ICC is called on to investigate ‘territorial black hole’ that Palestinians have been locked in for decades

 

ICC prosecutor Fatou Benso

International Criminal Court  prosecutor Fatou Benso (Photograph: AFP/Getty Images)

 

The Guardian is reporting that two Palestinian human rights groups, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) and Al-Haq, have asked the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Fatou Bensouda, to launch an investigation into the “widespread commission of crimes in Palestine,” and to “confront the temporal and territorial ‘black hole’ in which the people of the state of Palestine have been locked for the past several decades”.

Thus far the Palestinian leadership has not formally signed on with the international courts, but (PCHR) and Al-Haq argue that the ICC has grounds to extend its jurisdiction without having ratification by Palestine.

ICC urged to investigate ‘commission of crimes’ in Palestinian territories:

 

The two rights groups are calling for the court to begin an investigation based on “the mass of evidence and documentation attesting to the widespread commission of crimes in Palestine, and the environment of total impunity for the perpetrators”.

…… the legal opinion said the ICC had grounds to extend its jurisdiction without ratification by Palestine. It could do this on the basis of a declaration submitted by the Palestinian leadership in 2009, which accepted the jurisdiction of the court under article 12 (3) of the Rome statute.

“The purpose of the court being to combat impunity by ensuring that ‘the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished’ and ‘to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes’, it is now incumbent on the office of the prosecutor to confront the temporal and territorial ‘black hole’ in which the people of the state of Palestine have been locked for the past several decades,” the legal opinion said.

……the US has put intense pressure on the Palestinians to freeze any such moves while renewed peace negotiations are under way. Israel would be expected to walk out of talks at any sign of what it and the US describe as unilateral actions by the Palestinians to advance their state.

Israel is particularly alarmed at the prospect of the Palestinians joining the ICC as such a move could pave the way for possible prosecution of Israel for breaches of international law, including war crimes.

Just a few days days ago Raji Sourani, the founder and director of Gaza’s Palestine Centre for Human Rights, received a Right Livelihood Award, known as the “alternative Nobel Prize” for “decades of dedicated legal work and advocacy on behalf of human rights for the Palestinian people.”

 

(Hat tip Kathy Sheetz)

About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 176 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. amigo says:

    Now is the time to hit Israel in every way possible.

    Drown them in Lawsuits at the ICC/ICJ.

    Drown them in their own courts with every case both past and present.

    Join Every intl org open to you and keep them busy on the international front spreading even more Hasbara.

    Send more boats to Gaza.Flood Israel with “foreign visitors” overwhelming their resources.

    Isolate their representatives world wide.

    In other words, suffocate them in their own excretion.We would soon see who is wagging whose tail.

    • OlegR says:

      My my we are feeling belligerent today.

      • Hostage says:

        My my we are feeling belligerent today.

        This Mondoweiss article doesn’t advocate the use of force. Neither the PCHR nor Al-Haq are advocating the use of force. When you say “we” I assume that you’re speaking about the mood of the belligerent Israeli occupiers and illegal settlers. FYI, the international criminal courts aren’t belligerents.

        • amigo says:

          “This Mondoweiss article doesn’t advocate the use of force. Neither the PCHR nor Al-Haq are advocating the use of force.”Hostage.

          For the record and the russian ,neither am I.

        • OlegR says:

          You assume wrong as always Hostage, i was talking about Amigo.

        • Hostage says:

          You assume wrong as always Hostage, i was talking about Amigo.

          Then you need to brush-up on your English. Pursuing legal remedies in the Courts is neither a casus belli nor an act of belligerency.

        • OlegR says:

          No Hostage you should pull your head out of your , hmmm…
          Let’s say legalistic interpretation of everything.

        • Hostage says:

          Let’s say legalistic interpretation of everything.

          LOL! When Zionists try to justify their wars, occupations, and crimes they employ a lot of legalistic sounding arguments. When anyone else exposes that bluster as illogical propaganda or invites the Government of Israel to “just tell it to the Judge”, you guys suddenly claim we are the ones who are being belligerent or that we are being overly legalistic and have our heads up our asses. You’re just pissed off that we have you figured out.

    • With whom do you want to send your boat? Maybe with Erdoğan that sent a flotilla and now ready to renew the military relations with Israel for handful of dollars as compensation?

      • for handful of dollars as compensation?

        really? i thought all that blew up again after obama’s visit when turkey said they wanted an acknowledgement of culpability from israel.

        • My point is that Erdoğan doesn’t send any more flotillas (and actually blocked one), I assume since he wants to renew the military and intelligence relations with Israel.

          About compensation: “A second is compensation where “there is progress” and negotiations are continuing, Davutoglu said” (Sep/26/2013)
          link to haaretz.com

        • iow turkey is not “ready to renew the military relations for handful of dollars as compensation”. you and me both know this is not a matter of a few dollars, as your link makes clear. so your assumption based on meaningless diplomatic niceties ( “there is progress” ) is worthless (except for diversionary purposes).

        • Hostage says:

          My point is that Erdoğan doesn’t send any more flotillas (and actually blocked one), I assume since he wants to renew the military and intelligence relations with Israel.

          I take it you don’t read the Jewish or Israeli press, e.g. See:
          *“Turkey conditions normalization on Israel ending Gaza blockade, compensating for flotilla” link to haaretz.com
          * “Erdogan Says Gaza Blockade Must Be Lifted Before Full Normalization With Israel” link to algemeiner.com
          *
          “Turkey: Normalized relations with Israel conditioned on siege end “ link to ynetnews.com

        • Bandolero says:

          Erdogan never stopped doing business with Israel, even his own family himself did business all the time when allegedly relations where bad:

          link to en.alalam.ir

          I think, the whole story of Turkey having lowered relations with Israel after flotilla was just a scam to make Syria (and AKP voters) feel comfortable while Erdogan together with Israel prepared to attack Syria with this irregulare warfare we have seen in the past two and a half years.

          But it may change, now that Erdogan has seen that teaming up with Israel to wage war against Syria doesn’t bring the desired fruits Erdogan may be really angry and leave that relationship together with NATO and it’s EU bid. Just a couple of days ago Turkey is said to have chosen a Chinese company for a 4bn Dollar air defense system contract.

        • Shingo says:

          My point is that Erdoğan doesn’t send any more flotillas

          Resigns never sent any flotillas you saddistic apologist for murder.

          I love how you waste so much time pretending to care about human life and human suffering , only to let your guard down every so often and reveal your true nature.

        • @Bandolero:

          OK, now you touch my point:

          “I think, the whole story of Turkey having lowered relations with Israel after flotilla was just a scam to make Syria (and AKP voters) feel comfortable while Erdogan together with Israel prepared to attack Syria with this irregular warfare we have seen in the past two and a half years.”

          After your summary, is it correct to say that, actually, Erdoğan used the Palestinians and sent (and will send) flotilla only when it is good for Turkey interests? Please, correct me if I didn’t understand you.

        • @Hostage: Sorry, you have to update your sources. Your links are from March 2013. Since than many things were changed. My point is clear: The Erdogan flotilla served Turkey interests only. No flotilla was sent after the Marmara.

          @Annie: Please, let’s wait several weeks. I believe that the whole thing is over and the relations between Turkey and Israel will return to be named as they were in the past not only in security field, but also in civilian (trade and tourism).

        • mahane, it was not ever an ‘erdogan flotilla’. and yes there has been other efforts to break the blockade by sea since the mavi marmara, although not from turkey. i know because we reported on it.

          let’s wait several weeks. I believe that the whole thing is over and the relations between Turkey and Israel will return to be named as they were in the past not only in security field, but also in civilian (trade and tourism).

          yes i am sure from your little potatoe perch down at the market you get all the important state secrets, i’ll keep a look out. btw, did you know the ‘new’ university hasbara efforts are led out of the prime ministers office? i’m sure those students eat potatoes too. some might even sell them on their off hrs.

        • @Shingo:

          “Resigns never sent any flotillas you saddistic apologist for murder”

          When we talk on the Turkey flotilla and the Turkey interests behind the flotilla, we don’t justify any murder. Before you write your comments, you can ask me, if you want, my opinion on the events took place on the flotilla. The fact that the consequences were terrible, does not mean we can not talk about the interests behind the flotilla.

        • erogan did not ‘send’ the flotilla. he responded like a normal head of state might normally respond when some rouge navy illegally massacres his civilian citizens in cold bold at point blank range in international waters.

        • Shingo says:

          Since than many things were changed. My point is clear: The Erdogan flotilla served Turkey interests only. No flotilla was sent after the Marmara.

          Your point is false.

          1. Erdogan never sent any flotilla to Gaza
          2. The flotilla was sent for Gaza’s interests.

          I believe that the whole thing is over and the relations between Turkey and Israel will return to be named as they were in the past not only in security field

          Everytime you preface a statement with what you “believe”we know you are talking about wing and a prayer, not fact or even logic. At the very best, the relationship between Turkey and Israel will not be revisited at all. At the worst, Turkey will reissue it’s demands that Israel lift the siege of Gaza and issue a public apology.

        • Shingo says:

          After your summary, is it correct to say that, actually, Erdoğan used the Palestinians and sent (and will send) flotilla only when it is good for Turkey interests?

          How were Turkey’s interests served by the flotilla?

        • @Annie: ” i’ll keep a look out” – OK, let’s wait and see. No, I don’t get state secrets!!! I just listen to the news every day and read newspapers like you do. Please, search if you want, for new sources starting September this year and not before.

          You, like many others here, mocking my profession many times. Yes, I am a potato seller in the market!!! If this fact is not convenient to you and a hard worker can’t write his opinions freely, please tell me, so I quit this site. But if not, stop mocking me any time!!! I already apologized to others in this site twice (Gamal and ecru), now I am waiting your apology.

        • Bandolero says:

          MahaneYehude1

          After your summary, is it correct to say that, actually, Erdoğan used the Palestinians and sent … flotilla …?

          Yes, that’s what I think Erdogan actually did.

          … only when it is good for Turkey interests

          Well, what’s the motivation, it’s not so easy. I don’t think it actually was in Turkey’s interests to do that, more in the interest of humanity as a whole.

          I think, Erdogan has proven with his action in regard to Syria that he doesn’t care much about Turkey’s interest, but his identity is a complated mix of a pan-nationalist ottoman Sunni jihadi nature. So I believe, that Erdogan really is up to help Hamas, but not to help Palestinians, but as cover to advance his jihadi interests while at the same time collaborating with Israel. At the same time I do really think Erdogan was surprised by the murderous behaviour of the Israeli IDF thugs in regard to the flotilla.

          Annie:

          I think the flotilla was organized by IHH, which is closely linked to the AKP, and AKP was the main driver behind the flotilla.

        • we don’t justify any murder.

          the state doesn’t acknowledge it tho either, does it? and do you? flotilla massacre denial!

        • I am a potato seller in the market!!! If this fact is not convenient to you and a hard worker can’t write his opinions freely, please tell me, so I quit this site.

          is that a promise? can i have a dollar for every time you say you’ll quit the site?
          just joking!

          seriously tho, i wasn’t mocking you. merely mentioning lots of students eat potatoes, under these circumstances it wouldn’t be unusual for one of our PM hasbrats to make their way down to your stall and gossip about the goings on around the water cooler @PMcentral. but if you got your info thru the newspaper…about that ‘wait a few weeks’ please send the links.

        • RoHa says:

          We wouldn’t mock you for being a potato seller if we believed you were a real potato seller. However, since you seem to be several people with differing levels of competence in English and Latin, we think you are a composite fake hiding behind the façade of “potato seller”.

        • Hostage says:

          @Hostage: Sorry, you have to update your sources. Your links are from March 2013. Since than many things were changed.

          Okay here is one from April which explains why Turkey still hasn’t sent an Ambassador back to Israel: “Turkey not to send back envoy to Israel unless blockade on Gaza lifted” link to todayszaman.com

          That situation hasn’t changed. Your comments about trade or tourism have noting to do with normalizing the government to government relations.

        • Ecru says:

          @ MY1

          When have I ever made fun of you for being a potato seller?

        • amigo says:

          Mehane 1. or is that 2??.

          Personally, I could care less if you are disturbed by your treatment here.No one who supports Human Rights and freedom should utter one word of apology to you.How dare you ask .

          You are an apologist for some of the most cruel actions carried out by your criminal nation.Imagine the “disturbance” your pipsqueak tin pot ethnocracy causes the Palestinians.

          Wretched colonist.

        • Hostage says:

          P.S. @MahaneYehude1: As if on cue, Turkish President Abdullah Gul is quoted in a Ynet article dated today explaining that Turkey has not restored normal diplomatic relations with Israel because all of its demands have not been met. There were three conditions cited, including the removal of the Israeli blockade on Gaza. See Turkey: Israel is not meeting all our expectations link to ynetnews.com

        • mahane, in case you’ve not noticed…it’s not normal for anonymous posters to enter a site and introduce themselves byway of announcing their professions. that’s the sort of thing trolls do to establish and online ‘personality’ or ‘character’ in the same way a covert agent for a gov might create a false persona to ingratiate him/herself intot eh surroundings. it’s a form of disguise.

          just thought i’d mention. but i love the benign potato seller image. just a guy working for a living sellin spuds down at the market. spuds is a great nickname for you. it’s easier to type in too.

        • seafoid says:

          How about Naughty Spud?

        • miriam6 says:

          Why not just respectfully call him Mahane Yehude1?

        • miriam, when the covert agents sent by government of israel to targets the site start identifying themselves as such i will start distinguishing between pro israel posters and hasbara agents. until then no, i will not respect people who may be posting covertly for the purpose of diverting the conversation, dominating the threads, and highjacking the conversations.

          go complain to the government of israel for making every single anonymous pro israel poster suspect.

          and do not tell me they are not here, as i mentioned in the link we’ve already found posters w/addresses coming fron the pm’s office.

          and you want to be treated with respect just like you were not part of a covert propaganda campaign? then respect us and stop this charade. come out from under your disguises. when that happens, i will reconsider.

        • hostage, i just saw your comment/link. thanks!

        • @ecru: I didn’t say you made fun of me. I wrote that I apologized to you in the past.

        • @Annie: OK, I know people don’t announcing their professions (although many do it in their profile). I assume it is hard to believe that I work as a seller, but personal circumstances made me to do so. But, I always was and is an autodidact that like to study new things and break the walls of ignorance. The reason I told I work in the market in my first comments is simply to because I wanted to say that my opinions were shaped after many relations with Palestinians. I can’t convince you (and don’t know how) that I am not “Hasbara” but a regular Israeli citizen that do care about the situation.

  2. just says:

    Such great news.

    The tide is turning! I have to “run”, but I wanted to thank you Annie, for promising news.

    :}

  3. Walid says:

    Great news, I hope one of the first crimes to be investigated are by their collaborationist leaders for having been refusing to call in the ICC on blatant Israeli crimes.

    • HarryLaw says:

      Walid, the only reason I can see Abbas will not sign up to the ICC is because he has been threatened by the US, in a leaked memo from Wikileaks an Israeli General said they would treat the Palestinians going to the ICC as an act of war and counseled the US to put pressure on Abbas not to do so. link to news.antiwar.com In view of the continued settlement building [a war crime] while negotiations continue, I could not see why Abbas refused to at least sign on to the ICC, alas we do not know what has been threatened, but in any case Abbas must bite the bullet very shortly or he will face the “terrors of the earth” not only from the US/Israel but from the Palestinians.

      • your link is from sept 2011 harry. they were going to go to the icc this year and agreed to delay for 8 weeks last spring. thus far they have not agreed not to go, but there was a 9 month delay w/the new ‘negotiations’. probably abbas agreed for money and pressure, but i think this new initiative is the right move.

        it doesn’t have to come from abbas, as hostage has pointed out many times once the GA approved the statehood bid palestine became in the jurisdiction of the court. and it’s the perfect time to squeeze because the clockis ticking and likelynothing would come about between now and the end of those nine months anyway. and , since we no nothing will change w/these ‘negotiations’, the wheels will already be fully in motion by the end of those 9 months, perhaps the investigations will already be in full throttle, israel will have demonstrated once again they have no intention of taking a non agressive stance wrt expanasion, and palestine can formally join the court and sign onto the claim. or something. it’s perfect timing.

        also, israel will not want to make too much of a stink about it publicly (it doesn’t bode well for pretext of raising alarm wrt iran to admit those pesky settlements/occupation is a REAL ISSUE) until it’s down to crunch time. and they can’t crunch palestine about it because it’s not palestine bringing the argument/opinion/claim. it’s PCHR and Al-Haq.

        and there’s something fishy about PCHR’s website link to pchrgaza.org retaliation? hmm. israel will probably drag some more people away and imprison them over this. or bomb something.

      • kalithea says:

        Abbas is but a Zionist sub-contractor. He will never help deliver rights to the Palestinians. On the contrary, he may end up being tried for TREASON by the Palestinian people, i.e. Palestinian people vs M. Abbas.

        I look forward to that day.

    • bintbiba says:

      Thank you annie, ….great uplifting news! Unmask the hypocricy and lies!!

  4. W.Jones says:

    Have similar petitions been presented to the ICC in the past?

  5. talknic says:

    Bravo! The silly frog should not have crawled into the pot. It has been spared the heat by the US UNSC veto vote for far too long.

  6. Did anyone read the article? ICC have NOT accepted to take on this, they have only been urged to do so by palestinian groups. An urging that have been ignored many times before.

    • Did anyone read the article?

      did you read the headline? “ICC is called on to investigate ‘territorial black hole’ that Palestinians have been locked in for decades”

      the story is that they’ve asked the court to investigate. we’ll keep you updated what the response is.

      • Yes? If you read the comments here some people believe ICC have already accepted this case, which is obviously not correct.

        • Hostage says:

          Yes? If you read the comments here some people believe ICC have already accepted this case, which is obviously not correct.

          I’ve commented repeatedly here that the Palestinians have already done everything necessary for the ICC to investigate and prosecute those responsible for committing crimes listed in the Rome Statute on the territory of Palestine. The Prosecutor has stated that she won’t take action, unless Palestine first becomes a state party to the Rome Statute. But that’s NOT a legal requirement and violates the both the content and intent of Article 12(3) of the Statute.

          I’ve explained that it’s time now for Palestinian activists and NGOs to camp out at the Hague and put political pressure on the Office of the Prosecutor and the Judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber to take appropriate action and stop stonewalling, sandbagging, and stalling on the flagrantly illegal situations that exist in Palestine.

          By way of comparison, the President of the ICC recently appointed a three Judge panel to review the requirements to start an investigation of the attack on the aid flotilla in response to the Comoros referral. link to icc-cpi.int

        • Hostage says:

          P.S. The Pretrial Chamber can review the determinations made by the Prosecutor and request that the situation be reconsidered under the terms of Article 53(3)(a) and (b). link to untreaty.un.org

  7. I very glad that the ICC is going to investigate the crimes committed during the Israeli-Arab conflict. If this court is objective and not an anti-Israeli body like the UN Human Rights Commission, I believe a Pandora box will be open. Many Arab leaders would sit in the court for the perpetuation of the Palestinian refugee problem.

    • just says:

      No– Israel with her “allies” stands all alone when it come to crimes against the Palestinians, MY1.

      Realize it, deal with it, get on with treating your brothers and sisters with the justice that they have been denied– for far too long.

      btw– the “Palestinian refugee problem” is Israel’s and the “Western democracies”.

      What abysmal resolution was for the “Jewish refugee problem”???

      To steal innocent peoples’ land and resources and lives?

      pffffft.

    • Ecru says:

      @ MY1

      Many Arab leaders would sit in the court for the perpetuation of the Palestinian refugee problem.

      A problem that would not even exist without the criminal and immoral behaviour of the Zionists who not only perpetrated the Nakba in the first place but perpetuated the problem by not allowing their victims to return home, solely because of their ethnicity, and instead illegally seized their properties to hand over to Jews. And only to Jews.

    • Shingo says:

      If this court is objective and not an anti-Israeli body like the UN Human Rights Commission, I believe a Pandora box will be open. Many Arab leaders would sit in the court for the perpetuation of the Palestinian refugee problem.

      Don’t be stupid. Where is the law that would suggest Arab leaders are guilty of not taking responsibility for Israel’s crimes.

      You’re just talking rubbish as usual.

    • talknic says:

      MahaneYehude1 “Many Arab leaders would sit in the court for the perpetuation of the Palestinian refugee problem”

      Please elucidate on your bizarre theory. There are no UNSC resolutions against any Arab state for their treatment of Palestinian refugees.

      Nor is the UNHRC biased against Israel. The Laws, UN Charter and Conventions they cite in their resolutions are binding International Law. There are so many against Israel because Israel keeps ignoring its legal obligations. If you don’t carry your side of the bargain, your phone company sends you reminders. If you continue to ignore, they cut you off and will eventually take you to court. Is that bias?

      The UN Has been sending Israel reminders for 65 years and NO UN ACTION has ever been taken against Israel for its breaches of the Charter, International Law or the Conventions.

      That ain’t bias, its a long long piece of rope with which Israel has been slowly hanging itself with its expansive illegal facts on the ground.

      “I very glad that the ICC is going to investigate the crimes committed during the Israeli-Arab conflict.”

      Careful what you wish for. In the non binding opinions on Law, the UN Charter and the relevant Conventions that the ICJ been asked for in respect to the I/P issue, they come down against Israel, not the Palestinians. The meaning is simple to understand. Were they asked for a judgement, they’d come down against Israel, not the Palestinians.

      Do you really think the ICC is gonna be much different? They’re the same Laws, Charter and Conventions

  8. Ludwig says:

    The court can only respond to questions. When the question itself is biased so will the answer be. The question needs to be rephrased. The question is not about Israel’s actions in the “State of Palestine” it is if there is even an occupation in the first place under international law.

    • lol you come to mondoweiss with hasbara lies?

      ICJ ruled 04 that there was an occupation
      ICC rulings=binding!

    • seafoid says:

      “it is if there is even an occupation in the first place under international law”.

      That’s as bad as Holocaust denial in my book
      If there is no occupation the Palestinians have no right to be in Disneyland and any Israeli human rights abuses are kosher.
      While everyone know it is the Zionists who are the colonisers.

      BTW hilarious to see a bot cite international law.

    • Bumblebye says:

      Earwig
      Gawd, what a moron! If there was no “occupation in the first place under international law” then ALL the Palestinians who live in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem would have been ISRAELI CITIZENS since ’67! The arguments on this site, if similar treatment was happening, would be ENTIRELY about equal rights and an end to APARTHEID in “Ersatz” Israel!

    • Shingo says:

      The question is not about Israel’s actions in the “State of Palestine” it is if there is even an occupation in the first place under international law.

      Apart from the ICJ, the Israeli Supreme Court itself has already established there is an occupation you fool.

      • Shingo says:

        Even among Jewish groups, NGO-monitor has zero credibility.

        link to forward.com

      • Shmuel says:

        Apart from the ICJ, the Israeli Supreme Court itself has already established there is an occupation

        For example (from HCJ 7957/04):

        The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation… His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been “annexed” to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05)

    • amigo says:

      See Beit Zourik v Israel, Case # 2056/04.

      Try reading the following also and stop posting trollope.

      “http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/legal-expert-if-israel-isn-t-occupying-west-bank-it-must-give-up-land-held-by-idf-1.449909

      ” Prof. David Kretzmer, an expert on international law, also commented on the findings of the Levy committee, appointed to investigate the legality of building outposts in the West Bank. “If Israel is not an occupying force, it must immediately relinquish ownership of all private lands seized over the years for military use, taken with authority as the occupying force in an occupied territory, and restore the lands to previous owners,” said Kretzmer.”Haaretz

      “I cannot understand how someone claims that Israel is not an occupying force in the West Bank, after over forty years of government petitions to the High Court of Justice, citing authority as an occupying force in an occupied territory,” said Kretzmer. ” Haaretz.

      Why embarrass yourself dulwig.

    • talknic says:

      Ludwig “The court can only respond to questions. When the question itself is biased so will the answer be. The question needs to be rephrased. The question is not about Israel’s actions in the “State of Palestine” it is if there is even an occupation in the first place under international law.”

      You haven’t read any UNSC resolutions? It has already been determined that under International law there IS an occupation. Try UNSC res 476, where the UNSC even agrees with the Iranians on the issue. link to wp.me

  9. Citizen says:

    Thanks for the tidbit of good news, Annie. Peace talks where the US requires the Palestinians not to use the few legal resources they have to help their case, while ignoring Israel’s illegal settlement expansion grabbing more “facts on the ground” with which to negotiate at the peace talk table.

  10. mondonut says:

    I know that there must be great joy in anything that could possibly weaken Israel, but nobody in their right mind could actually believe the courts would take up action based on the requests of well paid advocacy groups.

    If and when the State of Palestine wishes to pursue it, the courts might (though unlikely) choose to take it up.

    • “well paid advocacy groups.”

      source?

      • just says:

        I’ll second that, Annie.

        “Source”? c’mon mondonut– link to truth!

        and btw, your comment that “If and when the State of Palestine wishes to pursue it, the courts might (though unlikely) choose to take it up.”

        It’s becoming more than “likely”/ ergo The Netanyahu’s exuberant fail @ the UN. Comeuppance is coming.

      • mondonut says:

        Annie Robbins says: “well paid advocacy groups.” source?
        =======================================
        Really? That’s the part you wish to dispute? Not the foolishness of the stunt and not that they are an advocacy group – you have a problem with a mention of their funding. Awesome.

        So in addition to the conspicuous lack of bake sales here is a list of just some of their generous contributors:

        NOVIB – Holland
        Open Society Institute – U.S.A
        Christian Aid – U.K
        Dan Church Aid – Denmark
        Grassroots International – U.S.A
        European Commission
        Representative Office of Norway
        Irish Aid
        Kvinna Till Kvinna – Sweden
        Al Quds Association Malaga – Spain
        Trócaire – Ireland
        CARE International West Bank and Gaza
        Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP) – UK
        The Swedish International Development Co-operation Agency (Sida)
        Royal Danish Representative Office
        Austrian Representative Office
        Swiss Development and Cooperation Agency

        • yeah, this is very normal for a group that monitors human rights. or would you also consider Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP) – UK or CARE International as advocacy groups?

          and what on earth do you mean by “That’s the part you wish to dispute?” the allegation it’s a stunt or the award winning human rights groups are not what they say they are, it’s just diversionary hasbara. of course that’s what you’d like to discuss. it’s much easier to unmask the allegation to go after the source of it. ngo monitor is a famous lawfare group seeking to end human right monitoring altogether. they are famous for it, it’s their job.

        • amigo says:

          mondonut.

          Thanks for pointing out the two Irish Aid groups.Makes me feel very proud knowing we Irish are right in the forefront of fighting state terrorism and war crimes.

          Btw Is the christian Aid –UK mentioned above connected to the Christian Fundamentalists in the USA who give millions and millions in funding the Occupation Nation.

          Ironic that , eh.

        • Hostage says:

          Not the foolishness of the stunt

          There’s nothing foolish about asking the current ICC Prosecutor to shut-up and do her job. The Rome Statute is a treaty agreement between the State Parties. They created and fund the Court and they agreed, from the very outset, that non-member states have a guaranteed right to accept the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction for crimes committed on their own territory.

          It has been a bizarre spectacle watching the Office of The Prosecutor (OTP) try to over-complicate that fact since the 2009 Palestinian Article 12(3) declaration was submitted. The former prosecutor wasted three years time soliciting mini-law review essays from every one but the UN Secretary General or the Assembly of State Parties. He finally concluded that his office was acting ultra vires in that connection and wasn’t empowered by the statute to question or make determinations regarding Palestinian statehood in the first place. It obviously doesn’t empower him to refuse to take action based upon his own uncertainty, but that’s exactly what he finally did.

          He claimed the decision was up to the Secretary General or the Assembly of State Parties, but never bothered to ask either one for an opinion before his term in office expired and he was replaced by his former deputy. It was a matter of public record all along that the Secretary General had already been accepting accessions from Palestine for multilateral treaties ever since 2003. The ESCWA agreements in question were only open to accession by States.

          By the time the Prosecutor wrote his status advisory refusing to take action, the UNESCO vote had already placed Palestine within the legal category of States that can conclude treaties without obtaining any determination from the Secretary General. All of that is part of the explicit terms of the UN Convention on the Law of Treaties. So Ocampo’s opinion about Palestine’s UN observer status was irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent. His successor admitted that the Court could obtain jurisdiction under the terms of the existing declaration, but she said she wouldn’t take any action unless Palestine becomes a member state.

          It goes without saying that the Prosecutor is a creature of the Rome Statute and is not empowered to unilaterally amend or annul Article 12(3). But that appears to be what she thinks the Prosecutor is capable of doing.

        • talknic says:

          @mondonut FAIL again….. over and over and over…

          A list of contributors but not their contributions means SFA

        • mondonut says:

          Hostage says: …that non-member states have a guaranteed right to accept the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction for crimes committed on their own territory.
          =================================================
          If and when the State of Palestine has their own territory (not just claims to it) then I suppose this might become operative.

        • mondonut says:

          talknic says: A list of contributors but not their contributions means SFA
          ==========================================
          They choose to keep the actual contributions secret. I suppose it is your contention that they are not well funded, care to back that up?

        • talknic says:

          @ mondonut “If and when the State of Palestine has their own territory (not just claims to it) then I suppose this might become operative”

          The State of Palestine HAS its own territory. It’s occupied by “Israel, the occupying Power”

          “1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

          2. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly;” link to domino.un.org

          Do try to learn something instead of spouting moldy olde wholly holey Hasbara.

        • talknic says:

          mondonut “They choose to keep the actual contributions secret.”

          OK Have it your way … POOOOF goes your statement “well paid advocacy groups” link to mondoweiss.net

          “I suppose it is your contention that they are not well funded, care to back that up?”

          You “suppose” something then expect me to back it up? Get a life. You brought “well paid advocacy groups” into play, then failed.

          Sheeeeesh hired help must be hard to get at Hasbara central

        • mondonut says:

          talknic says: The State of Palestine HAS its own territory. It’s occupied by “Israel, the occupying Power”
          =================================================
          None of which assigns territory to the State of Palestine. They have nothing but claims.

        • Shingo says:

          None of which assigns territory to the State of Palestine

          False. The LON already recognized Palestine as a state in 1922. When Israel declared independence with the borders of the partition, Israel
          itself ceased to be part of Palestine, but Palestine remained.

        • Hostage says:

          If and when the State of Palestine has their own territory (not just claims to it) then I suppose this might become operative.

          Correction: You can’t have it both ways. In the Eichmann case Israel established the precedent that allows States to prosecute crimes committed by citizens of other countries even when they committed outside its territorial jurisdiction or before the State came into existence. So, all states have the inherent right to exercise universal jurisdiction over certain serious crimes without regard to any local statutory limitations.

          Both the Declaration of Principles and the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip contained explicit stipulations that said the Palestinian authorities could exercise territorial jurisdiction over the West Bank and Gaza “in accordance with the principles of international law”.

          In the Wall case, the Court found that Israel was illegally interfering with the exercise of certain Palestinian rights including the right to determine their own political and legal status. Israel argued that it was not under any obligation to respect UN human rights treaties in the occupied territories, because all the related responsibilities had been assumed by the Palestinian authorities and it could not effectively control the territory during an armed conflict. The Court rejected that argument, but agreed that Israel “is under an obligation not to raise any obstacle to the exercise of such rights in those fields where competence has been transferred to Palestinian authorities.” See paragraph 112. link to icj-cij.org

          So Israel cannot object to the exercise of the territorial jurisdiction that it transferred under the accords. FYI, Article 12(3) only requires that the victim State exercise territorial jurisdiction in order to accept the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction.

          The Court has its own complimentary subject matter jurisdiction over a very specific list of crimes. Article 4(2) provides that: “The Court may exercise its functions and powers, as provided in this Statute, on the territory of any State Party and, by special agreement, on the territory of any other State.” So the ICC and other states do not need Israel’s consent.

        • Hostage says:

          None of which assigns territory to the State of Palestine. They have nothing but claims.

          No, they have millions of legal inhabitants living there. The people were citizens of the Jordan, a UN member state, that Israel invaded and occupied in 1967. They don’t need to make any claims, since the permanent international lines of demarcation can’t be altered without their consent:Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

          Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. . . .

          . . . The territory of a State shall not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of force in contravention of the provisions of the Charter. The territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.
          — Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations

        • talknic says:

          mondonut “None of which assigns territory to the State of Palestine”

          Wrong. The Palestinians are willing to cede 78% of the territory that remained of Palestine after Israel was declared independent of Palestine. This has already been recognized by the majority of the International Community of Nations in EXACTLY the same way as Israel was recognized by the “Comity of Nations”
          link to google.com

          “They have nothing but claims.”

          Wrong. It is Israel who has nothing but claims over non-Israeli territory. All of Israel’s official claims to non-Israeli territory have been rebuffed, this is reflected in all the UNSC resolutions and official UN documentation on the matter, e.g., :

          Israeli claim: 31st Aug 1949
          3. With regard to the territorial adjustments of which the Commission treats in Chapter II of it memorandum, the Delegation of Israel considers that in addition to the territory indicated on the working document annexed to the Protocol of May 12, all other areas falling within the control and jurisdiction of Israel under the terms of the armistice agreements concluded by Israel with Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom and Syria should be formally recognized as Israel territory.
          link to unispal.un.org

          Rebuffed: In this regard, the Comission would like to observe that In Its opinion any reference to the Armistice Agree-ments in connection with the final settlement of the territorial question is Palestine should be considered in the light of the clauses contained in the texts of the Armistice Agreements themselves, according to which “It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations”.
          (Art.2, para. 2 of the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement); and “The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question”.
          (Art-5, para. 2 of the Armistice Agreement with Egypt, Art* 6, para. 9 of the Armistice Agreement with the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom and Art,?, para. 1 of the Armistice Agreement with Syria);
          The Commission feels that it has to draw your attention to its point of view on this subject, in order to avoid all possible misunderstanding in the future.
          link to domino.un.org

      • Hostage says:

        “well paid advocacy groups.”

        So what? All of the defendants on trial in the Hague are represented by well-paid legal advocates and more than a few well-paid amici curiae. Whatever is fair for them is also fair for the petitioners.

    • Cliff says:

      What advocacy groups would that be, thief/colonist/liar?

      NGO Monitor? CAMERA? StandWithUs? AIPAC? PalWatch? Gatestone Institute? Reut Institute? JINSA?

    • Hostage says:

      If and when the State of Palestine wishes to pursue it, the courts might (though unlikely) choose to take it up.

      There is no question that the State of Palestine has already accepted the on-going exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with the terms for non-member states prescribed by Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute. No further government action is necessary before the Prosecutor can investigate complaints received from Palestinian victims or Palestinian NGOs.

      Palestinian officials only agreed that they would not join the Court as a regular member state in the next few months. But their agreement has no effect on the Court. It cannot prevent officials there from performing duties connected with investigating or prosecuting crimes under the terms of the existing 2009 agreement:

      “The Government of Palestine hereby recognizes the jurisdiction of the Court for the purpose of identifying, prosecuting and judging the authors and accomplices of crimes committed on the territory of Palestine since 1 July 2002. As a consequence, the Government of Palestine will cooperate with the Court without delay or exceptions in conformity with Chapter 9. This declaration is made for an indeterminate duration, and will enter into force upon its signature.”

      – Declaration of the Palestinian National Authority recognizing the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, executed for the Government of Palestine by Ali Khashan, Minister of Justice, January 21, 2009. link to iccforum.com

      • mondonut says:

        Hostage says: No further government action is necessary before the Prosecutor can investigate complaints received from Palestinian victims or Palestinian NGOs.
        ==============================================
        Nonetheless as the court has already demonstrated by their inaction, if it has any intention of proceeding (doubtful) they will not so do without further confirmation from the Palestinian government.

        • Hostage says:

          Nonetheless as the court has already demonstrated by their inaction

          This is an independent criminal court with a statute and its own published regulations, not an ad hoc political committee. The Prosecutor should have notified the President about the Palestinian situation long ago under the terms of the Court’s own regulations, so that it could be assigned to a Pre-Trial Chamber, just like the Comoros referral. Al Haq and PCHR are simply reminding the Court that there isn’t any room for resolving jurisdictional disputes on the basis of arguments from silence or inaction.

          If Palestinian statehood really is a disputed material fact that could effect the outcome of a criminal case, it’s up to the Judges, as triers of fact, to make a determination, not the Prosecutor.

          The ICC’s FAQ and the Registrar’s letter on this subject both indicate that 1) a decision on the validity of Palestine’s Article 12(3) declaration will be made by the “Judges”, not by the Prosecutor; and 2) pending a judicial determination, Palestine’s declaration has triggered mutual obligations to cooperate and provide judicial assistance, including the application of the rules pertaining to State Parties contained in Part 9 of the Rome Statute:

          The Court has not made any determination on the applicability of article 12(3) to this particular communication. A conclusive determination on its applicability would have to be made by the judges at an appropriate moment.
          link to icc-cpi.int
          I acknowledge receipt on 22 January 2009 of your correspondence which refers itself to article 12, paragraph 3 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court.
          Without prejudice to a judicial determination on the applicability of article 12, paragraph 3 to your correspondence, I wish to inform you that a declaration under article 12 paragraph 3 has the effect of the acceptance of jurisdiction with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5 of relevance to the situation and the application of the provisions of Part 9 and any rules thereunder, concerning States Parties, pursuant to Rule 44 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
          link to icc-cpi.int

          Rule 45 requires the Prosecutor to notify the President when a state files a complaint. Rule 46 requires the President to assign the situation to a panel of Judges. What everyone would like to know is: Why has none of that ever happened yet?

  11. miriam6 says:

    So the ICC may consider ignoring the very notional sovereignty that Palestinians have so far – in order to pursue the Israelis for THEIR trampling over Palestinian territory , notional sovereignty and rights in the OPT – and none of you ardent anti – Israel types can even see the irony.

    Once the ICC get their foot in the door – they would be likely to try to extend their reach to Palestinian leaders too.
    They might turn their attention to possible abuses of power by Palestinian leadership in the West Bank ( Fatah ) and Gaza ( Hamas).
    So we might see Fatah/ Hamas people in the ICC dock.

    The Israelis might well also like to use the ICC to pursue Hamas/ Fatah people for their responsibilities for sending suicide bombers into Israel.

    All in all if the ICC gets involved things are not likely to begin and end with Israelis in the dock.
    Maybe one day the upshot of all this will be Marwan Barghouti plucked from his Israeli jail only to find himself in the dock at the Hague for HIS terrorist crimes..

    But of course none of you anti -Israel people can visualise such possibilities.

    After all – none of you can see further than the ends of your own noses at the best of times..

    Be careful what you wish.

    • eljay says:

      >> Once the ICC get their foot in the door – they would be likely to try to extend their reach to Palestinian leaders too. … So we might see Fatah/ Hamas people in the ICC dock.
      >> The Israelis might well also like to use the ICC to pursue Hamas/ Fatah people for their responsibilities for sending suicide bombers into Israel.
      >> But of course none of you anti -Israel people can visualise such possibilities.

      I can visualize such possibilities. And I have no problem with people guilty of (war) crimes being held accountable for their crimes.

      But you’re worried, because you know that a far greater number of Zio-supremacist Jews than Palestinians deserve to be, should be and – with any luck – will be held accountable for (war) crimes greater both in number and in scale than those of the Palestinians.

    • Cliff says:

      If both sides are judged fairly, you Jewish terrorists will be filling up the ‘dock at the Hague’ faster and more frequently.

      Palestinian militancy and terrorism pale in comparison to Israeli/Zionist criminality.

    • Shingo says:

      So the ICC may consider ignoring the very notional sovereignty that Palestinians have so far – in order to pursue the Israelis for THEIR trampling over Palestinian territory , notional sovereignty and rights in the OPT – and none of you ardent anti – Israel types can even see the irony.

      Seriously Miriam,

      No one turns reality and logic on it’s head quite like you, let alone seeing irony where none exists.

      First of all, the biggest violators of Palestinians notional sovereignty has been Israel, who you work full time to defend. Secondly, the ICC is not ignoring the notional sovereignty that Palestinians, they are acting to defend it.

      Once the ICC get their foot in the door – they would be likely to try to extend their reach to Palestinian leaders too.

      I know how you lame brained hasbarats keep trying to convince yourselves that the Palestinian leaders will wake up to themselves and withdraw their submissions to ICC in fear of their own asses, but this is simply a pathetic ruse. Whatever crimes the Palestinian leaders might have committed pale into insignificance compared to the crimes of the Israeli leadership.

      So we might see Fatah/ Hamas people in the ICC dock.

      If you do, they will be a tiny minority compared to the crowds of Israeli leaders in the dock.

      All in all if the ICC gets involved things are not likely to begin and end with Israelis in the dock.

      Why not? You’ve just gone to extraordinary lengths to warn us that Palestinians leaders risk ending up in the dock for far lesser and fewer crimes than those committed by Israelis, but if Israelis have nothing to worry about, why should Palestinian leaders and why are you spending so much energy making that case?

      You are so obvious, so predictable and so transparent Miriam.

    • Hostage says:

      So the ICC may consider ignoring the very notional sovereignty that Palestinians have so far – in order to pursue the Israelis for THEIR trampling over Palestinian territory , notional sovereignty and rights in the OPT – and none of you ardent anti – Israel types can even see the irony.

      Correction: The ICC exercises its own complementary jurisdiction in every case. But it only does that after the responsible states have proven that they are either unwilling or unable to exercise their own criminal jurisdiction.

      The “very notional sovereignty” that you mention or public coercion and blackmail by an occupying power are things that everyone agreed can automatically trigger the Court’s complimentary jurisdiction:

      In order to determine inability in a particular case, the Court shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings.

      link to untreaty.un.org

      In this case, the Court would be acting on an Article 12(3) declaration that was voluntarily provided by the Palestinian Justice and Foreign Ministers on behalf of the Government of the State of Palestine. On its face, it accepted the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction for crimes committed by any party on the territory of Palestine and stipulated that the declaration would remain in force until further notice. So there’s nothing particularly ironic about the arrangement.

    • amigo says:

      “After all – none of you can see further than the ends of your own noses at the best of times..”miriam 666

      Well miriam 666, being a zionist and a brit , you probably don,t care if Justice is ever carried out by your side.

      Take for instance the Birmingham Six who were jailed for 17 + years based on lies told by Police who to this day have not served a day in prison for their crimes.

      link to theguardian.com

    • talknic says:

      @ miriam6 “So the ICC may consider ignoring the very notional sovereignty that Palestinians have so far – in order to pursue the Israelis for THEIR trampling over Palestinian territory , notional sovereignty and rights in the OPT – and none of you ardent anti – Israel types can even see the irony”

      The irony is on the other foot

      “Once the ICC get their foot in the door – they would be likely to try to extend their reach to Palestinian leaders too”

      Their foot doesn’t have to get in the door. Someone has to petition them to get THEIR foot in the door. Who’s that gonna be? A state with settlements and years of ghastly fact on the ground that have already been determined under International Law to be illegal? A state with hundreds of UNSC resolutions against it? A state who’s only legal borders are those it asked to be recognized by? link to wp.me & link to trumanlibrary.org

      “So we might see Fatah/ Hamas people in the ICC dock.”

      As above, the criminal state gonna open the door and walk in is it?

      “All in all if the ICC gets involved things are not likely to begin and end with Israelis in the dock”

      Do you think the Palestinians are gonna care? Just having ANY of the Israeli responsible for the Palestinians plight in the dock will make it all worth their while.

      “Be careful what you wish”

      Uh huh. link to mondoweiss.net

    • Cliff says:

      Anything from NGO Monitor, CAMERA, PalWatch, AtlasShrugged, et al. is worthless hate-filled Zionist propaganda.

      It’s unsurprising that a troll like Ludwig pukes this garbage here without shame.

    • Bumblebye says:

      ngo monitor.
      Snigger.
      Fail again. Zero credibility. Racist, Islamophobic, Israel can do no wrong, etc.

      • Cliff says:

        The most accurate judge of a Zionist is the sources they cite.

        Earwig is an incompetent clearly. No wonder he’s only capable of concern-trolling and passive-aggressive affirmations.

    • Bandolero says:

      @Ludwig
      Based on that ngo-monitor figures the term “well paid advocacy groups” sound like a bad zionist joke, their combined budget being just about USD 2m per year.

      That’s – combined – just about 3% of one of ADL’s or AIPAC’s 60m+ budget.

    • that’s not a viable source ludwig , i recommend link to coteret.com

      and keep scrolling

      • Ludwig says:

        Annie,

        The point is these anti-Israel advocacy groups are well funded by an international network of pro palestinian advocates who are radical in nature.

        • The point is these anti-Israel advocacy groups are well funded

          no, the point is your source is using a hasbara tactic of labeling groups that monitor human right abuse as “political advocacy ngos“. but do they reference themselves as a political advocacy group? there is a difference between aipac or somelobby group who advocates a politicalposition and people who go out on the field to record human rights abuses. which is bad for israel because they are huge human rights violators.

          source? seriously ludwig, who informs you of this other than the proven scum slickster steinberg&co?

          dead set on eliminating human rights monitoring of Israel entirely and smearing anyone who supports this vital activity.

          …….

          NGO Monitor and an allied organization, the Institute for Zionist Strategies, recently sponsored a seminar in the Knesset that pushed for closer government regulation of human rights NGOs that monitor the occupation and their international donors. Nothing was mentioned, of course, about those American evangelicals who — often in the name of an antisemitic, end-of-days agenda — support West Bank settlers who violate Palestinian human rights. Or about the American Jewish foundations that financially support the ideological settlers’ agenda. Nor did Steinberg and IZS’s head, Israel Harel, fess up, in the interest of transparency, that when they themselves contribute articles to my Web magazines, they gladly accept payment from monies that were provided by the E.U., Ford Foundation, OSI and SIDA — the very donors they condemn.

          he’s made a profession of eliminating human rights monitoring. so anything he says is not to be trusted. and here you are pushing his “advocacy” line, and doubling down pretending my concern is whether they are well funded or not.

          perhaps you are not aware PCHR has also gone after abuses carried out by palestinians groups too. they expose human rights abuses. they are not, by definition, an “advocacy group”.

          the label exposes you as a hasbarist operative.

        • Cliff says:

          The only thing radical in nature is Jewish colonialism and the campaign of rape, massacre, and terror that culminated in the expulsion by Jewish terrorists of 800,000K+ indigenous Palestinian Arabs from their homeland in Israel/Palestine.

          You terrorists are indeed, ‘well-funded’.

        • RoHa says:

          “The point is these anti-Israel advocacy groups are well funded by an international network of pro palestinian advocates who are radical in nature”

          Well funded? Then why do I keep hearing “the cheque is in the mail” without actually getting the cheque?

        • Bumblebye says:

          Annie, will you advise our ugly zio-troll about small-p & quotemarks around Palestinian? This aint the first time, even today, that one or both appear. His stinky little poops on these threads while complaining about us are not appropriate!

          [ed.note: fixed, thanks]

        • talknic says:

          Ludwig” pro palestinian advocates who are radical in nature”

          Nothing radical about attempting to hold a state to the law. It’s already institutionalized

  12. It would be best for cases to be brought by victims and witnesses of specific crimes for which there is strong evidence (videos, affidavits, etc.). The rules of procedure of the ICC can be studied at link to www1.umn.edu

  13. Mayhem says:

    The demonisation campaign continues unabated – do these lame brains really think that this kind of politicking will ever improve the lives of the Palestinians, who are just pawns in this whole sorry saga. No for them it is a political game to do whatever they can to undermine the state of Israel.

    @justpassingby, you need to get a grip on yourself. The ICJ issued an advisory opinion back in 2004 and it just dealt with the separation wall. The ICJ has made no grand decrees about any kind of ‘occupation’.

    And moreover all this guff about Israel being an occupying power (refer talknic’s remarks at link to mondoweiss.net). Talknic mentioned how Israel is supposedly ruling over non-Israeli territories and as the Occupying Power its illegal facts on the ground i.e. settlements are in breach of hundreds of UNSC resolutions.
    The so-called ‘non-Israeli territories’ which are Judaea, Samaria and east Jerusalem, and desired so eagerly by the Palestinians for some kind of a state, were in fact dedicated unanimously to be part of a Jewish homeland that would stretch from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean by the League of Nations in 1922. With the constant opposition by the Arabs in this region to a large presence of Jews this has forced the Jews to continually make concessions to appease the rampaging Arabs.

    Today the disputed areas of Judaea, Samaria and East Jerusalem may be earmarked for a future Palestinian state, but the Palestinians certainly have no absolute or God given right over these territories. They were in their grasp back in 1948 and they effectively sacrificed them back then, because of their nefarious ambition to stop at any cost the establishment of any kind of Jewish state in Palestine.

    The Jews have been forced to compromise all along the way, because the Arabs have been unwilling to entertain a Jewish state in their midst. And today we hear this trope about how the Palestinians are only going to get a state in 22% of the Palestine mandated territory. This false statement forgets what was previously carved off from the ORIGINAL Palestine Mandate for the creation of Greater Syria and Trans-Jordan that is so conveniently left out of the equation.
    We hear this false premise of ‘international law’ trumped up time and time again:

    Ah, Those who are so wise — In their own opinion; So clever In their own judgment!
    – Isaiah 5:20

    The much-maligned “settlements” are not illegal nor in any way against any clauses of the Geneva Conventions. One can argue a case in law but nothing is proven. This does not inhibit the sloppy news media and under-informed functionaries from calling them “illegal”, but they simply are not. More cautious ill-will prefers to call them “obstacles to peace”, though the war long pre-dated the “settlements” and the destruction of the flourishing Jewish communities of Gaza brought only more war

    The UNSC as an international body is a very sick joke as we witness the on-going slaughter in Syria that they can do very little about. Their resolutions are based on expediency and pressure groups that do not necessarily realign the world for the better.
    This reminds me of the former Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban’s famous quip that if Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions by the UN. So much for the credibility of the UN, the highfaluting UNSC and the ‘international law’ hot-air preachers.

    • oh my, it looks like we have another fan of the revisionist nutjob mr howard grief! you can watch him and his cohorts in this video here:
      link to mondoweiss.net

      don’t miss this folks!

    • Shingo says:

      No for them it is a political game to do whatever they can to undermine the state of Israel.

      That’s rich coming from the supporter of a state that has not only undermined Palestine, but destroyed it. It really goes to show how desperate your apologists are when you resort to such lame arguments. It’s like the abusive husband who threatens his wife not to go to the authorities because it will only make her life at home more intolerable.

      The ICJ issued an advisory opinion back in 2004 and it just dealt with the separation wall. The ICJ has made no grand decrees about any kind of ‘occupation’.

      Rubbish. Israel’s Dr Alan Baker tried to present the case that the territory was not occupied and all 15 justices through the argument out of court.

      The so-called ‘non-Israeli territories’ which are Judaea, Samaria and east Jerusalem, and desired so eagerly by the Palestinians for some kind of a state, were in fact dedicated unanimously to be part of a Jewish homeland that would stretch from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean by the League of Nations in 1922.

      False on all grounds.

      1. The word “‘Jewish homeland” nor “homeland”appear in te LON resolutions.
      2. As Pierre Orts, chairman of Mandate Commission of the League Of Nations said, the territory from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean was to become the state of Palestine, in which all it’s inhabitants would become citizens. It was not to be a Jewish state.

      With the constant opposition by the Arabs in this region to a large presence of Jews this has forced the Jews to continually make concessions to appease the rampaging Arabs.

      False again. There was no large presence of Jews, which is why they needed such massive immigration. Secondly, there were no concessions made to the Arabs. In the end, 30% of the population (Jews), who only held title to 7% of the land, were given 56% of Palestine, while the 60% (none Jews) who held title to 90% of the land, were forced to settle for 44%.

      The Jews have been forced to compromise all along the way, because the Arabs have been unwilling to entertain a Jewish state in their midst.

      There was never any intent within the LON Mandate to create a Jewish PERIOD.

      This false statement forgets what was previously carved off from the ORIGINAL Palestine Mandate for the creation of Greater Syria and Trans-Jordan that is so conveniently left out of the equation.

      Rubbish. Trans-Jordan was never included in the Palestinian mandate, and had been promised to the Sariff of Mecca in 1915 – 2 years before the Balfour Declaration.

      The much-maligned “settlements” are not illegal nor in any way against any clauses of the Geneva Conventions. One can argue a case in law but nothing is proven.

      Yes they are illegal. Israel’s own legal authority, Theodore Meron, in 1967 stated this very clearly. The Israelis tried to challenge the idea that the GC applied to the occupied territories and again, all 15 justices dismissed their arguments.

      So yes, the settlements re completely illegal. As Hostage has said, if Israel is so confident in the legality of the settlements, they need only present their case to the ICJ to see if it stands up to scrutiny, but they not willing to try.

      The UNSC as an international body is a very sick joke as we witness the on-going slaughter in Syria that they can do very little about.

      I take it you also accept it is a sick joke after it passed resolutions against Iran.

      This reminds me of the former Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban’s famous quip

      Eban was famous for opening his mouth to change feet.

    • Hostage says:

      The ICJ issued an advisory opinion back in 2004 and it just dealt with the separation wall. The ICJ has made no grand decrees about any kind of ‘occupation’.

      The information in your comment is riddled with false and misleading information, including that bizarre claim. You might want to spend a few minutes reading what the ICJ actually had to say on the subject in paragraphs 69-78. link to icj-cij.org

      As a preliminary matter, the Court had to establish the legal status of the Palestinian territory before it could determine the laws that apply there and the legal consequences that flow from the construction of the wall by the government of Israel. It included a review of the provisions of the Mandate and the Covenant of the League of Nations. Nonetheless, it concluded in paragraph 78 that:

      Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.

      Most of us here are aware of the fact that the Court also advised that Israel had established illegal settlements in violation of its obligations under the applicable international law, including Article 49(6) of the 4th Geneva Convention, and the relevant UN resolutions. See paragraph 120. The ICC may be ultimately responsible for bringing the responsible officials to justice, if Israel fails to bring them to trial.

      The so-called ‘non-Israeli territories’ which are Judaea, Samaria and east Jerusalem, and desired so eagerly by the Palestinians for some kind of a state, were in fact dedicated unanimously to be part of a Jewish homeland that would stretch from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean by the League of Nations in 1922.

      LoL! It wasn’t quite “unanimous”, once the Jewish Agency had proposed a partition plan of its own, which excluded Judea and Samaria from the Jewish homeland. Here is a link to the map they prepared in 1946: link to books.google.com

      In actuality, The Churchill White Paper (1922) advised that unauthorized statements had been made to that effect, but that they were based upon a mistaken view of the situation. link to avalon.law.yale.edu

      The League of Nations never promised the whole region from the Jordan river to the sea for a Jewish homeland. In fact, the San Remo resolution gave the British and French almost complete discretion in drafting the terms of their respective mandates. Great Britain was left to interpret and implement its own Balfour Declaration, not the Zionists. The principle Allied powers, i.e. the British and French mandatory authorities, granted themselves complete discretion in the matter of fixing the boundaries according to the explicit terms of the preambles of their respective mandates. link to avalon.law.yale.edu

      By 1932, the Chairman of the League’s Permanent Mandates Commission said that the Jewish National home had already been established and wondered out loud when the Palestinian Arab majority would be granted self-government. In 1939 the British authorities declared the Jewish national home a going concern and divided the western territory of the mandate into three zones. Land transfers in Zones A and B, except to a “Palestinian Arab”, were prohibited. Judea and Samaria were located in those Zones. Here is a link to the map: link to books.google.com

    • Mayhem, You are at Mondoweiss, you come here with cheap hasbara lies? Really? And do you really say ICJ didnt said Gaza and West bank to be occupied, really? Get a grip for crying out loud.

    • talknic says:

      Mayhem “The demonisation campaign continues unabated”

      Indeed Israel is doing it all by itself link to mondoweiss.net

      “No for them it is a political game to do whatever they can to undermine the state of Israel”

      Calling for Israel to adhere to the law is not undermining Israel. The fact that Israel fails to adhere to the law undermines Israel.

      “The ICJ issued an advisory opinion back in 2004 and it just dealt with the separation wall. The ICJ has made no grand decrees about any kind of ‘occupation’”

      The ICJ opinion was that, were they asked for a judgement they’d come down in favour of the Palestinians. Not Israel. Try something else

      “The so-called ‘non-Israeli territories’ which are Judaea, Samaria and east Jerusalem … were in fact dedicated unanimously to be part of a Jewish homeland that would stretch from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean by the League of Nations in 1922″

      Didn’t mention an Israeli or Jewish “state”. Read Article 7 you silly silly person link to pages.citebite.com

      “With the constant opposition by the Arabs … etc … has forced the Jews to continually make concessions to appease the rampaging Arabs”

      Stop conflating Jews with the State of Israel, which has 20% non-Jews who’re also prohibited as Israeli citizens from illegally settling in occupied territories.

      Returning Egyptian territory is not a concession it was required by Law. Vacating illegal settlers from Gaza was not a concession it was required by Law. Respecting Jordan’s borders was not a concession, it is required by Law. ISRAEL hasn’t made any other what you call ‘concessions’

      “Today the disputed areas of Judaea, Samaria and East Jerusalem”

      Can’t find the word ‘disputed ‘ in any UNSC resolutions on the matter. They say “occupied”

      “… the Palestinians certainly have no absolute or God given right over these territories.”

      They do under the law. Israel’s so called G-d given right is irrelevant to International Law link to pages.citebite.com . Israel’s so called G-d given right was further eroded by the fact that Israel was declared ” as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,” and has only ever been recognized thus.

      “They were in their grasp back in 1948 “

      Nonsense. Jewish forces were outside of the allotted territory for the Jewish state before and after it was declared. They’ve never left. The Palestinians could not declare sovereign independence while any of their rightful territory was under the occupation of the Jewish state.

      “The Jews have been forced to compromise all along the way, because the Arabs have been unwilling to entertain a Jewish state in their midst”

      You’re conflating again and it’s nonsense. Jewish forces have been “outside the territory of the State of Israel” for 65 years link to pages.citebite.com they have never not been in someone else’s territory

      “This false statement forgets what was previously carved off from the ORIGINAL Palestine Mandate for the creation of Greater Syria and Trans-Jordan that is so conveniently left out of the equation”

      Neither Syria (state before 1947 ) or Jordan (state before 1947 ) were not a part of Palestine when Israel asked to be recognized by the 1947 plan boundaries link to trumanlibrary.org

      “The much-maligned “settlements” are not illegal nor in any way against any clauses of the Geneva Conventions”

      The UNSC res says you are spouting nonsense

      Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 1/ is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

      1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity

      link to unispal.un.org

      “The UNSC as an international body is a very sick joke “

      That the same UNSC Israel is going to try to join? link to jpost.com

      “as we witness the on-going slaughter in Syria”

      Civil war. Within Syria. Israeli forces have been “outside the territory of the State of Israel” for 65 years link to pages.citebite.com

      “This reminds me of the former Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban’s famous …” speculative nonsense isn’t reflective of reality

      Thanks again for allowing the opportunity to show other readers just how flimsy the arguments supportive of Israel’s illegal activities are

      • seafoid says:

        “The demonisation campaign continues unabated”

        It isn’t even a campaign. If someone shoots himself in the foot repeatedly and countless others rubberneck the ineptitude, does that qualify as a campaign?

      • Mayhem says:

        I have opened a huge panoply of issues with my latest remarks justifying Israel’s position against the constant onslaught from biased Israel demonizers. This comprehensive Reply at link to mythsandfacts.org deals effectively with the biased retorts I am seeing here.
        Moreover US attorney Richard Heideman has just published a book The Hague Odyssey: Israel’s Struggle for Security on the Front Lines of Terrorism and Her Battle for Justice at the United Nations which is discussed at link to timesofisrael.com. In his book Heideman sums up how “In 2004, Israel’s detractors at the UN, who refused to even recognize the right or need for Israel to be able to protect its citizens, saw another avenue to demonize the state. Defying its own charter, the UN General Assembly requested of the International Court of Justice at the Hague an advisory opinion about the security fence and its applicability under international law, some calling it an apartheid wall.”
        Heideman states “The fact that the General Assembly referred the matter of the terror prevention fence to the ICJ so quickly… but after more than two years and 100,000 people killed,” has yet to prosecute Assad or Syria shows the system is extremely flawed, he says. “The legal system is biased against Israel, and the Syrian example proves it.”
        In an article at link to google.com.au one can read how Judge Elaraby, in the Israeli Wall Order to which Hostage has referred, demonstrated his flagrant bias quoting Judge Lachs’ “wise maxim” approvingly at the start of his opinion, certainly unnecessary in that he had already voted with the majority. Further study of the historical context behind that Order reveals that Judge Elaraby had been subject to a complaint by Israel regarding his impartiality, on the basis of his role as a legal adviser to the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Legal Adviser to the Egyptian Delegation at Camp David in 1978, as well as an interview given by him in 2001. Judge Elaraby’s lack of impartiality in his dissenting opinion was obviously motivated by the controversy surrounding him and the flavor of his political persuasions.
        Some further remarks re comments attacking what I have said:
        1. Shingo is lying when he states that the reference to a Jewish home(land) did not appear in the LON 1922 resolution. Here is the excerpt: “.. recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”
        2. Shingo conveniently trumps up a remark completely out of any context from Pierre Orts, who was a chairman of the Mandate Commission of the League Of Nations, where he said “the territory from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean was to become the state of Palestine, in which all it’s inhabitants would become citizens”. Actually in 1939 “Orts pulled no punches in denouncing Britain’s new White Paper policy as contrary to the Mandate. He stated that the Mandates Commission could not consent to this White Paper which would place the Jewish National Home in an independent State with a permanent Arab majority and see “its destinies in the hands of a race which could not forgive its existence” (Minutes of the Thirty-Sixth Session of the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations at Geneva in June 1939, pp. 206-207). These prescient words spoken by Pierre Orts still ring true today. I truly wish that the present Belgian Government would follow the path trodden by their illustrious diplomat, who gallantly spoke the truth about Jewish rights to Palestine, British misrule and Arab ingratitude for the Allied liberation of their lands from the Ottoman Empire and the unrelenting Arab opposition to the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State.” Refer link to think-israel.org
        3. Shingo dishonestly overrides my comment “With the constant opposition by the Arabs in this region to a large presence of Jews” conveniently forgetting the Arab efforts, that began in earnest with 1920 Nabi Musa riots, to do everything in their power to stop Jewish immigration to Palestine in direct contravention of the tenets of the LON resolution.
        4. And Shingo should refer to this ‘official’ Jordanian website at link to kinghussein.gov.jo to get his story straight about the birth of Trans-Jordan – “Emir Abdullah soon succeeded in loosening the British mandate over Transjordan with an Anglo-Transjordanian treaty. On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. This angered the Zionists, as it effectively severed Transjordan from Palestine and so reduced the area of any future Jewish national home in the region.”
        5. Shingo overlooks the fact that in the ICJ advisory opinion (not a judgement) that “all 15 justices through the argument out of court.” That is pure rubbish – there was a dissenting opinion from Judge Buergenthal.
        6. Hostage referred to the Churchill White Paper of 1922 stating vaguely “unauthorized statements had been made to that effect”. To what effect? In fact the White Paper just clarified what had been said in the 1917 Balfour Decalaration saying that the purpose was not to create a wholly Jewish Palestine; in fact saying nothing to negate the original assertions on behalf of a Jewish homeland. Moreover the issuance of the Churchill white paper preceded the LON declaration in 1922.
        7. Talknic has blazed away with a pile of the kind of biased rubbish that the UN over decades has been spouting against Israel. I will take just one example which refers to UN Resolution 476 that was inspired by a letter from the representative of Pakistan, at the time Chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a body of 57 Islamic nations that has the extermination of the state of Israel on its mind every tick of the clock. Therein there is no mention of a Palestinian entity, rather affirming “the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories”. Here is the typical Arab inspired anti-Israel bias that fuels the conflict. Has the UNSC said anything to hinder Indonesia in its murder and rape of West Papua? This kind of hyprocrisy shows the UN and the UNSC as being totally biased and hypocritical. Why should Israel take heed of a bigoted organisation of which so many of its members are only interested in dismantling it?

        • RoHa says:

          “Arab ingratitude for the Allied liberation of their lands from the Ottoman Empire”

          Exactly how was this ingratitude shown? The Arabs did take part in the war against the Ottomans, and were told that this would lead to independence. But shortly afterwards they found that France and Britain wanted to keep control over the major Arab centres Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, and Egypt.

          “and the unrelenting Arab opposition to the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State.”

          Why should they not oppose the establishment of a State in which they would be – at best – second class citizens?

          “the Arab efforts, that began in earnest with 1920 Nabi Musa riots, to do everything in their power to stop Jewish immigration to Palestine in direct contravention of the tenets of the LON resolution.”

          Why should they not oppose the immigration of foreigners who intended to take their land and subjugate them? And how many Palestinians were consulted about – let alone signatories to – the LON resolution?

          “This angered the Zionists, as it effectively severed Transjordan from Palestine and so reduced the area of any future Jewish national home in the region.”

          So the Zionists intended to drive out the non-Jews from Jordan as well as from Palestine.

        • talknic says:

          @ Mayhem “I have opened a huge panoply of issues with my latest remarks justifying Israel’s position against the constant onslaught from biased Israel demonizers”

          Whatever delusions you need to have to keep your bile flowing. Israel has been acting outside the legal extent of its sovereignty for 65 years.

          “Heideman sums up how “In 2004, Israel’s detractors at the UN, who refused to even recognize the right or need for Israel to be able to protect its citizens”

          Nonsense. All states have a right to defend themselves. It’s in the Charter. It was in the Charter when Israel pleaded to join the UN. However Israel has been acting in territories “outside the State of Israel” according to the ISRAELI GOVERNMENT link to pages.citebite.com It has gone on for 65 years

          “Defying its own charter, the UN General Assembly requested of the International Court of Justice at the Hague an advisory opinion”

          Hilarious stuff. Your Mr Heideman is an idiot writing idiocy for idiots who don’t check

          CHAPTER XIV: THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
          Article 92

          The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with the annexed Statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and forms an integral part of the present Charter.

          Article 96

          The General Assembly or the Security Council may request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question.
          Other organs of the United Nations and specialized agencies, which may at any time be so authorized by the General Assembly, may also request advisory opinions of the Court on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.

          link to un.org

          “after more than two years and 100,000 people killed,” has yet to prosecute Assad or Syria shows the system is extremely flawed, he says.”

          He says bullsh*t. Syria has a CIVIL war on its hands. The UN cannot intervene in a civil war unless requested by a majority party of the state or unless the civil war threatens other states.

          Your entire post is filled with nonsense.

          “Therein there is no mention of a Palestinian entity, rather affirming “the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories”. Here is the typical Arab inspired anti-Israel bias”?

          The Arabs didn’t write UNSC res 476. They were not in the UNSC.

          There was no mention of Palestinian because Palestine had not been declared as a state at the time. Nor was it a UN Member. UNSC resolutions do not mention Israel until it became a UN Member state.

          No UN Member state is trying to dismantle Israel. They’ve been trying to Israel to adhere to the law according to the UN Charter.

          ” In fact the White Paper just clarified what had been said in the 1917 Balfour Decalaration..”

          You haven’t read it? It clarifies the fact that the Balfour declaration did not say or mean to say a Jewish State. Ditto the 1939 White Paper

        • Hostage says:

          “This angered the Zionists, as it effectively severed Transjordan from Palestine and so reduced the area of any future Jewish national home in the region.”

          That’s revisionist history that never happened. Transjordan and Article 25 were actually added to the draft Palestine Mandate long after the San Remo conference of April 1920.

          There was never any question that all of the territory east of Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Alleppo had been pledged to the Arabs by the McMahon-Hussein correspondence. The British had already sent Weizmann, with hat in hand, to meet with Feisal in order to negotiate an agreement on the establishment of a boundary commission to delimit the frontier between Palestine and the neighboring Arab state. The river had always been one of the historical boundaries between the Ottoman districts of Jerusalem and Syria.

        • Shingo says:

          . Shingo is lying when he states that the reference to a Jewish home(land) did not appear in the LON 1922 resolution.

          It doesn’t and your quote, which refers to a Jewish National Home proves it is you who is lying. When Balfour was asked if the terms Jewish National Home meant a Jewish state, he said no. A week before the Balfour Declaration was released, Privy Council President Lord Curzon, War Cabinet Secretary Hankey, and Secretary of State for India Montagu wrote memorandums explaining that the term “Jewish National Home” had no agreed upon meaning to Jews or supporters of the Zionist movement.
          See CAB 24/30, “The Future of Palestine” (Former Reference: GT 2406), 26 October 1917; CAB 24/4, “The Zionist Movement”(Former Reference: G 164), 17 October 1917; and CAB 24/28 (Former Reference: GT 2263) “Zionism, 9 October 1917.

          On October 31, 1917, when the Balfour Declaration came before the War Cabinet, Balfour summarized the arguments for and against it. He specifically addressed Curzon’s objections to the use of the vague term “national home” maintaining that it did not mean the establishment of an independent Jewish state. See Karl Ernest Meyer, Shareen Blair Brysac, Kingmakers: the invention of the modern Middle East, page 120

          Here is the excerpt: “.. recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine

          The allied powers agreed that the Zionists lack any legal standing to assert a claim to the territory of Palestine during the Post-WWI peace conferences at Versailles and San Remo.
          The travauxpréparatoires of the British Foreign Office Committee that was tasked with drafting the Mandate reveal that the Allies did not consider the historical connection as a basis for any Jewish claim:

          “It was agreed that they had no claim, whatever might be done for them on sentimental grounds; further that all that was necessary was to make room for Zionists in Palestine, not that they should turn “it”, that is the whole country, into their home.

          – See PRO FO 371/5245, cited in Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict, George Brazziler, 1972, pages 99-100

          Actually in 1939 “Orts pulled no punches in denouncing Britain’s new White Paper policy as contrary to the Mandate.

          False. Orts said he was not certain that the White Paper policy was contrary to the Mandate, but Orts’ opinion was opposed by half the members of the Commission.
          Furthermore, Orts comments with respect to the White Paper have no relevance whatsoever with whether the territory from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean was to become the state of Palestine, in which all it’s inhabitants would become citizens, so it’s a red herring on your part anyway.
          Needless to say, you have not demonstrated at all that Ort’s comments were in any way taken completely out of any context.

          He stated that the Mandates Commission could not consent to this White Paper which would place the Jewish National Home in an independent State with a permanent Arab majority and see “its destinies in the hands of a race which could not forgive its existence”

          This is not even a quote by Orts, but a false summary that appears nowhere on except on the Israeli propaganda site, think-Israel.org. One need only look up the minutes of the of the Thirty-Sixth Session of the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations at Geneva in June 1939, and notice that Orts made no such statement.
          link to cojs.org.

          Therefore, it is safe to say it is false and Mayhem has been caught lying.

          Shingo dishonestly overrides my comment “With the constant opposition by the Arabs in this region to a large presence of Jews” conveniently forgetting the Arab efforts, that began in earnest with 1920 Nabi Musa riots, to do everything in their power to stop Jewish immigration to Palestine in direct contravention of the tenets of the LON resolution.

          There is no dishonesty about it. The Zionist leaders were making public statements before the turn of the century proclaiming their intent to conquer the land and drive out the indigenous population.

          And Shingo should refer to this ‘official’ Jordanian website at link to kinghussein.gov.jo to get his story straight about the birth of Trans-Jordan – “Emir Abdullah soon succeeded in loosening the British mandate over Transjordan with an Anglo-Transjordanian treaty.

          This has already been debunked by Hostage.

          Dhingo overlooks the fact that in the ICJ advisory opinion (not a judgement) that “all 15 justices through the argument out of court.” That is pure rubbish – there was a dissenting opinion from Judge Buergenthal.

          No there was not. Judge Buergenthal expressed some reservations, but even if there were true, the ruling was still a resounding 14-1.

          Hostage referred to the Churchill White Paper of 1922 stating vaguely “unauthorized statements had been made to that effect”. To what effect? In fact the White Paper just clarified what had been said in the 1917 Balfour Decalaration saying that the purpose was not to create a wholly Jewish Palestine; in fact saying nothing to negate the original assertions on behalf of a Jewish homeland.

          False again. The word “homeland” does not appear said in the 1917 Balfour Declaration.

        • Shingo says:

          Talknic has blazed away with a pile of the kind of biased rubbish that the UN over decades has been spouting against Israel.

          Don’t be stupid. The UNSC Resolutions he has listed were all been approved by Israel’s biggest ally and enabler, the US.

          I will take just one example which refers to UN Resolution 476 that was inspired by a letter from the representative of Pakistan, at the time Chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a body of 57 Islamic nations that has the extermination of the state of Israel on its mind every tick of the clock.

          What a load of rubbish. Again UNSC476 would never have passed unless the US and Britain, both of whom are Israeli enablers, agreed to it.

          Therein there is no mention of a Palestinian entity, rather affirming “the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories”.

          Which is exactly what UNSC242 demands, which Israel claimed to accept.

          This kind of hyprocrisy shows the UN and the UNSC as being totally biased and hypocritical.

          So does UNSC demands that Iran suspend enrichment, while allowing Israel to have nukes.

          Or the fact, they voted to authorize force to drive out Iran from Kuwait, but won’t even put peace keepers into Palestine.

        • Shingo says:

          This comprehensive Reply at link to mythsandfacts.org deals effectively with the biased retorts I am seeing here.

          No it doesn’t mythsandfacts.org is another discredited Zionist propaganda web site that seeks to lie and obfuscate. The authors doesn’t appear to be aware that Dr. Alan Baker of the MFA submitted a written pleading and that both he and Israel were no-shows for oral arguments and the decision in the ICJ Wall case.

          As Hostage put so succcintly, Israel loves to dialogue with everyone, except where it counts, inside a courtroom. This is another example of why Israel’s prefers to talk about international law outside of the courtroom.

          Again, as Hostage stated a while ago:

          All 15 ICJ Justices rejected the Israeli propaganda talking points about ambiguity and noted that resolution 242 cites the unambiguous prohibitions against the acquisition of territory by war and the corollary from the UN Charter against the use of force in the conduct of international relations. They all said the territory captured in 1967 is occupied territory; that the Geneva Conventions apply there; and that Israel had established settlements in violation of international law.
          The UN, the EU, and the other High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions had advised Israel on numerous occasions about the flagrant illegality of its annexations, deportations, and settlements. Those universal condemnations were strong evidence of agreed-upon state practice. So, to no one’s particular surprise, the offenses were added along with dozens of others under the heading “Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law”.

          That’s why Israeli propgandists prefer to stick to fringe web sites and Op-Eds. Again, as Hostage put it so well, like Charlie Sheen, they is always “winning”, except in Court, at the Reconvened Geneva Conferences, or at the Rome Diplomatic Conference when it actually matters.

        • RoHa says:

          ” Syria has a CIVIL war on its hands. ”

          Considering the number of foreigners among the “rebels”, it looks more like a foreign intervention.

        • Mayhem says:

          @talknic, your dismissive bluster does not disguise your naivete and complete lack of understanding of what is going on re Israel in the UN. The situation is a joke – in the UN Israel is the only nation not entitled to sit on the UNSC. How can Israel expect fair treatment when it is treated like a pariah from the word go?
          The terms used by the UNGA to obtain an ‘advisory opinion’ from the ICJ were couched in inflammatory language from the outset so there was no was no way the ICJ, as a lackey of the UNGA, was going to provide anything resembling impartiality.
          It is like the lawyer questioning the witness asking. “When did you stop beating your wife?”. Framing the request to the ICJ with biased terms like ‘occupying power’, ‘separation wall’ (when it is largely just a fence), ‘occupied Palestinian territory’ etc was evoking, in advance of any enquiry, a pre-judged set of circumstances. What is missing in the ICJ’s report is any discussion of Israel’s right to defend its own people and protect itself from terrorist threats. The ICJ report is a total farce.

        • miriam6 says:

          Mayhem@;

          3. Shingo dishonestly overrides my comment “With the constant opposition by the Arabs in this region to a large presence of Jews” conveniently forgetting the Arab efforts, that began in earnest with 1920 Nabi Musa riots, to do everything in their power to stop Jewish immigration to Palestine in direct contravention of the tenets of the LON resolution.

          1922 Text: League of Nations Palestine Mandate – Definition.

          A careful reading of the original text of the mandate handed to the United Kingdom by the League of Nations reflects most of the political, geo-strategic, and historical realities of the Middle East and Palestine in particular:

          The victory of the Allies over Turkey is clear: “…the Principal Allied Powers have agreed,…to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire…”

          It is absolutely clear that an inherent objective of the Mandate is to grant the Jews a homeland in Palestine based on the Balfour Declaration “made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”

          And there is a caveat protecting the Arabs: “it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine…”

          link to wordiq.com

          Even before the Nabi Musa riots and the 1922 LON declaration there was plenty of evidence of Arab opposition in the wake of the Balfour Declaration of November 2nd 1917 .
          The Arabs believed the 1917 Declaration would ultimately lead to the placing of a national home for the Jews in Palestine.

          Jewish National Home vs. Jewish State
          The records of discussions that led up to the final text of the Balfour Declaration clarifies some details of its wording.
          The phrase “national home” was intentionally used instead of “state” because of opposition to the Zionist program within the British Cabinet. Following discussion of the initial draft the Cabinet Secretary, Mark Sykes, met with the Zionist negotiators to clarify their aims. His official report back to the Cabinet categorically stated that the Zionists did not want “to set up a Jewish Republic or any other form of state in Palestine or in any part of Palestine”.
          Both the Zionist Organization and the British government devoted efforts over the following decades, including Winston Churchill’s 1922 White Paper, to denying that a state was the intention.
          However, in private, many British officials agreed with the interpretation of the Zionists that a state would be established when a Jewish majority was achieved.

          Arab opposition
          The Arabs expressed disapproval in November 1918 at the parade marking the first anniversary of the Balfour Declaration.
          The Muslim-Christian Association protested the carrying of new “white and blue banners with two inverted triangles in the middle”.
          They drew the attention of the authorities to the serious consequences of any political implications in raising the banners.
          Later that month, on the first anniversary of the occupation of Jaffa by the British, the Muslim-Christian Association sent a lengthy memorandum and petition to the military governor protesting once more any formation of a Jewish state.
          On November 1918 the large group of Palestinian Arab dignitaries and representatives of political associations addressed a petition to the British authorities in which they denounced the declaration.
          The document stated:
          …we always sympathized profoundly with the persecuted Jews and their misfortunes in other countries… but there is wide difference between such sympathy and the acceptance of such a nation…ruling over us and disposing of our affairs.

          Zionist reaction
          Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow, the principal Zionist leaders based in London, had asked for the reconstitution of Palestine as “the” Jewish national home. As such, the declaration fell short of Zionist expectations.

          British opinion

          British public and government opinion became increasingly less favorable to the commitment that had been made to Zionist policy. In February 1922, Winston Churchill telegraphed Herbert Samuel asking for cuts in expenditure and noting:

          In both Houses of Parliament there is growing movement of hostility, against Zionist policy in Palestine, which will be stimulated by recent Northcliffe articles. I do not attach undue importance to this movement, but it is increasingly difficult to meet the argument that it is unfair to ask the British taxpayer, already overwhelmed with taxation, to bear the cost of imposing on Palestine an unpopular policy.

          link to en.wikipedia.org

          Even before the LON of 1922 – the earlier Balfour Declaration of 1917 showed the British were already moving down a path of attempting(and ultimately failing) to reconcile two utterly incompatible goals, that of creating a ‘home’ for Jews and also at the same time satisfying the Arab demands for national self-determination.

          The same attempt to reconcile two incompatible goals was also present in the 1922 LON given that it promised a Jewish Homeland in Palestine along with a caveat determining that the rights of the non- Jewish population must be protected.

          All in all both the Balfour Declaration and the LON could only in fact lead to partition into two separate states given the irreconcilability of creating a home for the Jews in Palestine whilst safeguarding the rights of the Arab Palestinian people.

          So – even though the 1922 LON declaration served to re-iterate the Balfour Declaration of 1917 – and despite the evident proof of Arab opposition to the earlier Balfour Declaration of 1917 – taken together with the private feelings of British officials that the 1917 Declaration would lead to a National Home for the Jews in Palestine..

          Still – Shingo, Hostage and Talknic want to argue until they are blue in the face that neither the Balfour Declaration nor LON 1922 meant the creation of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine nor that partition was inevitable!

        • Shingo says:

          your dismissive bluster does not disguise your naivete and complete lack of understanding of what is going on re Israel in the UN.

          What Mayhem is saying is that he cannot argue the facts, so he is falling back to his conspiracy theories about Jew hating masses.

          in the UN Israel is the only nation not entitled to sit on the UNSC

          Israel acts like a thug and a rogue state for 65 years, flipping the bird at the UN, violating countless UN resolutions and demanding special treatment, and then turns around and wonders why there is no red carpet.

          Un-flippin-believable.

          Israel is treated like a pariah because it behaves like one.

          The terms used by the UNGA to obtain an ‘advisory opinion’ from the ICJ were couched in inflammatory language from the outset

          No it was very understated and very soft ball compared to the extent of Israel’s crimes.

          It is like the lawyer questioning the witness asking. “When did you stop beating your wife?”

          False. As Hostage pointed out, as a preliminary matter, the Court had to establish the legal status of the Palestinian territory BEFORE it could determine the laws that apply there and the legal consequences that flow from the construction of the wall by the government of Israel. It included a review of the provisions of the Mandate and the Covenant of the League of Nations.

          What is missing in the ICJ’s report is any discussion of Israel’s right to defend its own people and protect itself from terrorist threats.

          False. The ICJ never disputed Israel’s right to defend its own people or protect itself, but no one buys the BS claim that it has a right to defend its own people when it puts those people in harms way by settling them in illegal settlements in occupied territories. If the Wall had been built according the 1967 borders, there would have been no dispute.

          Fail!!

        • Shingo says:

          The terms used by the UNGA to obtain an ‘advisory opinion’ from the ICJ were couched in inflammatory language from the outset so there was no was no way the ICJ, as a lackey of the UNGA, was going to provide anything resembling impartiality.

          It’s so typical of Israeli apologists. Israel refuses to recognize a UN investigation or court and therefore refuses to participate (obviously knowing they are guilty), then when the outcome goes against their wishes, they claim the court or investigation is biased and complaints that they were not given a chance to submit their case.

          Pathetic.

        • Hostage says:

          What is missing in the ICJ’s report is any discussion of Israel’s right to defend its own people and protect itself from terrorist threats.

          You’re not the sharpest knife in the drawer. For obvious reasons, the General Assembly only asked the Court about the legality of building a wall in Palestine that departed from the route of the Green Line.

          The Court wasn’t asked to report on the legality of Israel defending itself or building a wall or fence on Israeli territory for that purpose. If Israel wants to secure its own territory and citizens with fences, it only needs to withdraw the illegal settlers from Palestine and build its fences on its own side of the Green Line.

        • Hostage says:

          Hostage referred to the Churchill White Paper of 1922 stating vaguely “unauthorized statements had been made to that effect”. To what effect?

          I gave you a link to the White Paper after you claimed:

          The so-called ‘non-Israeli territories’ which are Judaea, Samaria and east Jerusalem, and desired so eagerly by the Palestinians for some kind of a state, were in fact dedicated unanimously to be part of a Jewish homeland that would stretch from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean by the League of Nations in 1922.

          The White Paper explained that:

          Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become “as Jewish as England is English.” His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.’

          link to avalon.law.yale.edu

          “Emir Abdullah soon succeeded in loosening the British mandate over Transjordan with an Anglo-Transjordanian treaty.

          You are talking about the Anglo-Transjordanian Treaty of 1923 as if it controlled events, like San Remo, beginning in 1920. FYI, the British were under an obligation to establish self-governing institutions on both sides of the river under the explicit terms of Article 2 of the mandate. link to avalon.law.yale.edu

          The British stipulated that status of the mandate had not been altered by that treaty or the subsequent treaty agreements between the United Kingdom and the Emirate of Transjordan. See League of Nations, Official Journal, 1928, p. 1574, and Marjorie M. Whiteman (ed), Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 631.

          All of the territory of Transjordan was annexed to the British Mandate after the Syrian General Congress had declared Feisal their King. He was already residing in Damascus at that time, and had been governing OETA East as part of a written agreement that cited the Sykes-Picot line and the “Arab State”. It included all of the territory Feisal had liberated in what later became the new state of Transjordan. “Palestine” was strictly limited to the area under actual British occupation after Allenby’s forces withdrew from Syria. See the terms of the “Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia pending the decision in regard to Mandates, 13 September 1919″ that was handed by Mr. Lloyd George to M. Clemenceau and placed before the Versailles Conference.
          link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

          The Allies were still negotiating the territory that would be included in the mandates after the overthrow of Faisal’s Syrian Kingdom in July of 1920. That was several months after the San Remo Conference (April 1920). Historian Mary Wilson wrote that immediately after Faisal was overthrown:

          The British suddenly wanted to know “what is the “Syria” for which the French received a mandate at San Remo? and does it include Transjordania?” Hubert Young to Ambassador Hardinge (Paris), 27 July 1920, FO 371/5254

          – cited in Mary Christina Wilson, “King Abdullah, Britain and the Making of Jordan”, Cambridge, 1988, page 44

          In fact, the British did not add the territory liberated by Feisal to their Palestine Mandate, until after the Emir Abdullah had taken-up residence in the territory liberated by his brother and had threatened to evict the French from Damascus. Churchill negotiated a compromise during the Cairo Conference.

          On 21 March 1921, the Foreign and Colonial office legal advisers decided to introduce Article 25 into the drafts of the Palestine Mandate for the first time. It was approved by Curzon on 31 March 1921, and the revised final draft of the mandate, including the territory of Transjordan, was forwarded to the League of Nations on 22 July 1922. See Aaron S. Klieman, “Foundations of British Policy In The Arab World: The Cairo Conference of 1921″, Johns Hopkins, 1970, ISBN 0-8018-1125-2, pages 228–234

        • Hostage says:

          in the UN Israel is the only nation not entitled to sit on the UNSC

          The five regional groups had no role at all in the selection process prior to the adoption of UNGA resolution 1991, 17 December 1963.

          From 1948 to 1963, Israel simply never applied for a seat on the Security Council. After it illegally annexed East Jerusalem in 1967, both the General Assembly and the Security Council adopted resolutions that imposed a formal regime of non-recognition and assistance on all the member states. Israel simply couldn’t get elected as dog catcher, or admitted to a regional group, much less win a seat on the Security Council.

          It was never alone in that regard. In 2006, after Israel had become a member of WEOG, there were three other states that were still not members of any regional group. See Frank Hoffmeister, Tom Ruys, Jan Wouters, “The United Nations and the European Union”, Cambridge, 2006, page 357

        • talknic says:

          Mayhem ” your dismissive bluster”

          Strange I quoted the UN Charter buster

          ” in the UN Israel is the only nation not entitled to sit on the UNSC.”

          When a state is in breach of hundreds of UNSC resolutions it expects to be in the UNSC? A criminal state wanting to rule on its own crimes really is a delusional notion

          ” How can Israel expect fair treatment ..”

          65 years to start adhering to the law is far far far beyond the ‘fair treatment’ extended to other law breaking states. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was given short shrift. Indonesia is out of East Timor. Israeli forces in territories “outside the State of Israel” link to pages.citebite.com are still in territories outside the State of Israel after more than half a century.

          “The terms used by the UNGA to obtain an ‘advisory opinion’ from the ICJ were couched in inflammatory language from the outset..”

          Were it so, the ICJ would not be allowed to accept it as a basis for giving an advisory opinion.

          “It is like the lawyer questioning the witness asking. “When did you stop beating your wife?”.”

          Uh? The ICJ is not the witness. UNGA was not the lawyer and the question would be ‘Is beating your wife illegal’. To which the equivalent answer was, ‘in accordance with International Law, yes!’

          ” Framing the request to the ICJ with biased terms like ‘occupying power’

          Israel IS the occupying Power, it had already been determined by International Law. What on earth do you think UNSC resolutions are based on, Red Heifer sh*t?

          ” ‘separation wall’ (when it is largely just a fence)”

          Minister of Defense Benjamin Ben-Eliezer “It obliges us to establish a barrier wall”

          ” ‘occupied Palestinian territory’ etc was evoking”

          Israel IS occupying Palestinian territory, has been since at least May 22nd 1948 when the Israeli Government claimed it was in military control of non-Israeli territory link to wp.me

          “What is missing in the ICJ’s report is any discussion of Israel’s right to defend its own people and protect itself from terrorist threats.”

          The court should answer questions it wasn’t asked…. Amazing!!

        • Mayhem says:

          Jordan may have been added to the British Mandate of Palestine in 1921, but when it was eventually cut off to become the state of Trans-Jordan that left the state of Palestine itself, the territory west of the Jordan river, which was earmarked to be the home of the Jewish people. This is today territory that has been pillaged for the purposes of creating a separate Palestinian state.

        • Shingo says:

          but when it was eventually cut off to become the state of Trans-Jordan that left the state of Palestine itself, the territory west of the Jordan river, which was earmarked to be the home of the Jewish people.

          False. None of it was earmarked to be the home of the Jewish people. And the LON, San Remo and Balfour did not change just because it was eventually cut off to become the state of Trans-Jordan

        • Shingo says:

          The Arabs believed the 1917 Declaration would ultimately lead to the placing of a national home for the Jews in Palestine.

          Not only that, they believed – correctly – that the Zionists intended to conquer the territory and drive them from it. The Zionists got off the boat demanding that the country be turned-over to them lock, stock, and barrel. Ahdut Ha’avodah (Unity of Labor) was established in 1919. Its founding Charter publicly called for a Jewish Socialist Republic in all of Palestine, and demanded “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.

          The phrase “national home” was intentionally used instead of “state” because of opposition to the Zionist program within the British Cabinet.

          Not just opposition within the British Cabinet. Many, if not most, Jews (including several Cabinet Ministers) were non-Zionists who did not fancy Palestine as their homeland. They insisted that the Declaration contain a safeguarding clause with respect to the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. Supporters claimed that “a national home” didn’t mean a state or autonomous government. For example, Lord Cromer thought it would only be a symbolic spiritual center and a reservoir of Jewish culture.
          Jews residing in other countries were still considered “immigrants” and “illegal aliens” there, and they had absolutely no enforceable civil right to even step foot in the country without obtaining a visa. The President of the Zionist Organization considered the majority of European Jews little more than dust, with no future, who were deemed unfit for immigration.
          link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

          Both the Zionist Organization and the British government devoted efforts over the following decades, including Winston Churchill’s 1922 White Paper, to denying that a state was the intention.

          Rubbish. Balfour himself issued a the denial On October 31, 1917, when the Balfour Declaration came before the War Cabinet. Balfour summarized the arguments for and against it. He specifically addressed Curzon’s objections to the use of the vague term “national home” maintaining that it did not mean the establishment of an independent Jewish state. See Karl Ernest Meyer, Shareen Blair Brysac, Kingmakers: the invention of the modern Middle East, page 120

          There is no evidence whether any British officials agreed with the interpretation of the Zionists that a state would be established when a Jewish majority was achieved. The claim that there was some secret, back door interpretation that was being hidden from the public is simply a lunatic conspiracy theory.

          In 1919 the General Secretary and future President of the Zionist Organization, Nahum Sokolow represented the Zionist Organization at the Paris Peace Conference. That same year Longmans, Green, and Company published his “History of Zionism (1600–1918) Volume I”. On pages xxiv–xxv he explained:
          The object of Zionism is to establish for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law.” . . . It has been said and is still being obstinately repeated by anti-Zionists again and again, that Zionism aims at the creation of an independent “Jewish State” But this is fallacious. The “Jewish State” was never part of the Zionist programme. The Jewish State was the title of Herzl’s first pamphlet, which had the supreme merit of forcing people to think. This pamphlet was followed by the first Zionist Congress, which accepted the Basle programme – the only programme in existence.
          link to books.google.com

          Let’s repeat that – the future President of the Zionist Organization himself claimed that any suggestions that Zionism aimed to an independent “Jewish State” was considered anti-Zionist. The Zionists themselves were insisting it was not Zionist policy.

          Even before the LON of 1922 – the earlier Balfour Declaration of 1917 showed the British were already moving down a path of attempting(and ultimately failing) to reconcile two utterly incompatible goals, that of creating a ‘home’ for Jews and also at the same time satisfying the Arab demands for national self-determination.

          We know for certain that Churchill and others deliberately lied about the McMahon-Hussein letters and British guarantees about the Arab population’s right to independence. One example of that happened to be the 1922 White Paper.

          The same attempt to reconcile two incompatible goals was also present in the 1922 LON given that it promised a Jewish Homeland in Palestine along with a caveat determining that the rights of the non- Jewish population must be protected.

          Again Miriam, I don’t know why you Zionist spin doctors keep thinking you can get away with replacing the term “National Home”, with Homeland, which does not appear anywhere in the LON resolution.

          taken together with the private feelings of British officials that the 1917 Declaration would lead to a National Home for the Jews in Palestine..

          Rubbish.

          1. First of all, there is no evidence what the private feelings of British officials might or might not have been

          2. The private feelings of British officials was of no legal relevance
          3. De

          Still – Shingo, Hostage and Talknic want to argue until they are blue in the face that neither the Balfour Declaration nor LON 1922 meant the creation of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine nor that partition was inevitable!

          Absolutely rubbish. If the Mandate had the legal effects that you claim it did, then Palestine should have been considered the legal homeland of all the Jewish people. Why then, did they have no enforceable civil right to step foot in the country or reside there without applying for an immigrant visa? Why were so many ship loads turned away from their own so-called national home as illegal aliens and interned in other countries against their will by the Mandatory power?

          Both the Peel Commission and the UN Portion were based on the agreement that the LON mandate would be terminated. When the High Court of Justice in Palestine rules that you have no right to live in Palestine without an immigrant visa, or to acquire property in 2/3rds of your so-called national home even if you somehow manage to get there, you can’t argue that ALL agreed about the legal significance of that bit of boilerplate.

          You can argue till you are black and blue, the fact is that neither Balfour, nor San Remo, nor LON gave any land to the Jews, much less all of Palestine, nor did they mention anything about a Jewish Homeland or a Jewish state.

        • Hostage says:

          when it was eventually cut off to become the state of Trans-Jordan that left the state of Palestine itself, the territory west of the Jordan river, which was earmarked to be the home of the Jewish people.

          This may come as a shock to you, but the British did not interpret or implement their government’s declaration that way. Both the British and the French reserved the right to lay down the boundaries, and actually did subdivide their mandates several times, e.g. See the map of states created during the French Mandate here: link to upload.wikimedia.org

          I’ve already noted that the British had a built-in veto of its own between itself and the other members, like its own India colony, that could prevent the League from adopting any proposal made by the Permanent Mandates Commission.

          The fact is that Great Britain had legally defined the maximum territorial scope of the Jewish national home when it adopted the 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance. Land transfers in Zones A and B, except to a “Palestinian Arab”, were prohibited. Judea and Samaria were located in those Zones. Here is a link to that map again: link to books.google.com

          The Palestine Supreme Court upheld the validity of the ordinance in Bernard A. Rosenblatt (petitioner) Vs. the Registar Of Lands, Haifa (1947).

        • Hostage says:

          @miriam and mayhem,

          In the past, we’ve noted that the various communities of the Ottoman Empire had been placed under the protection of the public international law of Europe by Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin (1878). Muslim, Arab, and Jewish representatives had served together in the Ottoman Parliament, where the subject of Jewish immigration to Palestine had been debated and decrees on the subject were ratified.

          Here is a link to the debate in the Ottoman Parliament in 1911 in which the two representatives from Jerusalem, al Khalidi and al Husayni, argued that “the district of Palestine” had reached the limit of its capacity of Jewish immigrants, and that they should be settled elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire. The two men were very careful to explain that they were not anti-Semitic, but rather anti-Zionist because the Jews in the Parliament were also members of their political party (the CUP) See Yuval Ben-Bassat and Eyal Ginio, Late Ottoman Palestine: The Period of Young Turk Rule (Library of Ottoman Studies), 2011, page 111 et seq
          link to books.google.com

          The San Remo Conference accepted the draft terms of the resolution proposed by the British and French delegations, with one exception. The vague wording of the Balfour declaration safeguards regarding “civil and religious rights” of non-Jewish communities in Palestine, versus “the rights and political status” enjoyed by Jews in any other country suggested some sort of difference based upon religion or nationality that was not allowed under the terms of the Treaty of Berlin. In order to prevent the liberated communities from being worse off than before, the Conference insisted on adding a stipulation to the verbatim text that it was agreed there was an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine.
          link to cfr.org

          That obviously included the the political right to serve in lawmaking bodies that could regulate immigration. So, the fact is that Great Britain was obliged under Article 2 of the mandate to establish self-governing institutions where the communities could still debate and ratify decisions on Jewish immigration.

          There was obviously no intention or agreement on the establishment of the Jewish national homeland in Palestine under the terms of the LoN mandate. A person doesn’t need to apply for immigration, “subject to suitable conditions”, and wait on a quota, deposit a bond, or apply for citizenship in order to live in their legal homeland.

          In addition, the political rights and position of Jews residing in other countries of nationality were specifically addressed in the mandate instrument and many other LoN minority treaties.

          The Jews repeatedly stated that they would only raise the issue of Jewish statehood, once they obtained the majority. But that simply never happened before the mandate was terminated. During the 20th Sitting of the first Knesset Ben Gurion explained that annexing the Triangle and Hebron would add 500,000 to 800,000 Arabs to the population of the State of Israel. He noted that the Arabs would outnumber the Jews and that they would have to be given the vote. The Herut MKs replied that there were millions of Jews elsewhere in the world that would be willing to immigrate. Ben Gurion replied that the new Arab Knesset would adopt laws that would prevent them from coming.

          If there hadn’t been any ethnic cleansing, that would have been the first order of business for the Palestinian Arab majority in the so-called Jewish state. The Survey of Palestine done for the Anglo-American Inquiry revealed that one third of the Jews living there had never applied for naturalization. See “The Armistice Agreements with the Arab States”, in Netanel Lorch (ed), Major Knesset Debates 1948-1981, Vol. 2, JCPA/University of America Press, 1993, pages 514-515 (pdf file page 94 of 186) link to jcpa.org

        • Obsidian says:

          @Hostage

          ‘That obviously included the the political right to serve in lawmaking bodies that could regulate immigration.’

          That ‘obviously’ meant no such thing.

          From Lloyd George’s ‘The Truth About the Peace Treaties’ , pg 1174, we read that:
          ” Lord Curzon said that he did not yet quite understand the precise significance of ‘political rights’ according to French law. In the British language all ordinary rights were included in ‘civil rights’. He was anxious to avoid introducing in the Treaty a word which might have a different meaning for the French and for the British and might revive the religious rights which had just been disposed of”.

          Hostage. That prior subject discussion between Lord Curzon, Lloyd George and the French representative Mssr. Millerand in the preceding pages of, ‘The Truth About the Peace Treaties’ (1170-74), concerned Britain’s successful, diplomatic paring down of French demands for a protectorate of Palestine’s Catholics under the British Mandate, NOT in securing ‘political rights’ for all indigenous Palestinians.

          link to books.google.co.il

        • Shingo says:

          ” Lord Curzon said that he did not yet quite understand the precise significance of ‘political rights’ according to French law.

          Irrelevant. The Allied Powers were justifiably concerned about the wording of the Balfour Declaration, so they addressed its defects in the text of the San Remo Resolution (that Zionists prattle-on so much about). It stipulated that:

          It was agreed –

          (a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the proces-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine;

          link to cfr.org

          The Court specifically noted that those “existing rights” were the subject of safeguarding clauses regarding freedom of movement and management of the Holy sites (contained in Article 13 of the Mandate) and that an entire Chapter of the UN Partition Plan had been devoted to the subject of protections for religious and minority groups “in conformity with existing rights”.

          See:

          *The text of Article LXII link to fordham.edu

          *Para. 129 of the ICJ Advisory Opinion

          link to icj-cij.org

          *Article 13 of The Palestine Mandate

          link to avalon.law.yale.edu

          The ICJ noted in its advisory opinion that the rights and privileges of the Palestinian communities had been under international guarantees that dated back “far in time”. The Court cited Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin (1878) as one of the more recent examples:

          In no part of the Ottoman Empire shall difference of religion be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, admission to public employments, functions, and honors, or the exercise of the various professions and industries, in any locality whatsoever.

          So, the exercise of both civil and political rights, free from any discrimination on religious grounds, was one of the rights “hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

        • Hostage says:

          That ‘obviously’ meant no such thing.

          From Lloyd George’s ‘The Truth About the Peace Treaties’ , pg 1174,

          Sure it did and the British government admitted that they had failed to fulfill that requirement in their diplomatic correspondence with the US government 25 years later.

          Llloyd George published his account in 1938. When the Cabinet Papers were finally declassified and published in the Documents on British Foreign Policy and Foreign Relations of the United States starting in the 1950s, it was evident to everyone that the former Prime Minister had not told the truth about a lot of things. For his part Curzon did complain for the record that Great Britain was violating agreements with the allies. Lloyd George told the French Prime Minister that the mandates could not be used to violate the treaties with the Arabs, but then went ahead and did it anyway.

          It’s easier to just read Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin. The ICJ cited that in paragraph 129 of the Advisory Opinion and noted that it was included among the “existing rights” that were still protected under the terms of the mandate and the UN Partition Plan:

          The Sublime Porte having expressed the intention to maintain the principle of religious liberty, and give it the widest scope, the Contracting Parties take note of this spontaneous declaration. In no part of the Ottoman Empire shall difference of religion be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, admission to public employments, functions, and honors, or the exercise of the various professions and industries, in any locality whatsoever.

        • Hostage says:

          P.S. @Obsidious

          There was no doubt what Article 2 of the Mandate meant by self-governing institutions or that Article 22 of the Covenant required that they be allowed to operate until the communities could function on their own. The fact that the Zionists and British conspired to violate that obligation is no longer a secret. Entire volumes, like Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict, George Brazziler, 1972 have been devoted to publishing the declassified records.

  14. Ludwig says:

    Mayhem is completely correct. Please review the writings of Mr. Howard Grief. I suggest his book. The amount of information proving Jewish rights to Judea and Samaria under international law is staggering.

    • Shingo says:

      Please review the writings of Mr. Howard Grief. I suggest his book.

      We have reviewed what Grief wrote in his book and his entire thesis is based on a statement Balfour might have said in public about his hope that the Jews might create a state in Paletine evenutally.

      Grief’s thesis is a train wreck that does not stand up to even the softest scruitiny.

      What is also staggering is that not even the Israeli government will touch Grief’s thesis with a 10 foot pole, yet you nut jobs on the fringes are still trying to revive it.

      The amount of information proving Jewish rights to Judea and Samaria under international law is staggering.

      What is staggering is that there is NONE and you nut jobs refuse to accept it.

    • just says:

      Ludwig– you and Mayhem must be joking. Tell your handlers that. Nobody sane is buying your schtick.

      Have a nice day.

    • Hostage says:

      Mayhem is completely correct. Please review the writings of Mr. Howard Grief.

      I’ve already been there, done that, and repeatedly debunked his misrepresentations and propaganda about the magical content of the San Remo resolution and the true purpose of Article 80 of the UN Charter.

      If you want to hear the truth, why not read what your own Supreme Court said about this archaic line of argumentation in its own cases? See CApp 41/49 Simshon Palestine Portland Cement Factory LTD. v. Attorney-General (1950). It ruled that all rights under the mandate ceased to exist when it was terminated. link to elyon1.court.gov.il

      In the Gaza Coast Council v Knesset case, both the government and the High Court agreed that San Remo didn’t provide any legal right for Jews to live in the occupied Palestinian territories.

      • Mayhem says:

        @Hostage, perhaps you can explain how the fact that the Israeli Supreme Court has declared that the disputed territories are to be classified as existing as part of a ‘belligerent occupation’ negates any declarations made at San Remo and the League of Nations. I think that Israel is basically being realistic and has adopted a pragmatic approach. As I have said it is the position of a state that has had to make concessions and compromise every step of the way to be able to stay afloat in a sea of Arab hate. How can a position like that of Greif gain any traction whatsoever in a world completely ignorant of the history and desperately seeking a practical solution that will appease the obstreperous Arabs?

        • Shingo says:

          perhaps you can explain how the fact that the Israeli Supreme Court has declared that the disputed territories are to be classified as existing as part of a ‘belligerent occupation’ negates any declarations made at San Remo and the League of Nations

          You might want to start by quoting what part of an Remo and the League of Nations gave all the land to the Jews.

          I think that Israel is basically being realistic and has adopted a pragmatic approach.

          If by pragmatic you mean, they are dong what they think they can get away with.

          How can a position like that of Greif gain any traction whatsoever in a world completely ignorant of the history and desperately seeking a practical solution that will appease the obstreperous Arabs?

          Positions like Greif , based on myth, fiction and fantasy, will never gain any traction. That’s why not even the Israeli government will touch it.

        • Hostage says:

          @Hostage, perhaps you can explain how the fact that the Israeli Supreme Court has declared that the disputed territories are to be classified as existing as part of a ‘belligerent occupation’ negates any declarations made at San Remo and the League of Nations.

          Here is a link to the full text of the San Remo resolution: link to cfr.org

          Neither the “Principal Allied Powers” nor the “High Contracting Parties” transferred an single inch of territory in Palestine to the Jews under its terms. They merely entrusted Great Britain with “full powers of administration within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers”, i.e. the British and French mandatory regimes.

          They also entrusted the British with the job of interpreting and implementing their own Balfour Declaration. If you want to argue against the way the British did that when they partitioned the country west of the river under the terms of the 1939 White Paper and the 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance, you won’t find any legal ammunition in the qualified language of the San Remo resolution or Covenant of the League that works in your favor. It’s even a matter of public record that Article 80 of the UN Charter was inserted to protect Arab interests and the status quo established by the 1939 White Paper. See the discussion on this page and the following page under “Palestine” in “The United Nations conference on international organization, San Francisco, California, April 25-June 26, 1945″, Foreign relations of the United States : diplomatic papers, 1945.

          The British Empire had several votes in the Assembly of the League and a veto in the Council of the League of Nations. Decisions at any meeting of the League could only be adopted on the basis of unanimity among the members present and voting, in accordance with Articles 5 and 15 of the Covenant. In practice that meant the League could not overturn any administrative decision adopted by the British mandatory government. link to avalon.law.yale.edu

          There is no such thing as an enforceable right without a judicial remedy. In 1947, your Jewish Agency representatives demanded that the UN terminate the British mandate and partition Palestine into two states. The General Assembly adopted a resolution in keeping with that demand that officially terminated the mandate no later than 1 October 1948.
          link to yale.edu

          The Israeli Supreme Court subsequently ruled in CApp 41/49 Simshon Palestine Portland Cement Factory LTD. v. Attorney-General (1950) that all rights under the mandate ceased to exist when it was terminated by the United Nations. link to elyon1.court.gov.il

          I’d suggest that you stop living in the mythical past, unless of course you want to restore British government in Palestine between the river and the sea.

        • talknic says:

          Mayhem “perhaps you can explain how the fact that the Israeli Supreme Court has declared that the disputed territories are to be classified as existing as part of a ‘belligerent occupation’ negates any declarations made at San Remo and the League of Nations”

          You’ve never read the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel? AMAZING!!! It tells us the LoN Mandate expired May 14th 1948!!

          The establishment of the state of Israel drew a new line in the sand.

          One can’t declare a state “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947 … effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time” AND claim territory outside of the state by a Mandate that expired before the declaration came into effect!

    • talknic says:

      Ludwig “Please review the writings of Mr. Howard Grief”

      The Balfour declaration did not say a Jewish ‘state’. This was made clear in the two British White papers on the matter.

      Article 7 of the Lon Mandate for Palestine shows he’s full of Red Heifer sh*t . Under the Mandate it was to be a Palestinian state wherein Jews could obtain Palestinian citizenship.

      ” There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestinelink to pages.citebite.com

      The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel also says he’s full of Red Heifer sh*t

      “We declare that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948)”

      “The amount of information proving Jewish rights to Judea and Samaria under international law is staggering.”

      UNSC res 476 says he’s staggering under the weigh of his delusions

  15. pabelmont says:

    This move by Al-Haq and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights
    is welcome. Here is a link to their Brief:

    link to alhaq.org

    To Al-Haq’s argument, I would have added another:

    The Fourth Geneva Convention (“G4″) declares (I paraphrase from memory) that an agreement between an occupier and the government of the occupied is null and void to the extent that such agreement purport to remove from the protected people (the people living under occupation) any protections offered by the Convention. The motivation for this provision is to secure to the protected persons the benefits tendered by the Convention (G4) even when the occupier exerts pressure on the government of the occupied people to make an agreement (under duress) contrary to the Convention (G4).

    Here, pressure (“duress”) from Israel (the occupier) and the USA (its principal enabler) on the PA (the government of Palestine) has acted to prevent the PA from joining the ICC. The failure of the PA to join the ICC is, in effect, an act by Israel, a consequence of Israel’s duress, rather than a freely chosen failure to act by PA.

    It would run contrary to the purposes of the Convention (G4) for the ICC to regard PA’s failure to join the ICC as an act of the PA itself rather than as an action taken by the PA under duress and thus, in effect, an action taken by the occupier — here identified as a possible war criminal. The ICC should not allow acts by possible war criminals themselves to defeat its jurisdiction for enquiring into alleged war crimes by such actors.

    • HarryLaw says:

      Excellent points pabelmont, I wonder if the ICC have a witness protection program, methinks Abbas may need it, surely it is a criminal offence in itself to threaten reprisals against a victim simply for asking a court to investigate a crime? Israeli General Mandelbrit actually said Israel would regard Palestinians going to the ICC as an act of war in that leaked Wikileaks memo.

  16. Shuki says:

    Yes… of course!

    Nevermind the coldblooded shooting of a 9 year old girl by a palestinian (you know, the one that has been ignored here)… let’s launch a ICC criminal investigation because those pesky Jews are getting a little too upity and have the nerve to retain land they captured when we tried to annihilate them.

    • retaining ‘captured’ land is illegal under international law.

      i wrote this about the little 9 yr old girl earlier today, it just got published link to mondoweiss.net

      • Mayhem says:

        @robbins, brazenly claims

        retaining ‘captured’ land is illegal under international law

        No doubt in her version of ‘international law’ (the biased anti-Israel variety) this is an expedient interpretation but by no means is this so. On page 196 of The Right of Conquest : The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice by Sharon Korman the author refers to the interpretation of Matthew McMahon, who affirmed in his definitive thesis that the limitation on conquest as stated in the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact limiting conquests as a mode of acquisition of territory is not totally applicable ‘since territorial changes may result from a defensive war in the form of redress or indemnity to the victorious belligerent. Hence conquest as a mode whereby a state may acquire territory, although decidedly limited by the Pact still remains a legal method of acquisition in international law.’
        Even after the battle has subsided the party who has occupied land as part of a defensive war has the right to seek redress by peaceful means, there being no absolute imperative under international law for the disputed land to be totally returned to the aggressor.

        The “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” is used to suggest that Israel is required to withdraw from all the territories it captured. The reference clearly can only sensibly apply to an offensive war. If not, the resolution would provide an incentive for aggression. If one country attacks another, and the defender repels the attack and acquires territory in the process, the former interpretation would require the defender to return all the land it took. Thus, aggressors would have little to lose because they would be insured against the main consequence of defeat.

        Of course I can hear the roosters crowing that Israel was the aggressor in 1967, but such dishonest interpretation denies the reality of the huge build up by Arab forces then in clear pursuit of a plan to destroy Israel. Israel had no choice but to act pre-emptively to prevent a potential disaster – an irrefutable right of any nation to protect its citizens under international law.

        • Shingo says:

          No doubt in her version of ‘international law’ (the biased anti-Israel variety) this is an expedient interpretation but by no means is this so.

          Yes it was, and it was so before Israel was created, therefore it is not a biased anti-Israel variety.

          territorial changes may result from a defensive war in the form of redress or indemnity to the victorious belligerent. Hence conquest as a mode whereby a state may acquire territory, although decidedly limited by the Pact still remains a legal method of acquisition in international law.’

          McMahon wrote his anachronistic thesis in 1941, long before the Nuremberg Trails, post-the UN Charter, and the UN Charter, which saw the dismantling of this principle.
          The ICJ, who have far greater authority in matters of international law than the lowly and insignificant Matthew McMahon, didn’t even have to consider this thesis, seeing as not even Israel tried to raise it.
          Secondly, there is no doubt that Israel was the aggressor, therefore could not claim to be acting defensively. Netenyahu has even refused to released over 1 million Israeli government documents that attest to this fact.

          The “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” is used to suggest that Israel is required to withdraw from all the territories it captured. The reference clearly can only sensibly apply to an offensive war.

          False. Israel declared that it’s withdrawal from the Sinai, which it claimed it captured in a defensive war, was based on that very principal (UNSC242).
          So you might want to take up that debate with the MFA.

          Thus, aggressors would have little to lose because they would be insured against the main consequence of defeat.

          Which is exactly what has happened to Israel, who have been insured against complying with USC242 by countless US vetos.

          Of course I can hear the roosters crowing that Israel was the aggressor in 1967, but such dishonest interpretation denies the reality of the huge build up by Arab forces then in clear pursuit of a plan to destroy Israel.

          On the contrary. Menachem Begin has already debunked that BS talking point, along with Rabin and a number of other Israeli leaders and generals – all of whom have said the build up of forces in the Sinai was a defensive move and that Egypt was never going to attack.

          Israel had no choice but to act pre-emptively to prevent a potential disaster

          Wrong again. Begin said quite openly that Israel CHOSE to attack Egypt and that there was no threat of an attack from Egypt.

          That ship has sailed. You need new material.

          Hasbara fail!!

        • Shingo says:

          I stand corrected about the arguments pertaining to Right of Conquest not being introduced before the ICJ. Still, the arguments concerning right of conquest were unanimously rejected.

          Contrary to this view other legal scholars have argued that under Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties the only common sense interpretation of UNSC 242 is that Israel must withdraw from all of the territory captured in 1967, as any interpretation permitting the extension of sovereignty by conquest would violate the relevant governing principle of international law as emphasized in the preambular statement, i.e., “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” as established through the abolition of the right of conquest by the League of Nations following World War I.
          link to en.wikipedia.org

        • Hostage says:

          On page 196 of The Right of Conquest : The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice by Sharon Korman . . .

          . . . was writing about the historical legal developments between the two world wars that led to the “The Demise of the Right of Conquest”. Just see the heading at the top of the page dummy. A few pages latter, she also explains why Article 2(4) of the the UN Charter prohibits this from happening today. She also explains on page 198 that McMahon was talking about a principle that only applies to wars waged against an aggressor by the international community, not private wars waged on the basis of national policy or unilateral annexations.

          There were already prohibitions against any unilateral annexation of territory in the public international law of the European and American states in the 19th Century. See for example, Eyal Benvenisti, “The Origins of the Concept of Belligerent Occupation, Law and History Review 26.3 (2008), link to archive.is

          This was Korman’s doctoral thesis that she published in 1996. In fairness, that was before the ICJ disposed of this whole line of argumentation in paragraph 87 of the 2004 advisory opinion in the Wall case. The prohibition against the acquisition of territory by war contained in the “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations” is black letter law and it’s absolute:

          No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.

          — See:
          *Pdf. file page 75 of 139 link to icj-cij.org
          * The Declaration link to www1.umn.edu

          FYI McMahon wrote his “Conquest and Modern International Law (1940)” several years before the UN Charter was adopted. Membership in the (then) defunct League of Nations was never universal, but the Covenant had also prohibited any territorial acquisitions, no matter how legal the war had been. The only prohibitions that were still in force at that time were those contained in Kellogg-Briand.

          Writing about the UN Charter on page 200 Korman wrote:

          The stipulation in Article 2(4) of the Charter that force shall not be used or threatened against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state recalls the similar phrase used in Article 10 of the League Covenant that members undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. It seems logical to suppose, therefore, since the effect of Article 10 of the Covenant was to forbid all territorial changes imposed by force— even where the resort to force had been lawful in origin that the effect of Article 2(4) of the Charter is likewise to prohibit all acquisitions of territory by force, irrespective of the lawfulness of the cause of war.

          The members undertake to impose that prohibition on the use of force on any non-member states in Article 2(6) of the Charter.

        • Hostage says:

          I’ve pointed out several times in the past that the Secretariat staff members assigned to the Security Council and the UN Legal Affairs Department were tasked by the General Assembly from the very outset to examine the confidential and verbatim records and resolutions for examples of the application of customary international law in practice and to make the evidence about it publicly accessible, i.e. “Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.”

          So here are the links to the official UN publications that are consulted by legal experts to see what laws were applied and what each clause of a resolution truly means. That information is located in the ‘Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council and the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs:
          *link to Security Council Repertoire
          *link to Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs
          The former contains an analytical table of all of the Security Council decisions (Chapter 8) for 1966-1968. It breaks down resolution 242 and catalogs each of the decisions contained within it. It says that the preamble of resolution 242 contains two “substantial measures that govern the final settlement”.
          One is the UN Charter prohibition against the threat or use of force contained in Article 2 of the Charter and here is the other from page 5 of the pdf file:
          “E. Provisions bearing on issues of substance including terms of settlement”
          * “1. Enunciation or affirmation of principles governing settlement”
          **”(a) Inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war,
          Situation in the Middle East(II): Decision of 22 November 1967 (resolution 242 (1967)) preamble”

          **(b) Obligation of Member States to act in accordance
          with Article 2 of the Charter.
          Situation in the Middle East (II):
          Decision of 22 November 1967 (resolution 242
          (1967)). preamble.
          **(c) Withdrawal of armed forces.
          Situation in the Middle East (II):
          Decision of 22 November 1967 (resolution 242
          (1967)). para. 1 (i).
          link to analytical table of Security Council decisions (Chapter 8) for 1966-1968

          So the rules contained in 242 are:
          1) No acquisition of territory by war is permitted;
          2) No threat or use of force is permitted;
          3) Withdrawal of armed forces: read together with rules 1 & 2 which are each “substantial measures that govern the final settlement”

    • Shingo says:

      Nevermind the coldblooded shooting of a 9 year old girl by a palestinian

      When are you going to mind the coldblooded massacre of 300 children during Cast Lead?

      let’s launch a ICC criminal investigation because those pesky Jews are getting a little too upity and have the nerve to retain land they captured when we tried to annihilate them.

      They didn’t retain land they captured when anyone tried to annihilate them. They captured land they had their eyes on from the beginning and started a war to do it.

      Fake history has no credibility here.

    • talknic says:

      @ Shuki “Nevermind the coldblooded shooting of a 9 year old girl by a palestinian “

      No one has been charged … ILLEGAL settlers have guns … accidents happen … easy to blame Palestinians.

      BTW what sort of Government encourages its civilian citizens to settle their families in occupied territories, when the GC’s are to protect ALL citizens from the possible violence of occupying another people and their territory.

      ” Jews are getting a little too upity and have the nerve to retain land they captured when we tried to annihilate them.”

      “Jews”? Conflating the State of Israel with Jews is an old favourite of stupid Israeli propagandists. Like the practice of lower casing ‘p’alestinians, immediately showing a small minded bigot.

      Children 65 years ago in the region had a life expectancy of about 46yrs. Palestinians of today didn’t fight any war with Israel in 1948, they were at best children or tiny babies 65 years ago.

      BTW It is has been inadmissible to acquire territory by war since at least 1933. ANY war. ARTICLE 11

      The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure.

    • Hostage says:

      those pesky Jews are getting a little too upity and have the nerve to retain land they captured when we tried to annihilate them.

      We all know that Israel launched the offensives that started the 1967 War and then lied to the UN and its allies to conceal that fact.

      Even your own Zionist leaders, including the Prime Minister/Defense Minister, Ben Gurion, and the head of the Arab intelligence section, Ezra Danin, admitted in their official reports and war diaries that the majority of Palestinians had acquiesced to the 1947 plan of partition and didn’t pose any threat. Simha Flapan cited Ben Gurion’s diary and a report from Ezra Danin in the State archives (Document 90, page 128 “Political and Diplomatic Documents” Central Zionist Archives/Israel State Archives, December 1947- May 1948, Jerusalem, 1979). See The Birth of Israel Myths and Realities, page 55.

      The representatives of the Jewish Agency had also testified before UN organs that the the majority of Palestinians accepted the partition plan, and that it could be implemented peacefully. See pdf pages 6 thru 9 of 19 link to un.org

      *According to Ian Bickerton, Carla Klausner, “A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict”, 4th Edition, Prentice Hall, 2004, few Palestinians bothered to join the Arab Liberation Army and many Palestinians favored partition more than war and indicated a willingness to live alongside a Jewish state (page 88).

      • Hostage- You seem to infer that all was peace and quiet in Palestine from December of 1947 on, because the majority of the Palestinians were willing to accept partition. But a silent majority seldom makes history. Those Arabs with guns controlling the roads and those Arabs with bombs in Jerusalem were the ones making history. There were hundreds of Jews (and Arabs) killed in December 47 and January 48 and February 48. There was a war situation with the roads controlled by the Arab forces. If you offer us a wider context of what you would have envisioned taking place so that the war of 48 would have been nipped in the bud, then I could take your words more seriously. But as given you seem to be inferring that all was fine, except for Zionist aggression and this is hardly true.

        (The Zionists were not interested in a replacement for the British mandate and that seems to me to be the only means to avoiding that war that existed at that time.)

        • Shingo says:

          Those Arabs with guns controlling the roads and those Arabs with bombs in Jerusalem were the ones making history.

          No, it was the Haganah forces who were illegally stationed there – outside the borders of the state of Israel.

          There were hundreds of Jews (and Arabs) killed in December 47 and January 48 and February 48.

          And 300,000 Arabs expelled. Ethnic cleansing is a dangerous past time.

          If you offer us a wider context of what you would have envisioned taking place so that the war of 48 would have been nipped in the bud, then I could take your words more seriously

          That’s easy. If the Jewish leadership had been satisfied with the territory they weer given and were not obsessed with creating a Jewish majority, it could have been nipped in the bud.

          The Zionists were not interested in a replacement for the British mandate

          They saw the mandate as a means to an end, the same way they viewed the UN partition. Something to be exploited then discarded when it suited them.

        • Cliff says:

          WJ

          Why should the Palestinians accept Partition? It was bullshit.

          Why should the Jewish minority get half the country?

          Of course there was fighting from the Arab side.

          But you support Jewish colonialism so this quibble is all you have. You are desperate to simply point out that the Arabs didn’t lay down and die.

          Great. We know that.

          But last I checked it was your cult that drove out the indigenous majority to make a Jewish majority.

          Last I checked the Zionist leaders were saying accepting partition was simply the first step to a greater territorial conquest.

          You are a liar.

        • Hostage says:

          Hostage- You seem to infer that all was peace and quiet in Palestine from December of 1947 on, because the majority of the Palestinians were willing to accept partition.

          No, I’m simply rejecting the blood libel against the Palestinians that Zionists shamelessly engage in to justify their ill-gotten gains. What century do you think we are living in anyway? Here is a quote from an early 19th century US Supreme Court decision which explains the situation:

          The modern usage of nations, which has become law, would be violated; that sense of justice and of right which is acknowledged and felt by the whole civilized world would be outraged if private property should be generally confiscated and private rights annulled on a change in the sovereignty of the country. The people change their allegiance, their relation to their ancient sovereign is dissolved, but their relations to each other and their rights of property remain undisturbed.

          – United States v. Percheman – 32 U.S. 51 (1832) link to supreme.justia.com

          Here is the remedy proposed by the international community in the Treaty of Sèvres for a flagrant example of a violation of that civilized norm:

          ARTICLE 144.

          The Turkish Government recognises the injustice of the law of 1915 relating to Abandoned Properties (Emval-i-Metroukeh), and of the supplementary provisions thereof, and declares them to be null and void, in the past as in the future.

          The Turkish Government solemnly undertakes to facilitate to the greatest possible extent the return to their homes and re-establishment in their businesses of the Turkish subjects of non-Turkish race who have been forcibly driven from their homes by fear of massacre or any other form of pressure since January 1, 1914. It recognises that any immovable or movable property of the said Turkish subjects or of the communities to which they belong, which can be recovered, must be restored to them as soon as possible, in whatever hands it may be found. Such property shall be restored free of all charges or servitudes with which it may have been burdened and without compensation of any kind to the present owners or occupiers, subject to any action which they may be able to bring against the persons from whom they derived title.

          link to wwi.lib.byu.edu

        • talknic says:

          @Shingo ” And 300,000 Arabs expelled”

          refugees from Israel- controlled territory amount to approximately 711,000 link to pages.citebite.com

        • Shingo says:

          Talknic,

          I was referring to the period before May 1948.

  17. talknic says:

    The Hasbarristers must be getting paid by the word.

    • Cliff says:

      Hasbara is so fail.

      These trolls aren’t convincing anyone who wasn’t already an Islamophobe, imperialist, Christian evangelical or Zionist Jew.