How do you say, ‘Let them eat cake’ in Arabic?

Israel/Palestine
on 50 Comments
Michele Obama sans checkpoint
Michele Obama sans checkpoint

From the US  Consulate in Jerusalem’s facebook page. The item appears with the above photograph:


تقود ميشيل اوباما حملة لتشجيع الشباب الأمريكي على ترك الكسل مثل الجلوس على الكنبة لمشاهدة التلفاز واستعمال الحاسوب ولعب ألعاب الفيديو طوال الوقت، وتحثهم على الحركة. هل تعتقدون أن حملة كهذه يمكن تطبيقها مع الفلسطينيين؟

Michelle Obama is leading the charge to get young people off the couch, away from TV, computer, and video games, and “start moving.” Do you think such a campaign would work with Palestinians

Says my tipster: How far can they move before they’re stopped by a checkpoint? (And I see commenters have made this point.)

50 Responses

  1. ToivoS
    March 18, 2013, 6:34 pm

    How far can they move before they’re stopped by a checkpoint?

    This would an interesting exercise. Could a Palestinian train for a marathon without running in circles in the WB without being stopped at a checkpoint or being shot by an Israeli sniper? Can anyone find an uninterupted 35 km track through the WB for a Palestinian? Who would have thought that Michelle could indirectly pose a question that brings up this topic.

  2. eGuard
    March 18, 2013, 6:35 pm

    There was this deal: we deliver the presidency, you succumb. Now, Obama, kneel for Netanyahu (we got your wife).

  3. NormanF
    March 18, 2013, 7:42 pm

    Only in Arabic?

    Now the US Consulate in Jerusalem has been known for decades as America’s defacto embassy to the Arabs.

    But you would never know from its website that Jerusalem is a Jewish-majority city.

    • sardelapasti
      March 18, 2013, 7:58 pm

      Norman F – One would never know from your so factual posts that Jerusalem is a corpus separatum, a neutral zone under the protection of the UN, which has been forcibly and illegally occupied by the Zionist entity. Any Jews who were there before the invasion would be allowed to stay.

      • sardelapasti
        March 18, 2013, 11:27 pm

        PS. Whaddya mean, only in Arabic? It is also there in English for your Brooklynite gun-toting settlers.

      • mcohen
        March 19, 2013, 5:55 am

        seven days will bring days of darkness a wave a sand

      • sardelapasti
        March 21, 2013, 1:53 pm

        mcohen – “seven days will bring days of darkness a wave a sand”
        ??
        Now you’ve gone apeshit crazy. Howdedo, I’m Napoleon. Who be you, one of the old insane thundering cohens?

      • mcohen
        March 22, 2013, 10:19 pm

        link to timesofisrael.com

        Weather plays havoc with final hours of Obama visit
        Winds, dust clouds ground presidential choppers, lead to cancellation of formal airport farewell ceremony
        By Matti Friedman March 22, 2013, 1:54 pm 4

        bethlehem on Friday, awaiting a belated President Obama amid a sandstorm (photo credit: Channel 2 screenshot)

        link to washingtontimes.com

        A violent sandstorm that kicked up in Jerusalem on the last day of Mr. Obama’s trip grounded President Obama’s helicopter Friday, making it unsafe for Mr. Obama to fly to Palestinian-controlled Bethlehem.

        It’s the second transportation mishap of Mr. Obama’s three-day historic trip to Israel. Before the president’s arrival, Mr. Obama’s steel-plated limo, known as “The Beast,” broke down and the Secret Service had to replace it.

        SEE RELATED: Obama vows ‘never again’ at Israeli Holocaust memorial

        During the morning, Mr. Obama toured Yad Vashem, Israel’s museum dedicated to the Holocaust, and the skies were clear.

        But within a few hours, biting winds and flying sand made helicopter travel impossible to Bethlehem, about a 30-minute drive from Jerusalem. Mr. Obama’s 30-car motorcade was then forced to drive at a snail’s pace through the hilly roads and then clear a checkpoint to get to Bethlehem, where he visited the Church of the Nativity, believed to be the site of the Jesus’ birth.

        Read more: link to washingtontimes.com
        Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

    • Bumblebye
      March 18, 2013, 8:06 pm

      NormanF
      ” Jerusalem is a Jewish-majority city.”
      Entirely as a result of ethnic cleansing, first in 1948 and then continuously since 1967. Perhaps we could add the gerrymandered enlargement post ’67.

      • jon s
        March 19, 2013, 2:17 am

        In fact Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since the 1880s.

      • jon s
        March 19, 2013, 2:37 am

        A clarification: some sources show an absolute majority, some a relative majority (in other words the Jewish population was the largest of the three : Jews, Moslems , Christians).

      • Hostage
        March 19, 2013, 11:19 am

        A clarification: some sources show an absolute majority, some a relative majority . . .

        A further clarification: What you are calling Jerusalem today includes much of the West Bank Subdistrict of Jerusalem that has been annexed to the original city. During the 1931 British census the population of the Jerusalem Subdistrict was reportedly 266,562 persons, including 173,019 Mulims; 54,959 Jews; and 38,488 Christians.

        See E. Mills, “Census of Palestine 1931, Population of villages, towns and administrative areas” (1932), pdf page 26 link to archive.org

      • peeesss
        March 19, 2013, 11:37 am

        what nonsence.

      • Koshiro
        March 19, 2013, 12:16 pm

        The historical city of Jerusalem in 1880, 1920 or 1940 has nothing to do with the huge swath of land Israel has arbitrarily designated “Jerusalem” – and in the latter area, Jews have not been a majority since antiquity. Until Israel started ethnically cleansing it, that is.

      • peeesss
        March 19, 2013, 12:29 pm

        Palestine , including the City of Jerusalem , had a majority of Muslims and Christians , for centuries.

      • jon s
        March 19, 2013, 5:50 pm

        Hostage, The link doesn’t work – but I’m not disputing the data regarding the subdistrict. My comment related to the city as it was in the late 19th century.
        See here:
        link to israelipalestinian.procon.org

      • Light
        March 19, 2013, 6:38 pm

        Thank you Hostage for the population statistics. For a while, I’ve heard the claim Jerusalem had a Jewish majority since the 18xx’s. Finally, there are real numbers to show this is yet another Zionist myth.

      • Talkback
        March 19, 2013, 8:10 pm

        @ Light.

        The claim is correct. The Jewish Palestinians were a majority since then. Don’t confuse the city Jerusalem with the much larger district called Jerusalem and in which the Arab Palestinians were a majority: link to passia.org

      • talknic
        March 20, 2013, 12:16 am

        Link correction — E. Mills, “Census of Palestine 1931, Population of villages, towns and administrative areas” (1932), pdf page 26
        link to archive.org

      • tree
        March 20, 2013, 2:56 pm

        Thanks for the link, talknic. If you look at page 40 of the pdf you’ll see the breakdown of population in the City of Jerusalem, listed separately as Old City and New City. Jews were a minority in the Old City in 1931, with 5222 Jews as compared to 12201 Muslims and 6859 Christians, making up a little over 20% of the population. In the New City, Jews were a majority in 1931, with 45913 adherents, while there were 7693 Muslims and 10967 Christians, making Jews 71% of that part of the city. Combining the two parts of the city, you get 88855 total residents, with 57% of them being Jews, and the vast majority of them (89%) living in West Jerusalem, not in the Old City. It looks like Jews were never a majority in East Jerusalem until after Israel conquered and occupied it.

        In 1947, the UN Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine estimated the population of the City of Jerusalem at approximately 100,000 Jews and 105,000 non-Jews.

        link to unispal.un.org

    • Woody Tanaka
      March 19, 2013, 10:07 am

      “Now the US Consulate in Jerusalem has been known for decades as America’s defacto embassy to the Arabs.”

      So what? It has an embassy to the Jews in Tel Aviv. Is that not enough for you ingrates?

      Also, disgustingly, the US Embassy in Tel Aviv contains no text in Arabic, one of the state of isreal’s official languages and the native language of half of its de facto population. (It links to the Arabic verision of the IIP page; and includes a Russian link. So, apparently to the meat puppets in the State Department, the language of the natives of the land where the Embassy is located rates no better than the language of the latest group of the European zionist horde stealing the land and oppressing the people.) Yet, the Consulate website, (which, to it’s credit, properly calls the city al-Quds) also contains the text in Hebrew, (although it uses the occupation name for the city there.)

      So quit complaining. Hebrew speakers are well covered, but the Arabic speakers are, once again, screwed over by the US.

    • Ramzi Jaber
      March 19, 2013, 10:11 am

      NormanF, I don’t know if you’re one of the illegal zionist squatters who stole my houses and lands, or one who migrated from Brooklyn or some other place to take my plan, or whatever… “peu importe” as we say in French. Here is a real life story for you:

      When I was growing up, I would go often with my parents to Jerusalem. There were almost NO Jews at all living in Est Jerusalem, before 67 and for several years after 67. Of course, all the Jews were in West Jerusalem, living in MY HOUSES and on MY LANDS. We had many of these properties before The criminal zionists forced the Palestinians out of their homes and stole them. My parents and my grandparents as well as my uncles and aunts, who were all the RIGHTFUL OWNERS of these properties, were not allowed to enter these houses or walk on these lands. They built these properties with their sweat and hard work, where they saved money for years just to build a better future for their kids and grand kids. Of course, these plans were interrupted by the illegal and criminal zionist invasion where they lost everything. And now you are telling me you had a majority Jews in East Jerusalem. That’s just PURE LIES. Jews started to be brought into East Jerusalem when the illegal zionist regime began executing its expansionist settlement policies to change the facts on the ground.

      So, NormanF, STOP LYING. You cannot change the FACTS OF HISTORY. So you ought to go back to where you came from and allow peace to happen.

      PS: To answer your question Phil, “let them eat cake” in Arabic can be translated as “khalleehum ya’koulou al-ka’ek” or more classically, “da’ahum ya’kouloun al-ka’ek”.

      • Talkback
        March 19, 2013, 8:16 pm

        Ramzi Jaber says: “When I was growing up, I would go often with my parents to Jerusalem. There were almost NO Jews at all living in East Jerusalem, before 67 and for several years after 67. ”

        You don’t seem to consider that Jews who lived in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City were expelled by the Arab Legion in 1948.
        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • Ramzi Jaber
        March 19, 2013, 10:21 pm

        Talkback, there you go again! Rewriting history. You find the truth and facts inconvenient to fit your warped zionist narrative……..

        If you read what I wrote carefully, I said there were ALMOST no Jews in East Jerusalem in 1967. Depending on the source, the total number of Jews in East Jerusalem in 1967 was about 2,000 to 3,ooo. There were at least 20 to 30 times more Palestinians (Christians and Moslems) in East Jerusalem at that time. These are IMMUTABLE FACTS.

      • Talkback
        March 20, 2013, 11:10 am

        “Talkback, there you go again! Rewriting history. You find the truth and facts inconvenient to fit your warped zionist narrative……..”

        You seem to confuse me with someone else. I’m an outspoken Antizionist.

        “If you read what I wrote carefully, I said there were ALMOST no Jews in East Jerusalem in 1967. ”

        You were arguing against NormanF’s claim that Jerusalem was a Jewish majority city by mentioning that there was “almost NO” Jew in East Jerusalem in 1967. And I argued that the reason for this is, because they were expelled.

        “Depending on the source, the total number of Jews in East Jerusalem in 1967 was about 2,000 to 3,ooo. There were at least 20 to 30 times more Palestinians (Christians and Moslems) in East Jerusalem at that time. These are IMMUTABLE FACTS.”

        Which were never challenged by me.

      • jon s
        March 20, 2013, 12:51 pm

        Ramzi,
        The number of Jews in East Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967 was zero. The Jewish population had been ethnically cleansed.
        There was a Jewish majority in Jerusalem since the late 19th century.
        I can understand your bitterness , but you should also try to understand that we are not “invaders” , this is our homeland, as it is yours.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 20, 2013, 1:30 pm

        you’re in denial, israel definitely invaded land outside the partition lines! don’t lie. and thieving palestinian land for ‘settlements’ is invasion.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 20, 2013, 1:43 pm

        “you should also try to understand that we are not ‘invaders’ , this is our homeland, as it is yours.”

        Nonsense. To those whose ancestors have been living on other continents for millenia, the land is not their homeland, it’s merely the homeland of their ancestors. To say that a Jew born in Brooklyn from family that last was in the Levant 2,000 years ago shares a homeland with a Palestinian who was born in al Quds and ethnically cleansed from there in 1967 (and that the former has a right to live in the city but the latter does not because of the ethno-religious background of the latter) is obscene.

      • tree
        March 20, 2013, 1:54 pm

        And I argued that the reason for this is, because they were expelled.

        Talkback, I have seen figures for the number of Jewish civilians living in East Jerusalem up to 1948. The figures were in the 2000 to 3000 range. (The vast majority of Jews lived in West Jerusalem at the time.) Contemporary accounts say that the Jordanian forces, when they captured the Old city, asked the Jewish civilians under their control where they wanted to go, and were told the Jewish civilians wished to join their compatriots in West Jerusalem, controlled by Israel. That request seems totally understandable. The question then remains, did any of those Jewish civilians seek to return to East Jerusalem, and if so, were they denied the right to do so by Jordan?

        I don’t have the answer to that but if Ramzi is correct in stating that there were 2000-3000 Jews living in East Jerusalem during the time it was under Jordanian control, then its possible that those Jews were able to return to East Jerusalem after the fighting had ended. I have no information one way or the other, but given the State of Israel’s track record of lying I’d personally give more weight to what Ramzi said than what the hasbara claim is, pending some more conclusive and unbiased information being cited than the vague reference from Wikipedia in an article on the “Battle for Jerusalem” that has a totally one-sided account from the Jewish perspective.

      • tree
        March 20, 2013, 3:01 pm

        Update, having looked at Hostage and talknic’s link, it now looks like the Jewish residents of the Old City (East Jerusalem) numbered in the 5000 to 6000 range.

      • Hostage
        March 20, 2013, 3:57 pm

        Ramzi,
        The number of Jews in East Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967 was zero. The Jewish population had been ethnically cleansed.

        The term “Palestine refugees” was employed in resolution 194(III) so that the “right of return” or “compensation” would apply to both the former Jewish and Arab inhabitants of Palestine. FYI, during the preparations for the Lausanne Conference, Ben Gurion demanded that the mandate of the UN Palestine Conciliation Commission (PCC) be limited to “Palestine refugees” only.

        The total number of registered Jewish refugees from all of Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza was less than 18,000 persons according to the claims recorded in the PCC database, the records of the UNRWA, and its predecessor the UNRPR. link to books.google.com

        General Assembly Resolution 302 (IV), which established UNRWA, referred to “Palestine refugees” [Jews, Arabs, & others] and not “Palestinian refugees.” The Zionists allowed UNRWA and its predecessor to register, feed, and shelter at least 17,000 Jewish refugees from Palestine in the new state of Israel. link to books.google.com

        In July 1952, Israel assumed responsibility for 19,000 “refugees,” which included 3,000 Jews, and UNRWA ceased its operations inside Israel. See the Letter to the Editors of Azure magazine from Yisrael Medad link to azure.org.il

        It goes without saying that East Jerusalem was not the domicile of a very large Jewish population prior to 1948. Its Judaization is a phenomenon of the post-1967 War era.

      • Hostage
        March 20, 2013, 4:43 pm

        I don’t have the answer to that but if Ramzi is correct in stating that there were 2000-3000 Jews living in East Jerusalem during the time it was under Jordanian control, then its possible that those Jews were able to return to East Jerusalem after the fighting had ended.

        That’s consistent with the fact that there never were more than 18,000 Jewish refugees from all of Palestine who registered claims with the UN or its relief agencies.

        FYI, the explicit terms of Article IV(3) of the Armistice Agreement with Jordan prohibited civilians from crossing the demarcation lines. Israeli territory had been the home of hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinian Arabs who were living in camps in Jordan. So which side do you think benefited from that particular situation?

        3. Rules and regulations of the armed forces of the Parties, which prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement with application to the Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI.

        link to mfa.gov.il

        Bear in mind that the members of the Jewish leadership (Va’ad Leumi/Jewish Agency Executive) were already under international pressure to make a public statement about the return of the Arab population to their homes before the Declaration of Independence or the first meeting of the Provisional Government of the State of Israel. David Ben Gurion kept the issue off the agenda. See the Minutes of the Meeting of the National Administration in Tel Aviv on Wednesday, May 13, 1948:

        M Shertok: It is suggested, in the telegram from America that, before the 15 May assembly, which is the assembly of the declaration, the Executive shall issue a communique saying that on Saturday night (May 15) the first meeting of the Provisional Government shall be convened with the following agenda:
        A) General elections to the Constituent Assembly.
        B) Proclamation for the protection of religious belief, minorities, etc.
        C) Economic union,
        D) The establishment of the militia,
        E) The return of the Arab population of the Jewish State to their homes.
        D. Ben-Gurion: The important points have already been mentioned in the declaration. There is no need for any announcement about the militia.
        The meeting was closed”

        link to books.google.com

      • Talkback
        March 21, 2013, 9:49 am

        tree says: “Contemporary accounts say that the Jordanian forces, when they captured the Old city, asked the Jewish civilians under their control where they wanted to go, and were told the Jewish civilians wished to join their compatriots in West Jerusalem, controlled by Israel.”

        The Jews living in the Jewish quarter weren’t asked. It was part of the terms of their surrender that Jewish women and children would leave the old city and able bodied men were held prisoners.

        I highly doubt that the Jordans ever allowed them to return.

    • MK_Ultra
      March 19, 2013, 12:21 pm

      But you would never know from its website that Jerusalem is a de facto Jewish-majority city vis a vis the occupation.

      There, Norm, I fixed that for ya.

    • talknic
      March 20, 2013, 12:20 am

      NormanF “..the US Consulate in Jerusalem has been known for decades as America’s defacto embassy to the Arabs”

      A consulate is not an embassy. There are no state embassies in “territories occupied” by Israel and never un-occupied.

  4. Justpassingby
    March 18, 2013, 8:03 pm

    That governmental people could state such racist slander is disgusting. But for these people racism is apparently not a bad thing when directed toward ‘palestinians’, if the word palestinians would be changed with ‘jews’ we know what the response would be. Always spin on being the victims while being the occupier..

  5. seafoid
    March 19, 2013, 4:12 am

    Maybe if the paleatiniana started to use the n word to describe their status the obanas would get it. Every settler colonial state has its ns. And the women of gaza don’t tend to have too many surplus pounds either. But i guess ms o won’t be rolling out the weisglass diet in dc.

  6. Accentitude
    March 19, 2013, 6:02 am

    “khalehum yaklu ka’ek.”

  7. K Renner
    March 19, 2013, 8:31 am

    not surprised that the ultra Zionist “NormanF” only posts agitation statements and outright lies.

  8. Citizen
    March 19, 2013, 10:00 am

    And it better be carrot cake or a rice cake–hold the Big Gulp Pepsi! Putting folks on a diet is always good for them–it’s the responsible thing to do! Don’t the Palestinians know all about that?

  9. Koshiro
    March 19, 2013, 11:48 am

    Please tell me that this Facebook page is just the section for children. Please? No?

    “Welcome Mr. Obama! Hebron youth sing a rap song to the President. How many times do you hear the word Obama?”

    “Meet Air Force One, the presidential aircraft that will take President Obama on his trip to the Middle East. Do you know who is the first President to fly in his own jet aircraft?”

    “Famed aviator Amelia Earhart is financial attache Jeanne Miller’s hero, and presented on Earhart during a celebration of Women’s History Month at the America House, Jerusalem. Who’s your hero?”

    Jesus H. Christ! This type of naive-condescending language wouldn’t be appropriate in a storybook for 10-year-olds. Directed at an adult audience, it can only be seen as a sick joke. I sincerely hope that at least some of it sounds better in the Arabic versions.

  10. RJL
    March 21, 2013, 11:59 am

    Annie, the Jews invaded land not designated for them by the partition? Oh, you bruise the collective Jewish ego. First of all, who started the war of 48? Who was outnumbered, in manpower and firepower? Who defended themselves, in a war of annihilation directed against them? Within the GA partition plan-only a suggestion, not legally binding, and rejected unanimously by all arabs-Jews resided as well, so they took part in the war of defense, not offense. An offensive war would have entailed taking over land from non-threatening countries. Had the armistice not been called, it’s possible the miraculous Jewish ragtag army would have re-captured parts of the W.Bank. And all this garbage about Jerusalem being illegally occupied by Israel when it should be a UN controlled international city-what about from 48-67? Annie, your site is so skewed that mostly the hateful anti-Jewish liars reply, with a few others who try present the truth. You obviously encourage these liars to post, as you knock everything else.
    Annie, still waiting for you, Adam or Phil to explain, rationally, why you defend the one state solution, and how it could/would possibly grant equality to the 5+million Jews living there, in the Middle East backdrop of unrelentless, genocidal hatred of Jews, and the ethnic cleansing of Jews from arab countries since the 1930s, espec. after 1941. Farhud, read about it.

    • K Renner
      March 21, 2013, 1:23 pm

      Hypocritical and disgusting claptrap coming from the mouth of a grade-schooler.

      “Arabs this, Arabs that. Anti-Semitism. The Palestinians should have given up all of their land because Arabs are 100% alike and can move from country to country with no problems because they have no unique cultural aspects in each country. Jews are the victims. Arabs are worse then Hitler. Palestinians should’ve shot themselves so that we didn’t have to. Blah blah blah.”

      • Annie Robbins
        March 21, 2013, 1:57 pm

        lol renner! sometimes that’s exactly the way i hear them!!! we’re so bad.

      • K Renner
        March 21, 2013, 2:04 pm

        well that is essentially what he is saying, and as a result not an argument at all.

        You can more easily argue that Palestinians have no obligation to accept jews of foreign extraction as they played no role in the holocaust (and they then bleat incessantly about the Grand Mufti, as though he was the sole Palestinian political figurehead), and by extent had no obligation to accept the partition part, and no obligation to “make peace” with foreign jews whose end goal was to bring every jew in the world to live in the “homeland of the jews”- meaning that they would need to collect more territory and that they would sooner or later violate the boundaries proscribed by the partition plan in order to accommodate all of them.

    • Talkback
      March 21, 2013, 5:27 pm

      RJL says: “Annie, the Jews invaded land not designated for them by the partition?”

      Just have a look:
      link to passia.org
      link to en.wikipedia.org

      “First of all, who started the war of 48?”.

      The party who needed a war to acquire territory for a future state.

      “Who defended themselves, in a war of annihilation directed against them?”

      Count those who were massacred or expelled.

      “the miraculous Jewish ragtag army”

      The one who had an agreement with Jordan to split up Palestine and was troubled only by it’s army when it wanted to acquire Jerusalem? How many Arabs actually fought the Jews on the territory which was recommended considering the fact that the Palestinians were demilitarized by the Mandate power after the Arab revolt?

      “what about from 48-67?”

      You mean the time when the occupiers of Gaza and the West Bank stopped Jews frome more massacres and expulsion? What about it? They were welcomed.

      “how it could/would possibly grant equality to the 5+million Jews living there, in the Middle East backdrop of unrelentless, genocidal hatred of Jews”

      Funny that it wasn’t a problem before Jews wanted to take over Palestine, massacred and expelled Palestinians, razed more than 400 villages, looted cities, took over homes and lands, stole their money from their bank accounts and embezzled what was left.

      Even funnier how the “genocidal hatred” express in places were Jews and Palestinians still live side by side. Maybe the “genocidal hatred” is part of your psyche. Or do you accept what Jews did to Palestinians? In that case you don’t have a problem, if Palestinians treat Jews like they treated Palestinians since 1948, right?

      • Hostage
        March 21, 2013, 11:12 pm

        “And all this garbage about Jerusalem being illegally occupied by Israel when it should be a UN controlled international city-what about from 48-67?”

        The General Assembly adopted resolution 303 (IV) “Palestine: Question of an international regime for the Jerusalem area and the protection of the Holy Places 9 December 1949.” In line with Article 28 of the Palestine Mandate and its authority under Articles 18, 80, 81, and 85 of the UN Charter:
        *Article 28 on the requirement to make arrangements as deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under international guarantee the existing rights regarding religious freedom and the holy places.
        link to avalon.law.yale.edu
        *Article 18 on the authority of the General Assembly to adopt “decisions”
        link to yale.edu
        *Articles 80, 81, and 85 granting the General Assembly the power to place territories under direct trusteeship and appoint the UN Organization itself as the administering authority.
        link to yale.edu
        link to yale.edu
        link to yale.edu

        The Security Council exercised its Chapter VII powers to implement “provisional measures” under Article 40. It ordered that permanent armistice demarcation lines be established and accepted the provisional agreements on behalf of the UN Organization. The agreement recognized “the exclusive competence” of a mixed Israeli-Jordanian Special Committee to develop plans and arrangements for Jerusalem or any other subject and instructed the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization to carry them out, without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the all the parties concerned.
        *Article 40 on the power to adopt provisional measures
        link to yale.edu
        * See Articles VIII thru XI of the Armistice Agreement regarding the provisional powers of the Special Committee.
        link to avalon.law.yale.edu
        * See UN Security Council resolutions 62 and 73
        link to yale.edu
        link to un.org

        The UN Trusteeship Council continued to adopted permanent measures in-line with resolution 181(II) and 303(IV), including a Statute for the City of Jerusalem that was adopted in 1950. link to unispal.un.org

        FYI, the ICJ advised that Israel had violated all of the relevant UN resolutions and its obligations under international law. The only justification anyone has ever heard for that is some garbage about a connection of the ancient Jews to the city. It remains a mystery why that should preempt the legal measures adopted to protect the rights of Christians and Muslims who also have ancient connections too.

    • Hostage
      March 21, 2013, 7:22 pm

      Annie, the Jews invaded land not designated for them by the partition? Oh, you bruise the collective Jewish ego.

      I’m Jewish and it offends me when liars, like you, try to conceal the simple fact that the Zionist Jews always were the aggressors from the very beginning.

      First of all, who started the war of 48?

      Ben Gurion and his cronies began planning the war no later than 1937. Ben Gurion himself worked as a union organizer in Plosnk, with other young revolutionaries. They extorted money for Palestine from wealthy Jews at gunpoint. link to books.google.com

      When he and his comrades finally went to Palestine, they helped found a trade union there that operated as “a state within the state” with its own armed militias & etc. that were involved in corruption, assassinations, and acts of terror.

      Ahdut Ha’avodah (Unity of Labor) was established in 1919. Its founding Charter reflected the narcissistic character of the “collective Jewish ego” you mentioned above. It demanded the establishment of a Jewish Socialist Republic in all of Palestine, and “the transfer of Palestine’s land, water, and natural resources to the people of Israel as their eternal possession.” See Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, Shabtai Teveth, page 99.

      Ben Gurion went on to assume the leadership of the Executive Committee of the Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency. It was not a coincidence that he was also in charge of the defense portfolio as well. The official published history of the Haganah says that in the summer of 1937, ten years before the UN Partition plan, David Ben Gurion directed the Haganah Commander of Tel Aviv, Elimelech Avnir, to draw up a plan to take over the country after the British withdrawal. See link to palestine-studies.org

      That plan was updated from time to time over the years. That’s why the preamble of Plan Dalet (available at the Jewish Virtual Library) explicitly states that it is based upon three earlier plans. link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

      Former Israeli Foreign Minister and Oxford-trained historian Schlomo Ben Ami (PhD) writes that 1937 was the year that the “Field Battalions” under Yitzhak Sadeh wrote the “Avner Plan”, which anticipated and laid the groundwork for what would become in 1948, Plan Dalet. He says it envisioned going far beyond any boundaries contained in the existing partition proposals and planned the conquest of the Galilee, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. See Scars of war, wounds of peace: the Israeli-Arab tragedy, By Shlomo Ben-Ami, Oxford University Press, USA, 2006, ISBN: 019518158, page 17

      That plan explicitly called for armed attacks against Arab bases located outside the frontiers of the so-called Hebrew state. The Zionists also tried to retain and resupply their own watchtower and stockade military settlements in the Arab State. They were similar in function to those that were established after the Six Day War by the Nahal military brigade. They were intended to create facts on the ground that would determine the de facto borders of the Jewish state. Ben Ami and other historians point out that the purpose of the plans to link these outlying fortified points to Jewish population centers was territorial aggrandizement, pure and simple. The Provisional Government of Israel justified the their invasion on the rather feeble grounds that it was protecting “Jewish settlements outside the area of the State where, owing to the absence of any duly constituted authority and the failure to implement the guarantees and safeguards provided for under the General Assembly Plan, life and property were in imminent danger.”
      link to unispal.un.org

      At one and the same time, its forces were busy dynamiting, demolishing, or plowing-under more than 400 Arab villages.

      In 1943 the US Consul at Cairo had cabled the State Department about Zionist statements which indicated that they intended to achieve their aims through military conquest:

      “I have noted in discussions with Zionist spokesmen visiting Cairo recently a marked hardening in their attitude (possibly owing in part to increased confidence resulting from alleged large-scale clandestine arming by Jews in Palestine) which in several cases has taken the form of frankly admitting that it is idle to continue to talk of “negotiations” with Arabs, in balance obvious that any solution satisfactory to Zionists would have to be “imposed” on Arabs by threat or use of force and this latter the only realistic line of action to adopt.

      — Kirk link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

      Who was outnumbered, in manpower and firepower?

      The Arabs. They were hard pressed to field a disorganized force of about 30,000 fighters and auxilliaries. The Jewish militias fielded a well-equipped force numbering around 80,000 fighters and auxiliaries. See Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, Pantheon, 1988, Myth Six. The Tiny newborn State of Israel faced the onslaught of the Arab Armies as David faced Goliath: a numerically inferior, poorly armed people in danger of being overrun by a military giant, starting on page 187.

      *On 18 February 1948, Moshe Sharett wrote “We will have only enough troops to defend ourselves, not to take over the country.” Ben Gurion replied:

      If we will receive in time the arms we have already purchased, and maybe even receive some of that promised to us by the UN, we will be able not only to defend, but also to inflict death blows on the Syrians in their own country – and take over Palestine as a whole. I am in no doubt of this. We can face all the Arab forces. This is not a mystical belief but a cold and rational calculation based on practical examination. ” See Ben Gurion Archives, Correspondence Section 23.02-1.03.48 Document 59, 26 February 1948. — cited on page 46 of Ilan Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Oneworld, reprint 2007

      Who defended themselves, in a war of annihilation directed against them?

      Here is a detailed map of the depopulated Arab towns and villages that resulted from the 1948 war. Don’t you find it odd that the Zionists have never created a similar map of all the depopulated Jewish towns and villages? Nuff said. link to palestineremembered.com

      Within the GA partition plan-only a suggestion, not legally binding,

      In fact the only case in which its legal consequences have ever been argued was the 2003 Wall case. The General Assembly cited it as one of “the relevant” UN resolutions in its request for an advisory opinion and the Court said it was the legal basis for the permanent responsibility of the United Nations Organization regarding Palestine. The Court also ruled that Israel was in violation of the relevant UN resolutions and its obligations under international law.

      FYI, nothing in Dr. Alan Baker’s 230 page written submission for the State of Israel challenged the validity of UN GA resolution 181(II). The representative of the Jewish Agency, Mr. Shertok, who subsequently served as Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister of Israel, stated his opinion regarding the “binding force” of resolution 181 on April 27, 1948:

      “With regard to the status of Assembly resolutions in international law, it was admitted that any which touched the national sovereignty of the Members of the United Nations were mere recommendations and not binding. However, the Palestine resolution was essentially different for it concerned the future of a territory subject to an international trust. Only the United Nations as a whole was competent to determine the future of the territory, and its decision, therefore, had a binding force.

      –U.N. Doc. A/C. 1/SR. 127, P. 7 (27 April 1948) cited in An International Law Analysis Of The Major United Nations Resolutions Concerning The Palestine Question link to unispal.un.org

      Furthermore the Government of Israel delivered a lecture on the subject to the United Nations on the 7th of July 1948:

      “On behalf of the Provisional Government of Israel, I have the honor to offer the following observations on the suggestions presented by you under cover of your letter of June 27 as a possible basis for discussion in discharge of your task to ‘promote a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine’.
      “1. The Provisional Government of Israel noted with surprise that your suggestions appear to ignore the resolution of the General Assembly of 29 November 1947, which remains the only internationally valid adjudication on the question of the future government of Palestine.

      See UN Document S/870: Letter Dated 7 July 1948 From The Representative Of The Provisional Government Of Israel To The Secretary-General Containing Israel’s Reply To The United Nations Mediator’s Suggestions (Document S/863) link to unispal.un.org

  11. Light
    March 21, 2013, 12:21 pm

    RJL

    First of all, who started the war of 48?

    The Zionist militias, ie. Haganah, Palmach and Irgun.

    Who was outnumbered, in manpower and firepower?

    The Palestinians, they had little or no organized militias to defend themselves once the British departed.

Leave a Reply