see Israel voluntarily adhere to it’s self imposed obligations under which there would be, RoR, equality for Jews and non-Jews, be they Palestinian Israeli’s, Muslim, Christian whatever.
For 62 years Israel has bluffed and lied it’s way into an intractable ‘facts on the ground’ situation. Failing voluntary adherence to it’s obligations the only option is alas, military action. A situation with ghastly repercussions.
Even if Israel did adhere to it’s obligations the repercussions are very likely to result in civil war. The consequences of which are equally ghastly
Since you appear unwilling to consider the detailed counter arguments offered by Technic and me, are wedded to your unsubstantiated claim that Israel acquired its UNR 181 territory by force, and are now resorting to the scurrilous ad hominem claim that Technic and I are apologists for Israel, I will no longer continue what appears to be a fruitless discussion.
Hmmph,
Having just reread my last, several hours and glass or two or wine later, it seems unbearably pompous and over the top. PJ Dude, although your logic and reasoning may be a tad flawed, your obvious passion deserves commendation. I apologize. Fortunately, Talknic, the real expert here, remains patient, continues the fray and responds with more and more authority.
Gil Maguire
The debate on both ends at the very least shows that my country, the USA, has no legal basis under its own Constitution or International law, to prevent resolution of the I-P situation via the UN on the premise that Israel’s borders are those declared by itself upon its birth. The deduction is that Palestine’s borders are the remainder left after 57%. And that Israel should be more than happy with that because there never was a referendum that included the Palestinian vote. Further, since the UN SC did not authorize Israel, neither should it determine the issue of a Palestinian state now. The UN GA should recognize a Palestine state on that basis on 43% of the land, overdue after 63 years, to say the least. Richard Witty is fond of saying Israel has a right to self-govern like any other people. However, their are limits to the right of any people to self-govern, just as their are limits to any individual to self-govern–otherwise, there’d be no such thing as criminal law. Similarly, there are limits to a state’s sovereignty. For example, those limits were enforced against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan at the Nuremberg Trials ex post facto; and Geneva followed parallel & subsequent. The 1948 state of Israel is also so bound, as are all other states. So long as the Palestinian people lanquish without benefit of
existing international law, subscribed to by the USA under its own Constitution, the rule of law does not effectively exist in this crucial matter.
Citizen and PJ Dude,
I’m not sure I follow your argument that the US Constitution somehow prohibits US action in this case. It would helpful if you would flesh out that argument a bit, perhaps with a specific clause and some legal precedent.
My understanding of Talknic’s argument is that if that ultimate jury, the body of nations, decides something by a majority vote, it is the law, right or wrong, fair or unfair. In other words, the international community of nations approved Israel’s request to be a nation under borders set forth under UNR 181. While it certainly was an unfair decision, under international law it was valid.
“The deduction is that Palestine’s borders are the remainder left after 57%. “
Indeed .. by default what Israel declared as it’s own also told us what is not Israeli.
“The UN GA should recognize a Palestine state on that basis on 43% of the land, overdue after 63 year..”
It is not the remit of the UN/UNGA/UNSC to recognize states. We can see this in the process under which states become UN Members.
1st a state is declared. It is recognized as such by the majority of the International Community of States/Nations. (This is NOT the UN, some entities giving recognition are not UN Members)
Once a state exists, it can then apply to the UN for Membership. The UNSC can then recommend the existing state to the UN for admittance to the UN….. or not..
irishmoses February 13, 2011 at 11:23 am
” .. the international community of nations approved Israel’s request to be a nation under borders set forth under UNR 181. While it certainly was an unfair decision, under international law it was valid.”
Indeed. UNGA Res 181 was a non binding suggestion. Neither legal or illegal.
The responsibility for not observing the right to self determination was with the states that afforded recognition and in doing so carried the motion to ignore the right to self determination. They are responsible for calling Israel into line according to their recognitions and the exact date and times of their recognitions.
To which, some countries registered persistent objection, i.e., non-recognition on legal basis from the outset, as did the Arab States or unless their recognition was officially withdrawn, as did Iran.
OR
As did Britain who registered a persistent objection by not recognizing as Israeli the territories Israel had acquired by war by the time British recognition was afforded. The British waited until they had a very clear picture of Israel’s understanding of the actual legal status of it’s Sovereign territories before it granted recognition. 27 April 1950. This was after Israel’s statements to the UNSC May 22nd 1948 and 15th June 1949, confirming the extent of Israeli Sovereignty and after Israel’s acceptance into the UN and after Israel’s first ill fated claim to territory outside it’s borders, on 31st August 1949
The British considered those territories controlled by war outside of Israel, as occupied.
Not all states were as meticulous in the wording of their recognitions as the British, however they all recognized Israel on the basis of the statement released by the Israeli Government announcing the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″
NOW
The voice of the majority of the International Community is expressed through the UN/UNSC. They have consistently attempted to have Israel adhere to the law. The only thing preventing a just solution now that Israel does exist, is the precious US veto vote in the UNSC.
Meanwhile Israel, ensconced as a UN Member, will keep every legal argument, every UN or UNSC resolution in discussion for as long as it possibly can, knowing that until a resolution is passed and/or as long as it is legally disputed in the UN/UNSC or ICJ, it can continue, unabated. The ball is in the air