Disenfranchised: How the NYT spins the status of Palestinian land

New York Times headquarters. (Photo: Wikipedia)

New York Times headquarters. (Photo: Wikipedia)

In The New York Times, Palestinian land has become something else again. It is not the State of Palestine, not simply Palestine, not the occupied Palestinian territories and not really Israel either. It is all murkier than that.

This should not be difficult for the Times. There is plenty of established precedence to point the way. Reporters and editors can check out United Nations agencies and find that the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem have a legal name. In official parlance they are the occupied Palestinian territories: meaning the land belongs to Palestine and it is occupied by Israel.

But Times reporters will not say as much. Instead they have been hard at work to put a different face on it, not lying exactly, but using what we call now call “spin.”

This spin involves a three-pronged formula: Israel “won” the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war; Palestinians “would like to use that land” for their future state; and many members of the international community “consider” Israel’s occupation illegal, but Israel disputes this.

In the third prong, Times reporters have turned a solid legal finding into a political squabble. Former Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan Bronner made this clear in a 2011 piece where he refers to “land widely considered Palestinian by right” and then adds, “But geopolitics aside…”

According to Bronner the clear-cut legal status is a matter of opinion, something “considered” or “contended.” It is no longer a fact or a legal finding but “geopolitics,” with Israel and allies on one side and their opponents on the other.

This is just how Israel would like to frame it, and the Times plays along. So it repeats the claim that Israel “won” the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, failing to say that neither Jordan nor Israel have had sovereign authority over the area. The Times says nothing about United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 (specifically addressing Israel’s land grab), which asserted that territory cannot be acquired by war.

The paper also omits numerous UN resolutions that have since called for Israel to end the occupation. Here’s a sample from Security Council Resolution 476 of 1980: The Council “determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent ‘basic law’ on Jerusalem, are null and void and must by rescinded forthwith.”

In 2004 15 distinguished jurists on the International Court of Justice sifted through the pros and cons concerning Israel’s notorious separation wall in the West Bank. They heard the Israeli arguments concerning ownership, necessity and procedure and dismissed them. In a series of lopsided 14 to 1 votes (with the US appointee the sole dissenter) they found that the wall is illegal and demanded that it be dismantled. The wall is built, the court said, not in a “disputed area” but in “the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

The Times is careful to write around the facts in connecting Palestinians to the land. Reporters avoid talk of international law and the fact that Palestinians are the indigenous inhabitants of the West Bank (and all of Israel). Instead, the newspaper has placed them in a shadowy role as outsiders longing for a land of their own.

In Times stories Palestinians have “claimed” or even “demanded” the right to that land. They also have “hoped” or “expected” to receive it sometime in the future. Thus, according to the Times, their present right does not exist.

In the most recent stories, the Palestinian role has receded even further. Last August Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren wrote that the West Bank is an “area imagined as a future Palestinian state.” A few weeks ago Isabel Kershner wrote of “an area the Palestinians envision as part of a future independent state.”

A future Palestinian state can only be “imagined” or “envisioned,” no longer even claimed. It has become little more than a dream.

At the same time illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory have become “neighborhoods.” In a 2012 story Jodi Rudoren writes of “Ramot and Pisgat Zeev, decades-old upscale Jewish neighborhoods of 40,000 plus residents,” failing to say that both are settlements built in Palestinian East Jerusalem and that Palestinians have lived there not for decades but for centuries.

In the Times the Israeli claim gains solidity; the Palestinian right fades into a dream. Legal findings become “geopolitics,” and readers are left in the dark.

It doesn’t have to be this way. See how Harriet Sherwood tells it in a recent Guardian story: “The UK government has explicitly stated its position on settlements, which are illegal under international law…[indicating] frustration and anger at Israeli intransigence in the occupied Palestinian territories.”

Sherwood can say it: the settlements are illegal, not “considered illegal by many in the international community,” and the territory is Palestinian, not land the Palestinians “imagine” as a future state.

In normal newspaper procedure, a legal decision is the basis for facts, and a man convicted of embezzling can safely be called a thief. When the charges against him are proven in a court of law, we can drop the “alleged” from future stories.

Not so with Israel. In the Times there is no legal issue at stake, only a political one. There was no court decision, no legal consensus. Millennia of Palestinian stewardship have left no mark on the land and convey no right, not even the right to be mentioned in print.

This post originally appeared in the blog Times Warp.

About Barbara Erickson

Barbara Erickson is a retired journalist living in Berkeley, California and a member of Friends of Sabeel-North America and Jewish Voice for Peace. She is the founder of TimesWarp, a blog that focusses on NY Times coverage of Palestine-Israel.
Posted in Israel/Palestine, Media, US Politics

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

  1. W.Jones says:

    According to Bronner the clear-cut legal status is a matter of opinion, something “considered” or “contended.” It is no longer a fact or a legal finding but “geopolitics,” with Israel and allies on one side and their opponents on the other.
    This is the position in the Israeli nationalistic infomercials.

    • amigo says:

      ” It is no longer a fact or a legal finding but “geopolitics,” W, Jones

      I wonder if the Nazis viewed the Holocaust as “Geo Politics”.

  2. American says:

    Good post.
    It is the NYT and the rest of the US msm ‘spin’ and refusal to call what Israel has done ‘illegal’ under ALL law that has kept the pubic so- so and not totally outraged over it.
    Everyone on earth understands>>>>>>>>>> having your home bulldozed and your land stolen out from under you.

  3. Talkback says:

    In official parlance they are the occupied Palestinian territories:

    Whose official parlance? In 2012 the State of Palestine was officially recognized by the UN. They are not longer only “territories”.

    They heard the Israeli arguments concerning ownership, necessity and procedure and dismissed them. In a series of lopsided 14 to 1 votes (with the US appointee the sole dissenter) they found that the wall is illegal and demanded that it be dismantled. The wall is built, the court said, not in a “disputed area” but in “the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

    The US Judge was not dissenting on the status of the (then) “territory”:
    “2. I share the Court’s conclusion that international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, and international human rights law are applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory and must there be faithfully complied with by Israel.”

  4. ritzl says:

    Two things, and only two things, can come of this behavior. Either this type of coverage of an important issue colors, negatively, all other coverage of any other issue (i.e. reflection of a generally weak and loosening editorial policy/practice), or it narrows its readership by design.

    Lose-lose.

    Actually, they may be inseparable consequences.

  5. eljay says:

    >> In The New York Times, Palestinian land has become something else again. It is not the State of Palestine, not simply Palestine, not the occupied Palestinian territories and not really Israel either. It is all murkier than that.

    It used to be that the rapist was the rapist and the victim was the victim. But now it’s all so murky.

    The rapist is now merely a man who has a right to self-determine himself in someone else, but who is being de-legitimized for chaining a woman in his basement. This, despite the fact that for over 2,000 days the god-voice in his head promised the woman to him, and even though her name appears in his diary thousands of times, but not once in hers.

    Meanwhile, the so-called “victim” – who was never referred to as a “victim” before she ended up in the man’s basement – has consistently refused to accept his right to self-determine himself in her. Her anger and her acts of violence (slaps and punches) show that she is not serious about peace and only serve to validate his assertion that her captivity is necessary for his security.

    White is black and down is up. It’s all so murky…

  6. RE: “According to Bronner the clear-cut legal status is a matter of opinion, something ‘considered’ or ‘contended’. It is no longer a fact or a legal finding but ‘geopolitics’, with Israel and allies on one side and their opponents on the other.” ~ Barbara Erickson

    MY COMMENT: This is just part of the overall Israeli strategy regarding international law.*

    * SEE: “The Second Battle of Gaza: Israel’s Undermining Of International Law”, by Jeff Halper, mrzine.monthlyreview.org, 02/26/10

    [EXCERPT] . . . Apparently this method is common when Israelis attempt to alter IHL [international humanitarian law] in order to justify unjustifiable practices. A few years ago the Up Front weekend magazine of The Jerusalem Post (April 15, 2005, p. 34) published an interview with an Israeli “expert in international law” who, tellingly, chose to remain anonymous. This what s/he said:
    International law is the language of the world and it’s more or less the yardstick by which we measure ourselves today. It’s the lingua franca of international organizations. So you have to play the game if you want to be a member of the world community. And the game works like this. As long as you claim you are working within international law and you come up with a reasonable argument as to why what you are doing is within the context of international law, you’re fine. That’s how it goes. This is a very cynical view of how the world works. So, even if you’re being inventive, or even if you’re being a bit radical, as long as you can explain it in that context, most countries will not say you’re a war criminal. . .

    SOURCE – link to mrzine.monthlyreview.org

  7. And they complain about the ambiguity of the Israeli capital in our maps.

  8. mondonut says:

    In official parlance they are the occupied Palestinian territories: meaning the land belongs to Palestine and it is occupied by Israel.

    This is 100% incorrect. The UN has never officially declared that the territories belong to the State of Palestine, the PA, PLO or any other concoction of the Palestinian Arabs.

    • talknic says:

      mondonut “The UN has never officially declared that the territories belong to the State of Palestine, the PA, PLO or any other concoction of the Palestinian Arabs”

      The Israeli Government “territories outside the State of Israel” …”in Palestine” May 22nd 1948 link to unispal.un.org

      Which Arabs do they mean in UNSC res 476? and;
      Why do UNSC resolutions call for “peace in Palestine”? and;
      Before Israel became a UN Member state, Israel wasn’t mentioned in any UNSC resolution either and;
      Why are Israeli propagandists 100% ^&*&^%$ stupid?

      • mondonut says:

        @talknic

        - UN 476 does not assign territory to either party
        - Why “peace in Palestine”? Because Palestine is a geographical area they desire peace within.
        - Ummm… So what?
        - Looking forward to mods ever doing their jobs and putting an end to your constant childish insults.

        • talknic says:

          mondonut “UN 476 does not assign territory to either party”

          Uh huh. So why does it name both parties?

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

          “- Why “peace in Palestine”? Because Palestine is a geographical area they desire peace within.”

          Strange, it was a state according to the LoN Covenant (Art 22 which gave the state provisional recognition) re-affirmed in the LoN Mandate for Palestine (first line and Art 7 – where Jews could attain Palestinian citizenship under the “nationality” laws of the “country” of Palestine)

          Can you please cite verbatim where, on Israel being proclaimed independent by the borders of UNGA res 181 link to trumanlibrary.org , that what remained of the State of Palestine was stripped of its statehood … thx

          “Ummm… So what?”

          There aren’t separate rules for Israel and Palestine

          “Looking forward to mods ever doing their jobs and putting an end to your constant childish insults”

          Constant bullsh*t spouted by propagandists for Israel deserves to be called for what it is and those responsible called for what they are.
          A person who is proven to lie is a liar and;
          A person who continues to post illogical nonsense, despite being shown time and again the illogicality of their nonsense, is ^&*&^%$ stupid.
          Your 1st claim, re UNSC res 476, puts you firmly in that category

          • mondonut says:

            @talknic

            For about the millionth time, the resolution you are in love with does not assign territory to anyone, nor does it name “both parties”. Palestine is not named, the UN does not get to award territory and their official position is that borders need to be negotiated.

            And despite your carefully constructed fantasy world, Palestine has not been a state since 1922. Even the Palestinians do not engage is that nonsense.

          • talknic says:

            @ mondonut “the resolution … does not assign territory to anyone, nor does it name “both parties”. “

            Uh? The territory was already assigned by virtue of Israel being proclaimed and recognized and accepted into the UN as ” an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ link to trumanlibrary.org Israel has never legally annexed/acquired any further territories to its legal sovereign extent

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

            …. names both parties at that time and clearly tells us the “territories occupied” are not Israeli. As such it is irrelevant whether they’re Arab territories of Palestinian territories. They simply are not Israeli. It is very clear

            “Palestine is not named”

            Correct the UNSC doesn’t directly name or address non-members. Israel was not named in any UNSC resolution until AFTER it became a UN Member state. Instead the UNSC names both parties to the “Question of Palestine”. The parties on June 30 1980 were Israel and the Arabs.

            “the UN does not get to award territory”

            Correct. They do however re-affirm and emphasize binding Law and the UN Charter, binding in its entirety. They both require Israel to get the %^%$ out of non-Israeli territory.

            “and their official position is that borders need to be negotiated”

            Can you quote verbatim this official position….thx … because UNSC res 242 doesn’t mention the word negotiate/negotiated. It says states must have “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”

            “And despite your carefully constructed fantasy world”

            I don’t do fantasy pal. My comments are based on the Law, UN Charter, UNSC resolutions and Israeli Government statements.

            “Palestine has not been a state since 1922″

            Uh huh. I wonder what it was that had provisional recognition under Art 22 of the LoN covenant mentioned in the 1st line of the LoN Mandate FOR Palestine?

            I wonder what citizenship Jews could attain under Article 7 of the LoN Mandate FOR Palestine other than citizenship in Palestine, which had provisional recognition as an independent state?

            You can answer these questions with verbatim documentary evidence … Yes?

    • Talkback says:

      mondonut: This is 100% incorrect. The UN has never officially declared that the territories belong to the State of Palestine, the PA, PLO or any other concoction of the Palestinian Arabs.

      ROFL.

      In 2012 the UN officially RECOGNIZED the State of Palestine which declared statehood in 1988 within 1967 lines.

      But please enlighten us: Which borders of Israel are recognized by the UN according to the mental state of mondonut? I’ll give you a hint. Security Council 476 (1980):
      “1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;”
      link to unispal.un.org

      • mondonut says:

        @Talkback

        The UN never recognized Palestinian borders, in fact when the UN accorded to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations they specifically declared that borders needed to be negotiated.

        And once again, UN 476 does not grant anything to the State of Palestine.

        • talknic says:

          mondonut “The UN never recognized Palestinian borders”

          Irrelevant. Israel was recognized as it asked to be recognized “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ link to trumanlibrary.org and;
          Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan and Egypt had already been recognized by their borders and;
          What remained was not within the borders of Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan or Egypt according to the Israeli Government link to unispal.un.org
          By default what remained of Palestine was separate of the independent countries that surrounded it.

          ” in fact when the UN accorded to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations they specifically declared that borders needed to be negotiated”

          Quote/cite/verbatim this alleged ‘fact’ …. thx (don’t try UNSC res 242, it says nothing about A) negotiations on borders. B) It was to end hostilities between the states at war, Israel Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, not about Palestinian statehood link to wp.me )

          “And once again, UN 476 does not grant anything to the State of Palestine”

          A) The UN doesn’t directly name non members
          B) UNSC res 476 of 30 June 1980 link to domino.un.org was before 15 November 1988 link to google.com.au
          C) Irrelevant. It tells Israel to *&^% off.

        • Hostage says:

          For about the millionth time, the resolution you are in love with does not assign territory to anyone, nor does it name “both parties”.

          Just to keep you honest. The official position of the General Assembly expressed in ES-10/14 is that it did partition Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, and that it has subsequently been prevented from implementing its plan:

          Recalling relevant General Assembly resolutions, including resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, which partitioned mandated Palestine into two States, one Arab and one Jewish,

          link to unispal.un.org

          The UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/48/158D, 20 December 1993 stipulated that the final settlement had to guarantee arrangements for peace and security of all States in the region, including those named in resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, within secure and internationally recognized boundaries. So there has to be an Arab state.

          The General Assembly has the necessary authority to do that under the terms of Articles 10, 18, 35, 73, 80, 81, and 85 of the UN Charter. FYI, the League of Nations Mandate was nothing more than a resolution adopted by the Council of the League Nations. If you think an international organization can use one of those as authority to divide up Ottoman Asia into new states and lay down borders, please explain why you think the UN can’t do the same thing with one of its own resolutions?

          The UN never recognized Palestinian borders, in fact when the UN accorded to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations they specifically declared that borders needed to be negotiated.

          Well you’re either illiterate or you’ve never read the texts of the relevant resolutions.

          1) Several years ago an Emergency Session of the General Assembly convened under the Uniting for Peace resolution demanded that Israel immediately and unconditionally withdraw from “the occupied Arab territories” and subsequently declared Israel’s continued occupation in violation of UN resolutions an illegal act of aggression in line with its Definition of Aggression (14 December 1974) A/RES/3314 (XXIX). See:
          *General Assembly Resolution ES-9/1 link to un.org
          *General Assembly resolution 39/146 link to un.org
          The Security Council had long-since declared the annexations and settlements flagrant violations of international law. The preamble of resolution 1860 reminded Israel that:

          Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory
          occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state,

          2) Pending Palestine’s full membership, the General Assembly Credentials Committee voted to allow representatives of the permanent observer mission of “Palestine” to participate in the business of the UN without presenting credentials from either the “PLO” or “PNA”. The UN reports and resolutions about that also mention “their State, Palestine”. They describe the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967 as “their territory” and say that “the credentials of the delegation of Israel do not cover that territory”, which has recently been formally admitted to UNESCO as a full member state. See A/58/L.48, 15 December 2003; General Assembly resolution, A/RES/58/292, 17 May 2004 and the discussion of those resolutions on page 192 of John Quigley, “The Statehood of Palestine”. The verbatim record of the General Assembly discussion of the resolution indictes the words “pre-1967 borders” had been chosen deliberately to replace the words “Armistice Line of 1949”. link to un.org and A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012.
          3) After the Oslo Accords expired, the General Assembly adopted a resolution which clarified that the option of a Palestinian state was not subject to any veto or to the peace process negotiations. link to un.org
          The recent application for membership in the United Nations and the General Assembly resolution on the Status of Palestine in the United Nations were both based upon the 1967 borders:

          Reaffirming also its resolutions 43/176 of 15 December 1988 and 66/17 of 30 November 2011 and all relevant resolutions regarding the Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, which, inter alia, stress the need for the withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent State, a just resolution of the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948 and the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

          Reaffirming its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory,

          Recalling also the Arab Peace Initiative adopted in March 2002 by the Council of the League of Arab States,
          Reaffirming its commitment, in accordance with international law, to the two-State solution of an independent, sovereign, democratic, viable and contiguous State of Palestine living side by side with Israel in peace and security on the basis of the pre-1967 borders,

          1. Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;
          2. Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;

          4. Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;

          Status of Palestine in the United Nations
          link to un.org
          If you need any more help in educating yourself on this subject, just ask.

        • Talkback says:

          The UN never recognized Palestinian borders, in fact when the UN accorded to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations they specifically declared that borders needed to be negotiated.

          Not at all. Read the resolution:
          “1. Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;
          2. Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations …”
          link to unispal.un.org

          And once again, UN 476 does not grant anything to the State of Palestine.

          This is just a strawman. Nobody said that this resolution grants territory. It says that Israels occupies it, including Jerusalem.

  9. Paul Larudee says:

    What about the about the land before 1967? Is Barbara claiming that this is not Palestinian land? That it is not Israeli occupied? The land does not conform to what the UN authorized, and the UN never authorized the seizure of Palestinian property nor the expulsion of non-Jewish Palestinians, in fact just the opposite. The seizure of Palestinian lands in 1947-1949 was much greater than anything in June, 1967, and resolution 194 compels Israel to permit all Palestinians “wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours” to do so. In fact, Israel should be expelled from the UN for noncompliance, because that was a condition of admission.

    There is no fundamental difference between the right of Palestinians to lands seized in 1967 and lands seized in 1947-49.

  10. seafoid says:

    Really pathetic reporting from the NYR. Too afraid of upsetting rich ****.

    I remember a story from when I was in India – scandal in a hospital. Poor men from Bihar were offered jobs earning good money in a town in Uttar Pradesh. After 2 months the jobs would suddenly finish and the men would end up in a house where they were used as blood suppliers- there were 17 of them in a slum house and they were all too weak to leave. They “gave” blood 3 times a week. The hospital used the blood for vital operations. It made economic sense -unless you were one of the men.

    link to archive.tehelka.com

    A classic shaft.

    Very like Zionism. The blood of these men would be “claimed” by them , it would be “disputed” but the hospital would have a different angle. The Hospital directors played the role of the NYT.

    “When we asked Dr Lalit Mohan, the principal of BRD Medical College, the reason why the blood trade flourishes so unabashedly on his campus, he refused any responsibility. “My job is to take action on a complaint, and I haven’t received any. I have thousands of things to do. I have managed to ban paan and bidis in the hospital, what more can I do”

    And this is Judaism, is it? This is what 2000 years of praying was for, is it?
    Is this what Anne Frank died for ?

  11. dwilder says:

    Let’s get the facts down straight: ‘Palestine’ was named such, 2,000 years ago, following the Roman occupation, destruction of the Second Temple and victory over Jewish revolts. The Romans, attempting to change the identity of the land area, called Jerusalem ‘Aliea Capitalina’ after a god of Jupiter, and Judea was changed to ‘Palestine.’ However, this was the name of a land area – not of a people.
    There has never been a ‘palestinian people,’ as such. Or perhaps, there was. My mother-in-law, born in Jerusalem to Jewish parents in 1924, was labeled a ‘palestinian’ but the occupying British at that time.
    There was never a ‘palestinian’ culture, heritage, leadership, parliament, or anything else. Today’s ‘Palestinian people’ is the biggest PR bluff the world has ever swallowed, invented in part by Haj Amin el-Husseini, a Nazi Jew-hater-killer, and adopted by his successor, Yasir Arafat. The world’s acceptance of such a ‘people’ and its denial of Israeli-Jewish rights to our land, is an abject denial of the San Remo Accords, by which Great Britain was mandated to form a ‘national home for the Jewish people’ in a land area, including what is today South Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and the Sinai, of course, including all of Judea and Samaria.
    International demands to remove all Jews from their natural, historic homeland, including Hebron, Jerusalem, Beit El and Shilo is nothing less than a modern-day form of anti-Antisemitism, the likes of which led to the slaughter of some six to seven million Jews 70 years ago.
    However, we are not going anywhere. We are here to stay. In all our land. Forever.
    David Wilder, Spokesman, The Jewish Community of Hebron

    • Krusty says:

      Ok, I want to make a point here. I’m assuming this isn’t a troll, since I’m not a member of the community. If it is, my point still stands.

      See how nuts this sounds? (Because it absolutely is.) This is *exactly* what anti-Zionists sound like to the vast majority of the other side.

      However Israel came to be, it is and Zionism succeeded in that sense. There are facts on the ground, including a flourishing Israeli (i.e. ethnonational sovereign Jewish state with self-determination) state and woefully mistreated Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Sykes-Picot is long-gone, Peel was never adopted, and the world has moved on from the 48 borders to 67 (with land swaps to accommodate shifts.)

      The focus must shift to the adoption of an equitable Kerry Framework. The focus cannot be on the BDS chainsaw, when a settlement boycott scalpel will suffice and not feed the irrational right.* The goal must be an embrace of Fayyadism, side by side state-building, moderation, and cooperation along reasonable, equitable grounds.

      That’s the path to peace. Not settlements, not BDS and delegitimization (unless the pressure leads to a new Livni/Lapid/Herzog government), not anything else.

      Check this out: link to timesofisrael.com

      This is a really basic ask! “Hey, stop building outside of those settlements which will probably be yours! That other land isn’t going to be yours!” This is the sort of thing to focus on. It’s fair, it’s equitable, and it’s true. Should Netanyahu refuse, it’d be foolhardy (though I guess practically he’d be trying to placate his hard-right base?)

      On the other hand: link to timesofisrael.com

      That’s good news! More direct participatory democracy in choosing a major (albeit largely ceremonial) figure. Peres has been a wonder, hopefully he can guide the public towards an equally successful successor.

    • Taxi says:

      David Wilder,

      I’ll let others demolish your deluded statements with one sharp-pointed fact after another. I don’t waste my time either on holocaust or Nakba deniers. Really, you should be immediately banned from this site for your despicable, racist lunacy, but the mods let you through – they must be bored or something – oh well.

      But I would like to point out to you that you are as foreign to the middle east as your name suggests. There was never any judo-talibans in the Holy Land till vandals, thieves and killers like you from the west forced themselves upon the region.

      Enjoy your land theft and war crimes while you can. There is no way in hell you will be allowed to live in peace in the middle east. Neither will your grandchildren, their grandchildren and their grand-grand-grand children. You will be fought against till you are utterly crushed and removed from Arab lands that DO NOT BELONG TO YOU.

      • seafoid says:

        Note his Middle Eastern accent, Taxi. It’s very close to the New York twang LOL . He has been in the Middle East since AD 70
        His ancestral homeland. New York was just for ball games.

      • mondonut says:

        There is no way in hell you will be allowed to live in peace in the middle east. Neither will your grandchildren, their grandchildren and their grand-grand-grand children. You will be fought against till you are utterly crushed and removed from Arab lands…

        How refreshingly honest.

        • Sumud says:

          How refreshingly honest.

          How predictably dishonest.

          Did you think we might not notice you chopped the end of Taxi’s sentence to distort the meaning?

          It never ceases to amaze me zionists think they can be continually and obviously dishonest and somehow that is supposed to help Israel. How stupid!

          • mondonut says:

            Sumud says: How predictably dishonest.
            =================================
            The entirety of his comment was two inches above in plain view, for anyone to see. And the balance of his statement in no way mitigates the hateful, racist, violent call for ethnic cleansing.

            All of which you apparently support.

        • talknic says:

          mondonut “How refreshingly honest”

          How predictably dis-honest of you to cherry pick in your pathetic attempt to make a point.

      • bintbiba says:

        This old woman is jumping and whooping at your response to that madman,Taxi. Chutzpah is such a beautiful word. They invented it and it is so apt. No culture? no history? no heritage? my head is spinning…. I have to stop before I say something really rude!

        • seafoid says:

          No culture – how ignorant. The khalilis are such cultured people. I guess they don’t brainwash their kids so they don’t count.

          • MHughes976 says:

            The rights of Palestinians are not affected by whether or not they ever had a polity or a language or a culture that was exclusively or predominantly theirs, or whether they were divided into different competing groups, or whether they were part of a larger culture. All these conditions (which have in fact all existed in Palestine at different times) are compatible with the right to be enfranchised citizens under a sovereign power.

          • seafoid says:

            “The rights of Palestinians are not affected by whether or not they ever had a polity or a language or a culture that was exclusively or predominantly theirs”

            Indeed. However “no culture” is a standard colonial slur. You can’t dispossess people of equal standing and feel good about it. You have to dehumanise them first to secure the Lebensraum.

            link to youtube.com

            There was a piece recently in Native American magazine about a Navajo sculptor who was told by a white teacher that if it wasn’t in the history books it didn’t count.

            And that is where Judaism is now, more or less
            And Hoph will say “yeah but the Americans did it”

            Facepalm .

    • seafoid says:

      “However, we are not going anywhere. We are here to stay. In all our land. Forever”

      they said that in Yamit too

      • Mayhem says:

        they said that in Yamit too

        @seafoid, what translation service are using – the Hamas Hebrew department?
        Nowhere in the video you attached is there any suggestion that “However, we are not going anywhere. We are here to stay. In all our land. Forever”
        These are the relevant words:
        And I spread my wings above the rocks and sands

        With anguish of your views, I’m gone like a dream

        But I still remain there

        In the scars of fire and flame

        With the trumpets of fame and with guilty drums

        And so I leave you shivering

        My stranger and foreign

        My beautiful and lost

        Like a legend

        A very poignant song that depicts the great courage of Israel to trade territory for a cold peace with Egypt.

        • seafoid says:

          So brave, to trade another man’s wife with him .
          The Israeli right swore blind that they would never ever give up Yamit.

          Here’s Kahane, the thinking thug

          link to think-israel.org

          “‘The outside walls of the bunker, as I said, are painted with verses from the Bible, sayings of the Rabbis, and slogans. The most striking includes the quotation from Maimonides (Hilchot Mlachim, 3:9), that a king who orders a Jew to violate a Torah law is not to be obeyed. ”

          Pussies, the settlers. They’ll move when they have to. They always do.

        • talknic says:

          Mayhem “A very poignant song that depicts the great courage of Israel to trade territory for a cold peace with Egypt”

          Never ending drivel.

          Read the Israel Egypt Peace Treaty link to wp.me . Israel was required (and agreed) to withdraw from Egyptian territory before peaceful relations were assumed. IOW get the f&*k out of Egyptian territory and you can have peace with Egypt.

          The territory Israel was required to withdraw from wasn’t Israel’s “to trade”

          • RoHa says:

            ‘The territory Israel was required to withdraw from wasn’t Israel’s “to trade”’

            Talknic, the entire territory from the Nile to the Euphrates, from Yemen to the mountains of Southern Turkey, is really Israeli territory. That the Israelis allow other people to live in bits of it shows how kind and generous they are.

    • amigo says:

      wilder, you are an illegal settler thief.

      And you dare to expect to be treated with respect.

      BTW, are these your kids beating up and throwing stones at old Palestinian women.

    • talknic says:

      dwilder “Let’s get the facts down straight”

      OK. Nothing you’ve said is relevant.

      Fact A) Israel was proclaimed ” as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” May 15th 1948 effective 00:01 (ME time) link to trumanlibrary.org

      Fact B) Nothing outside of those frontiers was Israeli

      Fact C) Since at least 1933 it has been illegal to acquire territory by war, 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.

      Fact D) Israel has never legally annexed any territory to its self proclaimed sovereign extent of May 15th 1948

      Fact E) Nothing you have said is relevant to: Israel’s internationally recognized legal sovereign extent and Israel’s illegal activities in non-Israeli territories in breach of the binding laws and binding UN Charter re-affirmed and emphasized in hundreds of UNSC resolutions giving Israel the opportunity to comply with those binding laws and the UN Charter. Israel has failed to comply

      Fact F) You’re attempts to justify Israel’s illegal activities are idiotic nonsense

  12. seafoid says:

    Specially for David Wilder

    The time has come
    To say fair’s fair
    To pay the rent
    To pay our share
    The time has come
    A fact’s a fact
    Hebron belongs to them
    Let’s give it back

  13. Hostage says:

    This is just how Israel would like to frame it, and the Times plays along. So it repeats the claim that Israel “won” the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, failing to say that neither Jordan nor Israel have had sovereign authority over the area.

    Not quite. The notion that “Jordan” seized or occupied the West Bank is a Zionist propaganda talking point.

    Jordan was a new joint political and territorial entity formed by the union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan. Neither Israel nor Transjordan acquired sovereignty over any territory by war. But modern international law is based upon the principle that sovereignty resides in the people of a territory. Once the mandate was terminated, there could be no legal basis to deny the population of the territory the right to hold their own regional Congresses, form military alliances to provide for the conservation and prosperity of their country, and to form and dissolve political unions with other states as they saw fit. The union between the two Palestinian Arab states was no less sovereign than the United Arab Republic formed by the union of Egypt and Syria in 1958. The Palestinians of the West Bank were fully represented in the government of Jordan. There were Palestinian Prime Ministers, lawmakers, and ambassadors. The resolutions of the Jericho Congress and the 1950 resolution ratifying the union between the two banks were explicitly undertaken to preserve the possibility of a future life of Palestinian independence, preserve Arab rights in Palestine by every legal means, and were without prejudice to the final settlement of the Question of Palestine.

    During the negotiations on the wording of resolution 242, the Israeli side tried to characterize Jordan as an occupying power, even though Palestinians were citizens and held half the seats in the Jordanian Parliament. King Hussein insisted that, if it was impossible to be precise as to when or where withdrawal should take place, it certainly was not impossible to be precise with regard to the question of who was to withdraw, i.e. the armed forces of Israel.
    See: Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War Document 515 and 521
    link to history.state.gov
    link to history.state.gov

  14. Mayhem says:

    @Hostage, on April 24, 1950, the Jordan House of Deputies and House of Notables, in a joint session, adopted a resolution making the West Bank and Jerusalem part of Jordan. This act had no basis in international law; it was only the de facto act of Trans-Jordan as a conqueror. The other Arab countries denied formal recognition of the Jordanian move and only two governments – Great Britain and Pakistan – formally recognized the Jordanian takeover. The rest of the world, including the United States, never did. This was clearly annexation. Refer link to en.wikipedia.org

    The notion that “Jordan” seized or occupied the West Bank is a Zionist propaganda talking point.

    @hostage, to have made this outrageous statement in the face of the simple events of history I have outlined above only goes to demonstrate the fallacy of your position.
    You forget how the Peel commission recommended the incorporation of the Arab part of western Palestine into Transjordan rather than its constitution as an independent state. Your legal platitude

    modern international law is based upon the principle that sovereignty resides in the people of a territory

    does nothing to alter political reality.
    For some perspective turn the clock forward a couple of years to Black September, the Jordanian civil war that began in September 1970 and raged for 9 months.
    You can play your legalistic gymnastic games with your pusillanamous remarks but at the end of the day you cannot get past the intractables – refer link to meforum.org

    • talknic says:

      @ Mayhem “This act had no basis in international law; it was only the de facto act of Trans-Jordan as a conqueror”

      A) There was an Armistice Agreement under which Transjordan was the legitimate and legal Occupying Power over Judea and Samaria as they were then known.

      B) Self determination DOES HAVE a basis in International Law! The West Bank as it is now known, was legally annexed at the request of the Palestinians

      C) Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950). all of which complies with the UN Charter, which is why there is no UNSC condemnation of that annexation. Quite the opposite of Israel’s unilateral and illegal annexation of East Jerusalem.

      “The other Arab countries denied formal recognition of the Jordanian move”

      They forced Transjordan to comply as a trustee only (ibid)

      “and only two governments – Great Britain and Pakistan – formally recognized the Jordanian takeover”

      A) Recognition does not determine legality. The law does. See UNSC res 252 and its EIGHT reminders reaffirming and emphasizing binding Law and the UN Charter

      B) If recognition did determine legality, would you apply the theory to Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem?
      How many countries have recognized the unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel? None! Therefore, by dint of your own stupidity…. go figure

      “This was clearly annexation”

      Indeed it was and it was asked for by the inhabitants of the territory, making it legal under the noble notions of self determination

      “Refer link to en.wikipedia.org”
      Wikipedia can be written by anyone. As a matter of policy it is based primarily on third hand opinion rather than truth. It keeps changing. In regards to the I/P conflict, Wikipedia is infested with blatant propagandists for a Greater Israel.

      “to have made this outrageous statement in the face of the simple events of history I have outlined above only goes to demonstrate the fallacy of your position”

      You’ve only demonstrated your ignorance

      “You forget how the Peel commission recommended the incorporation of the Arab part of western Palestine into Transjordan rather than its constitution as an independent state.”

      Long BEFORE 1950 and irrelevant as of the moment Israel was proclaimed ” as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ link to trumanlibrary.org

      //modern international law is based upon the principle that sovereignty resides in the people of a territory//
      “does nothing to alter political reality”

      But it did in the Iraqi/Kuwait issue, Indonesia/East Timor and of course Israel being proclaimed, recognized and accepted into the UN (while at war in territories “outside the State of Israel” )

      “For some perspective turn the clock forward a couple of years to Black September, the Jordanian civil war”
      A) A civil war is between the citizens of a state or the citizens of a state and that state’s government. When it’s between a Government and refugees, it isn’t a civil war
      B) Jordan had the right, as does every state, to protect and maintain order for the majority from the uprising of an armed minority, even if that minority are refugees

      ” refer link to meforum.org” … conveniently forgets to mention that Israel’s sovereignty only legally extends to “frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ and that the acquisition of territory by war, ANY war link to pages.citebite.com is illegal.

      • Hostage says:

        A) There was an Armistice Agreement under which Transjordan was the legitimate and legal Occupying Power over Judea and Samaria as they were then known.

        Correction: The resolution of the Jericho Congress was ratified by the Transjordanian Parliament and the Council of Ministers in January of 1949 and approved by the King. The joint Kingdom officially changed its name on January 21, 1949 to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. See Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements, Vol. 4, Edmund Jan Osmanczyk, and Anthony Mango, Routledge, 3rd edition, 2004 , page 2354

        So Israel implicitly recognized the Union when it subsequently signed the international armistice agreement with the new joint political entity and accepted its legal competence to conclude a final settlement on the questions of borders, and etc. Footnote 24 of Yehuda Z. Blum, “The Missing Reversioner: Reflections on the Status of Judea and Samaria” notes that Israel concluded the Armistice Agreement with Jordan, not Transjordan. link to heinonline.org

        During the Rhodes and Lausanne Conferences, Israel said it was only willing to negotiate with sovereign states. So it always recognized Jordan as a sovereign state.

        The whole missing reversioner theory always has been nonsense. Ben Gurion told the US representative on the Palestine Conciliation Commission that the status of Arab Palestine could be recognized through the device of a federal union with Transjordan. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, page 927
        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
        * The representatives of the Jewish Agency had spent decades pitching the idea to the British and US that Transjordan could be made economically viable by incorporating the territory of Arab Palestine. See:
        *Dr Goldmann, Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. The Near East and Africa, Volume VII, Page 680-681 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
        *Mr. Shertok, Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume V, Part 2, Page 945 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
        *Rabbi Silver, Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (in two parts),Volume V, Part 2, Page 900 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        During the 62nd Sitting of the first Knesset, 1 August 1949, Prime Minister Ben Gurion acknowledged that Israel had tacitly recognized the borders of the Arab states. He explained that the UN and the states that recognized Israel had not yet recognized its expanded borders, but that the Arab States had given in and recognized them through the armistice agreements. He said “I will not go into pointless argument on who gave in to whom. I will admit quite openly and simply that we gave in too.”
        See pages 541 and 542 of Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981, Volume 2, Netanel Lorch, University Press/JCPA, 1993.
        link to jcpa.org

    • Hostage says:

      @Hostage, on April 24, 1950, the Jordan House of Deputies and House of Notables, in a joint session, adopted a resolution making the West Bank and Jerusalem part of Jordan. This act had no basis in international law; it was only the de facto act of Trans-Jordan as a conqueror.

      No, it took place after a national plebiscite in both Arab Palestine and Transjordan in which the overwhelming majority of the population concerned participated. Their elected representatives unanimously ratified the step.

      As for international reecognition, Here is a list that has been posted here at Mondoweiss before
      Express and Implied Recognition

      Great Britain recognized the annexation of the West Bank on a de jure basis, and the de facto authority of Jordan over East Jerusalem pending a final status determination. See British House of Commons, Jordan and Israel (Government Decision), HC Deb 27 April 1950 vol 474 cc1137-41 [10]
      Sanford Silverburg’s cites an article by Yehuda Blum that relied on another article written by Julius Stone. He says they are the source of the frequently repeated claim that only two states, Great Britain and Pakistan, recognized the annexation of the West Bank by Jordan. Silverburg casts some doubt on the reliability of the claim with respect to Pakistan’s recognition. See Silverburg, Sanford R., Pakistan and the West Bank: A Research Note, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 261-263
      In December of 1948 the mayors of almost all Palestine towns held by the Arabs met in Jericho and declared Abdullah King of Arab Palestine The government of Transjordan announced that any constitutional changes resulting from the incorporation of Palestine would be made at the same time as the setting of the date for the proclamation of Abdullah as the ruler of the joint kingdom. See the The Palestine Post, December 14, 1948, page 1, “Jericho Declaration”; “Current biography yearbook”, H. W. Wilson Co., 1949, page 5, Abdullah ibn Hussein; Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 2, US State Department (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pages 1163-68; and “Written Statement of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” submitted to the Internartional Court of Justice, para 2.19, page 18 of 229 [11]
      In December of 1948 the Secretary of State authorized the US Consul in Amman to advise King Abdullah and the officials of Transjordan that the US accepted the principles contained in the resolutions of the Jericho Conference, and that the US viewed incorporation with Transjordan as the logical disposition of Arab Palestine. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume V, Part 2, Page 1706; Kadosh, Sandra Berliant, United States Policy toward the West Bank in 1948, Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 46, No. 3/4 (Summer – Autumn, 1984), pp. 231-252, especially 246
      The resolutions of the Second Arab-Palestinian Congress were adopted by the Transjordanian government on December 7, 1948 and the parliament approved the creation of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on December 13, 1948. See Whiteman, vol 2, pages 1163-68; and the Palestine Post, “Jericho Declaration” article
      On January 21, 1949 Transjordan officially changed its name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. See Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements, Vol. 4, Edmund Jan Osmanczyk, and Anthony Mango, Routledge, 3rd edition, 2004, ISBN 0-415-93924-0, page 2354 [12]
      The United States extended de jure recognition to the Government of Transjordan and the Government of Israel on the same day, January 31, 1949. Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume VI, Page 713
      Clea Bunch said that “President Truman crafted a balanced policy between Israel and its moderate Hashemite neighbours when he simultaneously extended formal recognition to the newly created state of Israel and the Kingdom of Transjordan. These two nations were inevitably linked in the President’s mind as twin emergent states: one serving the needs of the refugee Jew, the other absorbing recently displaced Palestinian Arabs. In addition, Truman was aware of the private agreements that existed between Jewish Agency leaders and King Abdullah I of Jordan. Thus, it made perfect sense to Truman to favour both states with de jure recognition.” See Clea Lutz Bunch, “Balancing Acts: Jordan and the United States during the Johnson Administration,” Canadian Journal of History 41.3 (2006)
      When de jure recognition was finally extended to the State of Israel on January 31, 1949, Truman in a significant and symbolic jesture, announced the recognition of Transjordan on the same date. See Devine, Michael J., Watson Robert P., Wolz Robert J., Israel and the legacy of Harry S. Truman, Volume 2004, Truman State Univ Press, 2008, ISBN: 1931112800, page xiii [13]
      Jordan called attention to the fact that after the unification of the West Bank within Jordan’s territory, Jordan concluded a considerable number of bilateral and multilateral treaties with other states. The application of those treaties extended to the entirety of Jordan including all of the West Bank: none of the other parties to those treaties made any reservation to the effect that their applicability to the West Bank was excluded. See Written Statement of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to the Internartional Court of Justice, para 2.21 pages 18-19 [14]
      § 204, Reporters Note 2, The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States says that “Recogni­tion of a state has been effected by express official declaration, by the conclusion of a bilateral agreement with the state, by the presentation of credentials by a United States representative to the authorities of the new state, and by receiving the credentials of a diplomatic represen­tative of that state.”
      Department of State bulletin, Volume: volume 20, 1949 noted de jure recognition of the government of Jordan; that a U.S. legation to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was established in Amman; and that Dr Yussef Baikal had presented credentials as “(Jordan) Minister” to the United States.
      The Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series presents the official documentary historical record of major U.S. foreign policy decisions and significant diplomatic activity. It contains a Memorandum of Conversation, between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and Mr. Abdel Monem Rifai, Counselor, Jordan Legation in Washington, June 5, 1950 which documents the US recognition of the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V (1950), Page 921 [15]
      The US signed several treaties with Jordan: a Technical Cooperation Agreement with Jordan that entered into force February 27, 1951 (Volume 4206 of Department of State publication Volume 2233 of Treaties, a Guaranty of Private Investments Agreement effected by an exchange of notes, signed at Amman July 10 and September 24, 1956, Volume 3663 of Treaties, and an Economic Assistance Agreement including an exchange of notes signed at Amman June 29, 1957, Volume 3869 of Treaties of the United States. None of the treaties contained any reservations regarding the West Bank.
      Thomas Kuttner notes that de facto recognition was granted to the Jordanian regime, most clearly evidenced by the maintaining of consulates in East Jerusalem by several countries, including the United States. See Israel and the West Bank, By Thomas S. Kuttner, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 1977, Volume 7; Volume 1977, edited by Yoram Dinstein, Kluwer Law International, 1989, ISBN 0-7923-0357-1, [16]
      Joseph Weiler said that other states had engaged in activities, statements, and resolutions that would be inconsistent with non-recognition. See Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state: a European perspective, By Joseph Weiler, Croom Helm, Ltd. 1985, ISBN 0-7099-3605-2, page 48, footnote 14 [17]
      Joseph Massad said that the members of the Arab League granted de facto recognition and that the United States had formally recognized the annexation, except for Jerusalem. See Joseph A. Massad, Colonial Effects: The Making of National Identity in Jordan (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001),ISBN 0-231-12323-X, page 229
      The Security Council adopted Resolution 228 (1966) in which the Council observed that, “the grave Israeli Military action which took place in the southern Hebron area [of the West Bank] on 13 November 1966… constituted a large scale and carefully planned military action on the territory of Jordan by the armed forces of Israel” “Written Statement of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” submitted to the Internartional Court of Justice, para 2.21, page 19 of 229 [18]
      In a letter to David Ben-Gurion published by Reuters on 9 January 1968, French President De Gaulle explained that he was convinced that Israel had ignored his warnings and overstepped the bounds of moderation by taking possession of Jerusalem, and so much Jordanian, Egyptian, and Syrian territory by force of arms. See Text of de Gaulle’s Answer to Letter From Ben-Gurion at Select.nytimes.com [19]
      During the 5th Emergency Session of the General Assembly the representative of the Soviet Union, Mr. Kosygin, repeatedly asserted that the West Bank was Jordanian territory. See A/PV.1526 of 19 June 1967. [20]
      On June 9, 1967 Foreign Minister Eban assured US Ambassador Goldberg that Israel was not seeking territorial aggrandizement and had no “colonial” aspirations. See Foreign Relations of the United States Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, page 386, Document number 227 Secretary Rusk stressed to the Government of Israel that no settlement with Jordan would be accepted by the world community unless it gave Jordan some special position in the Old City of Jerusalem. The US also assumed Jordan would receive the bulk of the West Bank as that was regarded as Jordanian territory. See Foreign Relations of the United States Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, page 765-766, Document 411

    • Walid says:

      “The other Arab countries denied formal recognition of the Jordanian move and only two governments – Great Britain and Pakistan – formally recognized the Jordanian takeover. ”

      Mayhem, you came in at the end of the movie. Before the war of 1948 started, Jordan’s king had negotiated with the Zionists on cutting up the Palestinian pie. In the coming war that appeared inevitable, the West Bank was to be given to Jordan while the rest of Palestine would go to the Zionists and for this, Jordan would put up only a token resistance against the Zionists and this is what happened; Jordan that was the only country with an effective army that had been trained and commanded by the British put up a few tanks against Israel for show. At the time, Jordan pulled a fast one by grabbing East Jerusalem which was not in the agreement. The Jericho Conference resolution pledging allegiance to King Abdullah of Jordan was not unanimously accepted by all Palestinians, by Haj al-Husseini, by the people of Gaza that preferred a union with Egypt and especially to the Arab League that kept Jordan in the doghouse for about 3 years for having illegally annexed the West Bank. The hanky-panky between the Hashemites and the Zionists on the backs of the Palestinians had started in the early 20s with Abdullah’s brother, Faisal. In 1951, King Abdullah was assassinated in Jerusalem by a member of the al-Husseini clan for his ongoing dealings with the Zionists. The covert dealings continued on through the 67 and 73 war periods until finally a peace was signed between Jordan and Israel and like with the peace treaty that had been signed between Egypt and Israel, the Palestinians were left out in the cold.

      • Hostage says:

        In the coming war that appeared inevitable, the West Bank was to be given to Jordan while the rest of Palestine would go to the Zionists and for this, Jordan would put up only a token resistance against the Zionists and this is what happened;

        No you are repeating propaganda. The whole exercise of going to the UN was to find a solution to avoid an all out war. The King’s arms supplier was the British mandatory government. It ordered him to stay out of the territory of the proposed Jewish state, period. His Prime Minister and Brig. Glubb advised the Foreign Office that the Arab Legion couldn’t even muster the forces necessary to occupy the territory of the proposed Arab state, and would only be able to defend a small area of Central Palestine adjacent to Transjordan without outside assistance. The British, US, French, and Belgian governments supported a British proposal for a modus vivendi agreement to prevent border clashes between the militias, which had always been a requirement of resolution 181(II). People who try to pretend the very limited capabilities of the 9,000 man Arab Legion should have been adequate to subdue a superior force of 60,000 to 80,000 Israeli militia members are simply being delusional.

        No one ceded any territory of the proposed Arab state to the Jews, it was simply impossible to defend it against aggression with the forces available for the task.

  15. Mayhem says:

    they are the occupied Palestinian territories: meaning the land belongs to Palestine and it is occupied by Israel

    This might be the author’s opinion and the opinion of many around here but it is simply not true. Refer link to meforum.org
    The author is a member of Friends of Sabeel – refer link to adl.org – so her political prejudices have been openly declared, alerting us to the anti-semitic theology to which she subscribes.
    You keep harrassing the world, send out terrorists to make sure people get the message and eventually we realize that unless we GIVE the ‘Palestinians’ a state they won’t shut up. That is the strategy – to annoy, intimidate, delegitimize and demonize the other side as a way of gaining sympathy – it is all part of a devious campaign by those who basically hate Israel and what it represents.
    Harriet Sherwood is a case in point. A journalist who was meant to be reporting on events in the Middle East was a biased political activist always willing to propagate lies for the Palestinian cause. Thankfully she has left the Guardian but unfortunately has been replaced by her stringer, Hazem Balousha (who played a key role in Jon Donnison’s infamous fauxtography scandal in 2012). The frequent discovery of these kinds of lies and distortions by Palestinian advocates shows the lack of basic honesty amongst those who lobby against Israel.
    And what about the Kurds – they have been seeking a state a lot longer than the ‘Palestinians’?

    • Hostage says:

      This might be the author’s opinion and the opinion of many around here but it is simply not true.

      I agree. Military occupations that comply with the terms of the UN Charter are considered legal, what Israel is doing constitutes the crime of aggression and it is not. There is no statute of limitations for the crime of aggression, including eviction by armed attack (a.k.a. ethnic cleansing) or occupation in violation of the UN Charter, and the policy of apartheid. See the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity link to www1.umn.edu

      • Talkback says:

        Hostage: … what Israel is doing constitutes the crime of aggression …

        Please explain.

        • Hostage says:

          Hostage: … what Israel is doing constitutes the crime of aggression …

          Please explain.

          Because the occupation violates Israel’s obligations under international law as an occupying power and the UN Charter.

          Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations is a legally binding multilateral treaty which prohibits the members from employing threats or armed force against the territorial integrity and political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. It also requires all Members to give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes.

          The Security Council adopted two chapter 7 resolutions, 62 and 73, establishing permanent armistice lines of demarcation beyond which the armed forces and civilian population of Israel were forbidden to cross.
          * link to un.org
          * link to un.org

          The Security Council adopted Resolution 228 (1966) that condemned Israel for attacking the Hebron region of Jordan. The Council observed that, “the grave Israeli Military action which took place in the southern Hebron area [of the West Bank] on 13 November 1966… constituted a large scale and carefully planned military action on the territory of Jordan by the armed forces of Israel” link to un.org (1966)

          The UN Security Council and General Assembly have repeatedly ordered Israel to withdraw from the occupied Arab territories and have determined that its continued presence in violation of UN resolutions constitutes a threat to international peace and security. For example, Security Council resolution 476 reaffirmed the overriding necessity to end the military occupation without reference to any condition and deplored Israel’s continued refusal to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly.
          link to un.org

          Article 25 of the Charter says that “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter”. The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, a UN legal publication, says that during the United Nations Conference on International Organization which met in San Francisco in 1945, attempts to limit obligations of Members under Article 25 of the Charter to those decisions taken by the Council in the exercise of its specific powers under Chapters VI, VII and VIII of the Charter failed. It was stated at the time that those obligations also flowed from the authority conferred on the Council under Article 24(1) to act on the behalf of the members while exercising its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. See page 5, The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, Extracts Relating to Article 25 link to legal.un.org
          Article 24, interpreted in this sense, becomes a source of authority which can be drawn upon to meet situations which are not covered by the more detailed provisions in the succeeding articles. see The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, Extracts Relating to Article 24, link to legal.un.org
          The Repertory on Article 24 says: “The question whether Article 24 confers general powers on the Security Council ceased to be a subject of discussion following the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice rendered on 21 June 1971 in connection with the question of Namibia (ICJ Reports, 1971, page 16)”. See Note 2 on page 1 of Sup. 6, vol. 3, Article 24 link to legal.un.org

          Several years ago an Emergency Session of the General Assembly convened under the Uniting for Peace resolution demanded that Israel immediately and unconditionally withdraw from “the occupied Arab territories” and subsequently declared Israel’s continued occupation in violation of UN resolutions an illegal act of aggression in line with its Definition of Aggression (14 December 1974) A/RES/3314 (XXIX). See:
          *General Assembly Resolution ES-9/1 link to un.org
          *General Assembly resolution 39/146 link to un.org

          In Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) the ICJ advised that the General Assembly’s Definition of Aggression reflects customary international law. link to icj-cij.org

          The Rome Statute of the ICC adopts the General Assembly’s customary Definition of Aggression to define the constituent acts of the Crime of Aggression, i.e.:

          2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:

          (a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;

          (b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;

          (c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;

          (d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;

          (e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;

          (f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the
          disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;

          (g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.

    • talknic says:

      Mayhem “This might be the author’s opinion and the opinion of many around here but it is simply not true. Refer link to meforum.org”

      David Bukay conveniently ignores the Israeli Government May 15th 1948 proclamation of Israel’s sovereign extent, by which Israel was recognized and accepted into the UN, on which all subsequent judgements of and UNSC resolutions decrying Israel’s actions outside that territory have been based.

      “You keep harrassing the world, send out terrorists to make sure people get the message and eventually we realize that unless we GIVE the ‘Palestinians’ a state they won’t shut up:”

      It is not up to Israel to give the Palestinians a state. It is up to Israel to get out of all non-Israeli territory so the Palestinian state can be independent

      “That is the strategy – to annoy, intimidate, delegitimize and demonize the other side as a way of gaining sympathy – it is all part of a devious campaign by those who basically hate Israel and what it represents”

      Odd. The binding laws and binding UN Charter reaffirmed and emphasized in hundreds of UNSC resolutions is in favour of the Palestinians, not Israel. They have all given Israel an opportunity to comply. Israel has failed, preferring instead to illegally acquire even more non-Israeli territory. The US UNSC veto only prevents the law having full effect.

      “And what about the Kurds – they have been seeking a state a lot longer than the ‘Palestinians’?”

      Palestine has been under occupation wholly or in part by some entity or another since at least the Roman era. There has never been a single moment in over 2,000 years where the Palestinians had an opportunity to miss.

      One cannot have or declare independence while under occupation. Israel is a prime example, the Jewish People’s council and Zionist Movement had to wait until the Mandate expired in order to be free of British administration of the territory slated for the Jewish state.

      The Kurds are spread across more than one state, all of which were only formed in the last century. For the Kurds to have independence requires all those states to agree to Kurdish secession.

      The Palestinians aren’t asking for secession from Israel. They’re asking for Israel to get the f%^$ out of non-Israeli Palestinian territory.

  16. Sumud says:

    This might be the author’s opinion and the opinion of many around here but it is simply not true.

    Not just “many around here” Mayhem , the whole world – except Israel, and no-one is surprised that the thief wants to keep the proceedings of the crime.

  17. JeffB says:

    Last I checked New York was in the United States. US law on the matter is

    The Congress makes the following findings:
    (1) Each sovereign nation, under international law and
    custom, may designate its own capital.
    (2) Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital
    of the State of Israel.
    (3) The city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel’s President,
    Parliament, and Supreme Court, and the site of numerous
    government ministries and social and cultural institutions.
    (Jerusalem embassy act passed 1995)

    The legal status is not clear cut in the UN’s favor. You might like it to be clear cut because you believe the UN has final say but that is itself a political position and not a political position upheld by the US government.

    • talknic says:

      JeffB “The legal status is not clear cut in the UN’s favor.”

      Bullsh*t!

      The US is a UN Member State bound by the UN Charter in its entirety. The UN Charter trumps state law on International matters. That’s why the US abstains from voting on UNSC Chapt VI resolutions re-Israel as it would be illegal under the UN Charter to vote against ‘already established International Law’ and the UN Charter.

      All the US can do is veto Chapt VII resolutions which can prescribe ‘yet to be established’ actions that might be taken against members who are in breach of the law and UN Charter according to Chapt VI resolutions re-affirming and emphasizing established binding law and the UN Charter.

      The US is also a party to the Montevideo Convention of the Rights and Duties of States under which the acquisition of territory by force is illegal.

      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.

      Furthermore the convention is a treaty between signatories link to cfr.org . For the US to recognize territories acquired by war by Israel would put the US in breach of that treaty.

      • JeffB says:

        @talknic

        The final authority on the interpretations of all treaties under US law is the United States Senate. You may not like the law but that is the law. Congress does not have the authority to sign a treaty recognizing a foreign power as having supremacy over the government of the United States, that’s Article 6 of the constitution. If the UN wants to hold the US constitution to be so intrinsically hostile to the UN charter that the USA cannot be a UN member state that’s for the UN to decide. But until then the government of the United States not the UN is the supreme authority of the policy of the United States.

        For example the UN explicitly indicated that the US war in Iraq was a violation of the charter and that 0 effect on the deployment of our armies.

        • Hostage says:

          @talknic

          The final authority on the interpretations of all treaties under US law is the United States Senate.

          The hell you say. The Supremacy clause puts treaties on an equal footing with statutes as part of the law of the land. Marbury vs Madison established that it is the duty of the Judicial branch to say what the law is, not the political branches. In Reid v Covert, the Court declared that “When the United States acts against its citizens abroad, it can do so only in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution,” and that “Insofar as Art. 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for the military trial of civilian dependents accompanying the armed forces in foreign countries, it cannot be sustained as legislation which is “necessary and proper” to carry out obligations of the United States under international agreements made with those countries, since no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.”

          So the Senate and the President can’t waive a civilian dependent’s right to a trial by jury no matter how they choose to interpret a status of forces treaty. The Court ruled that “The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.” It also noted that treaties are not included among the methods by which the Constitution can be amended, and declared the operation of the portion of the UCMJ and the agreement in question were unconstitutional.

          • JeffB says:

            @Hostage –

            I’m not sure what this is response to. I’d agree the President and Legislature can’t waive constitutional protections without amendment. They most certainly can choose to deliberately violate treaties.

          • Hostage says:

            @Hostage –

            I’m not sure what this is response to.

            You said “The final authority on the interpretations of all treaties under US law is the United States Senate”. I explained why that proposition is false.

            Treaties are simply part of the law of the land. They are enforceable in our state Courts, according to the Supremacy clause. It is the Supreme Court, not the US Senate, who has final authority and “says what the law is”.

        • talknic says:

          JeffB “The final authority on the interpretations of all treaties under US law is the United States Senate”

          The US is a signatory to the treaty

          “Congress does not have the authority to sign a treaty recognizing a foreign power as having supremacy over the government of the United States, that’s Article 6 of the constitution”

          The US is a signatory to the treaty
          The US undertook to comply
          The treaty doesn’t give any foreign power supremacy over the government of the United States

          “If the UN wants to hold the US constitution to be so intrinsically hostile to the UN charter that the USA cannot be a UN member state”

          What are you driveling about?
          The US signed the treaty
          The US undertook to comply

          “But until then the government of the United States not the UN is the supreme authority of the policy of the United States”

          The US signed the treaty, it’s already US policy

          “For example the UN explicitly indicated that the US war in Iraq was a violation of the charter and that 0 effect on the deployment of our armies”

          Try to stay on topic

          • JeffB says:

            @talknic

            The US is a signatory to the treaty

            That’s not the point in question The Senate still remains the final interpreter of that treaty under US law. In the end domestically that treaty means whatever the Senate says it means.

            The treaty doesn’t give any foreign power supremacy over the government of the United States

            It would under your interpretation. If the United States government is permanently prevented from acting in what it sees as the interests of the United States then that would granting a foreign power supremacy over US law. You can’t have it both ways. Either the USA is a free and independent country or it is in your theory of vassal of the United Nations subject to the United Nations. I think it is obviously free as proven by the evidence.

            JeffB: For example the UN explicitly indicated that the US war in Iraq was a violation of the charter and that 0 effect on the deployment of our armies”

            talknic: Try to stay on topic

            That is the topic. Your theory is crystal clear that the United Nations charter is the controlling document and the United States Government has no ability to ignore the UN. This is a clear cut case which disproves your theory. There was a violation, the UN declared it to be a violation openly, and the United States continued the policy.

            And that’s a real problem for your theory that the United Nations is somehow the final authority on US law.

          • talknic says:

            @ JeffB “The Senate still remains the final interpreter of that treaty under US law. In the end domestically that treaty means whatever the Senate says it means”

            States agree to what treaties mean before they signed them. The US signed the treaty and made it part of the Foreign Relations Law of the US

            // The treaty doesn’t give any foreign power supremacy over the government of the United States //

            “It would under your interpretation”

            I said the opposite. You quoted what I said. Best you consult a shrink

            ” If the United States government is permanently prevented from acting in what it sees as the interests of the United States then that would granting a foreign power supremacy over US law”

            A) I wonder why they signed a treaty, making it part of the US Foreign Relations Law.

            B) What foreign power? The US is voluntarily a UN member state, it’s a PART of the UN. It has the veto vote in the UNSC whereby it can prevent the law and the UN Charter from having full effect

            C) The US invaded Iraq in its own interests, The UN didn’t stop them and their psychophants (sic)

            ” Either the USA is a free and independent country”

            Indeed it is and it signed a treaty which is now part of the US Foreign Relations Law.

            “or it is in your theory of vassal of the United Nations subject to the United Nations. I think it is obviously free as proven by the evidence”

            The evidence is: the US signed the treaty adopting it as part of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. The evidence is: the US has the right to veto UNSC Chapt VII resolutions, thereby preventing the UN and International Law from having full effect

            What you claim is my theory, isn’t. I haven’t stated it any where. It’s what you’d like me to have said. But I haven’t. It’s YOUR stupid theory.

            When the US adopted the legal ‘custom’ of having an agreement with the people of territory in order to annex that territory to the US, the US became instrumental in that legal ‘custom’ of acquiring territory eventually passing into ‘Customary’ International Law.

            Although the US won the war, Texas was only annexed to the US AFTER a referendum of the citizens of Texas wherein they agreed to become a part of the US. Hawaii, AFTER an agreement had been reached with the representatives of the citizens of Hawaii. Even Alaska, which the US bought from Russia, was only annexed AFTER and agreement had been reached.

            It has been US policy since at least 1845 that annexation by agreement is the legal ‘custom’ by which territory can be acquired. That’s why the US freely signed Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States outlawing the acquisition of territory ” by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure” link to pages.citebite.com and adopted it as part of the US Foreign Relations Law

            “Your theory is crystal clear that the United Nations charter is the controlling document and the United States Government has no ability to ignore the UN”

            But the US did ignore the UN. It and the coalition of the stupid invaded Iraq

            “This is a clear cut case which disproves your theory

            Problem. It’s not my theory. It’s what you’d like to be my theory.

            ” There was a violation, the UN declared it to be a violation openly, and the United States continued the policy”

            Correct. The United States Government DID have the ability to ignore the UN.

            “And that’s a real problem for your theory that the United Nations is somehow the final authority on US law”

            The problem is, it’s not my theory. The UN and its bodies are the final authority on International Law, not the domestic laws of countries, in fact the UN is expressly forbidden to interfere in the domestic affairs of states.

            Meanwhile the US signed the treaty and adopted it as part of the US Foreign Relations Law.

        • talknic says:

          @ JeffB “For example the UN explicitly indicated that the US war in Iraq was a violation of the charter and that 0 effect on the deployment of our armies”

          The law didn’t stop the Nazis either. However, there’s nothing to stop Afghanistan and/or Iraq following Israel’s example of setting up a similar system of law that served to bring Eichmann to justice. Bush/Rumsfeld/Feith/Blare/Howard et al might yet rightfully pay for their stupidity

          • JeffB says:

            However, there’s nothing to stop Afghanistan and/or Iraq following Israel’s example of setting up a similar system of law that served to bring Eichmann to justice.

            What exists to stop Afghanistan or Iraq from following Israel’s example is the USA army. A country which kidnapped former US high officials and conducted a show trial or real trial would likely be horrifically punished. We saw a good example of this with Robert Seldon Lady. He arrested under a fully legal and valid Interpol warrant after a “trial” fully legal under Italian law, a state the USA has an extradition treaty with. The CIA informed Panama they would consider this a kidnapping and an attack on the CIA. So Panama released him.

            The differences between a debating society resolution and a law is the ability to enforce. That’s why the UN works well as a place for powers to negotiate but is completely ineffectual as a global government.

          • Hostage says:

            What exists to stop Afghanistan or Iraq from following Israel’s example is the USA army.

            No, the US is not going to use the Army to rescue Bush/Rumsfeld/Feith/Blare/Howard et al from an international criminal court.

            That’s why the UN works well as a place for powers to negotiate but is completely ineffectual as a global government.

            You fail to understand that the ICC and several of the other international criminal tribunals aren’t even part of the UN. The ICC was established outside the UN Organization because there was no possibility of obtaining consent to amend the UN Charter to add its Statute, along side the ICJ’s. The two completely incompatible. The ICJ still recognizes head of state immunity, while the Rome Statute repudiates it in line with the Nuremberg principles.

            The ICC has its own legislative body that can amend the Statute by majority vote and there’s no veto. In the long run, the US can’t afford to attack three-quarters of the states in the international community who’ve established and operate these tribunals. It depends upon them for trade, and mutual defense, which is a much more vital interest than protecting former officials who happen to be war criminals. The fact that civilized countries are willing to issue arrest warrants for individuals like Bush, Cheney, or Kissinger when they travel abroad also serves as a deterrent for others, even if they lay low and aren’t brought to trial.

            There is also a trend, started by the Security Council and the ICJ, to establish regional international criminal tribunals outside the UN organization or hybrid tribunals that do not necessarily take direction from the UN, e.g. the Extraordinary African Chambers, Special Panels for Serious Crimes in Timor Leste, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Criminal Court for Cambodia, the War Crimes Chamber in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Programme of International Judges in Kosovo. The long term historical trend is clearly headed toward ending the type of impunity you are talking about.

    • Hostage says:

      Last I checked New York was in the United States. US law on the matter is

      Reflected in § 2o2(2) of the Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, “Recognition and Acceptance of States” and it says:

      A state has an obligation not to recognize or treat as a state an entity that has attained the qualifications for statehood [i.e. territory, population, or control of the government] as a result of a threat or use of force in violation of the United Nations Charter

      §204 “Recognition and Maintaining Diplomatic Relations: Law of the United States”, in “The Restatement of the Law (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States” explains the common belief that under the Constitution of the United States the President has exclusive authority to recognize or not to recognize a foreign state or government and to recognize foreign sovereignty over territory. The President has the constitutional authority to conclude international agreements related to recognition without authorization from Congress or consent of the Senate. See United States v Belmont, 301, US 324, 57 S Ct. 758, 81 L.Ed. 1134 (1937); or §204 “Recognition and Maintaining Diplomatic Relations: Law of the United States”, Volume 1, page 89; and §303 Reporters Note 11 “Sole Executive Agreements”, Volume 1, page 167, in “The Restatement of the Law (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States”, American Law Institute, 1986, ISBN 0314301380.

      Last time I checked, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have affirmed in MBZ v Clinton that Congress impermissibly transgressed the separation of powers when it adopted the Jerusalem Embassy Act and tried to recognize the unilateral annexation of Jerusalem by Israel.

      FYI, Art. 41(2) of the Articles of the International Law Commission (ILC) on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts provides that ‘no State shall recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach of an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law. Article 52 and 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties codified the customary prohibition against attempts to conclude treaties by force or which violate a jus cogens norm. The ILC identified as jus cogens the prohibition of aggression
      and the illegal use of force, the prohibitions against slavery and the slave
      trade, genocide and racial discrimination and apartheid, the prohibition
      against torture, the basic rules of international humanitarian law and the
      right of self-determination – which must include the whole people of the territory in question.

      In short, the Kerry framework is null and void from the outset if it tries to codify the use of force to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian refugees or to award territory to Israel that belonged to them which was acquired by force in violation of the UN Charter.

      • JeffB says:

        US v. Belmont held that the President had authority of the State of NY. It said nothing about relations between the branches.

        In MBZ v Clinton the supreme court most explicitly did not rule on that question. They simply indicated that whether passports were exclusively a property of state or matter of the laws of the USA was something the lower courts were entitled to decide.

        So no. Neither of these cases assert what you claim regarding the USA. As for Vienna, Vienna contradicts the UN. Vienna argues that people have a right to self determination. The UN’s position is that the Palestinians have a permanent racial entitlement and thus the people living in the territory, example the settlement have no right to a government of their choosing. You want to support Vienna I have no problem with that, but that’s not the UN’s position. Vienna supports right of self determination, UN supports permanent racial entitlements.

        As for the Kerry framework and the UN there have been plenty of civil wars and changes in demographics which the UN does not approve of. The UN does not have the power to rule which peoples shall live in which territories. While the world’s governments have enforced the UN’s positions on some of these issues they have rejected it on others. And we’ve discussed many examples of this. The UN doesn’t recognize the existence of Taiwan, but Taiwan still exists.

        • Hostage says:

          US v. Belmont held that the President had authority of the State of NY. It said nothing about relations between the branches

          It certainly did, and the editors of the 3rd Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States cited that fact. The decision delivered by Justice Southerland said that the President exercised sole authority to recognize other governments using executive agreements and that he didn’t need permission from the Senate to do it:

          We take judicial notice of the fact that, coincident with the assignment set forth in the complaint, the President recognized the Soviet Government, and normal diplomatic relations were established between that government and the Government of the United States, followed by an exchange of ambassadors. . . . Governmental power over external affairs is not distributed, but is vested exclusively in the national government. And in respect of what was done here [recognition], the Executive had authority to speak as the sole organ of that government. The assignment and the agreements in connection therewith did not, as in the case of treaties, as that term is used in the treaty-making clause of the Constitution (Art. II, § 2), require the advice and consent of the Senate.

          — United States v. Belmont – 301 U.S. 324 (1937) link to supreme.justia.com

          . In MBZ v Clinton the supreme court most explicitly did not rule on that question. They simply indicated . . .

          So far as the Supreme Court was concerned, the President has the exclusive authority to recognize other governments. The only question was whether this particular law intruded on that power. The Court did not grant the petitioners request to enforce the law. The Court said the “political question doctrine” had never prevented decisions in cases, like Belmont, dealing with separation of powers and it remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals for hearings to determine if Section 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act was unconstitutional on the grounds that it impermissibly intruded on exclusive Presidential powers.

          The lower Court ruled that it did and cited three or four pages of Supreme Court cases, including Belmont, which held that the President has exclusive power to recognize governments and sovereignty over territory:

          The Supreme Court has more than once declared that the recognition power lies exclusively with the President. See Williams v. Suffolk Ins. Co., 38 U.S. 415, 420 (1839) (“[If] the executive branch . . . assume[s] a fact in regard to the sovereignty of any island or country, it is conclusive on the judicial department[.]”); United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 330 (1937) (“[T]he Executive had authority to speak as
          the sole organ of th[e] government” in matters of
          “recognition, establishment of diplomatic relations, the
          assignment, and agreements with respect thereto . . . .”);
          Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126, 138
          (1938) (“We accept as conclusive here the determination of
          our own State Department that the Russian State was
          represented by the Provisional Government . . . .”); United
          States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 229 (1942) (“The powers of the
          President in the conduct of foreign relations included the
          power, without consent of the Senate, to determine the public
          policy of the United States with respect to the Russian
          nationalization decrees. . . . [including t]h[e] authority . . . [to
          determine] the government to be recognized.”); Baker v.
          Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 213 (1962) (“[I]t is the executive that
          determines a person’s status as representative of a foreign
          government.”); Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376
          U.S. 398, 410 (1964) (“Political recognition is exclusively a
          function of the Executive.”). To be sure, the Court has not
          held that the President exclusively holds the power. But, for
          us—an inferior court—“carefully considered language of the
          Supreme Court, even if technically dictum, generally must be
          treated as authoritative,” United States v. Dorcely, 454 F.3d
          366, 375 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted); see also
          Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 399 (1821)
          (Marshall, C.J.), especially if the Supreme Court has repeated
          the dictum, see Overby v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers, 595
          F.3d 1290, 1295 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (Supreme Court dictum is
          “especially” authoritative if “the Supreme Court has
          reiterated the same teaching”).
          In Williams v. Suffolk Insurance Company, the issue
          before the Court was whether “the Falkland islands . . .
          constitute any part of the dominions within the sovereignty of
          the government of Buenos Ayres.” 38 U.S. at 419. The Court
          decided that the President’s action in the matter was
          “conclusive on the judicial department.” Id. at 420.
          And can there be any doubt, that when the executive
          branch of the government, which is charged with our
          foreign relations, shall in its correspondence with a
          foreign nation assume a fact in regard to the
          sovereignty of any island or country, it is conclusive
          on the judicial department? And in this view it is not
          material to inquire, nor is it the province of the Court
          to determine, whether the executive be right or
          wrong. It is enough to know, that in the exercise of
          his constitutional functions, he has decided the
          question. Having done this under the responsibilities
          which belong to him, it is obligatory on the people
          and government of the Union.
          Id. Similarly, in Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino,
          without determining whether the United States had derecognized
          Cuba’s government under Fidel Castro, the Court
          explained that “[p]olitical recognition is exclusively a
          function of the Executive.” 376 U.S. at 410. The Court
          emphasized that were it to decide for itself whether Cuba had
          been de-recognized, there would be a real “possibility of
          embarrassment to the Executive Branch in handling foreign
          relations.” Id. at 412.
          President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1933 recognition of the
          Soviet Union led to three cases supporting the conclusion that
          the President exclusively holds the recognition power.
          Belmont, 301 U.S. 324; Guaranty Trust, 304 U.S. 126; Pink,
          315 U.S. 203.

          That is immediately followed by a long analysis of each of those Supreme Court decisions. The section quoted here starts on page 24 link to cadc.uscourts.gov

          • JeffB says:

            @Hostage –

            Reread the material you quoted. That’s agreeing with my interpretation not yours. The president is acting on behalf of the national government and as such supersedes New York State. There is no ruling at all regarding respective powers.

            As for the 3rd restatement that explicitly indicates: legislative, executive and judicial branches are involved in recognition though says nothing about their respective roles.

            If you want to prove your point you would need an example of a country that the congress recognized where the president did not or visa versa. In the case of Israel and Jerusalem though the traditional language of the presidents are: I hereby determine that it is necessary, in order to protect the national security interests of the United States, to suspend for a period of 6 months the limitations set forth in sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act.

            Which is not a failure to recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel but rather using powers explicitly granted by the act to fail to move the embassy. Presidents are not arguing that congress doesn’t have the right, there is no disagreement between the branches as to the status.

          • talknic says:

            JeffB “Which is not a failure to recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel but rather using powers explicitly granted by the act to fail to move the embassy.”

            Your spin is cute…. Jerusalem cannot be recognized by the US as Israeli territory. It was acquired by Israel by war and under the US Foreign Relations Law the US cannot not recognize territory acquired by war. It automatically follows that the US cannot move the US embassy to Israel into non-Israeli territory.

          • Hostage says:

            @Hostage –

            Reread the material you quoted. That’s agreeing with my interpretation not yours. . . . As for the 3rd restatement that explicitly indicates: legislative, executive and judicial branches are involved in recognition though says nothing about their respective roles.

            Yeah right:

            § 204. Recognition and Maintaining Diplomatic Relations: Law of the United States

            Under the Constitution of the United States, the President has exclusive authority to recognize or not to recognize a foreign state or government, and to maintain or not to maintain diplomatic relations with a foreign government. . . . . The President’s determinations and actions within the scope of this section, if they accord with the Constitution in other respects, are binding on Congress and the courts.

            That’s on page 89 in your copy (if you have one)

            If you reread the Appeals Court decision that I quoted, you’ll see that it says “The Supreme Court has more than once declared that the recognition power lies exclusively with the President.” and goes on to quote and cite at least five Supreme Court decisions which say the power is exclusive to the President and the Executive branch. That does describe the relationship to the Congress or the Courts under the constitutional doctrine regarding the separation of powers. You might just want to consult a dictionary and brush-up on the meaning of the term “exclusive”.

          • Hostage says:

            Presidents are not arguing that congress doesn’t have the right, there is no disagreement between the branches as to the status.

            Yeah right. That’s why President Bush’s signing statement; the Justice Department Legal Counsel’s advisory opinion; the Solicitor General’s brief to the Supreme Court, and Secretary Hillary Clinton’s brief to the Court as the respondent said that the act was unconstitutional because it impermissibly encroached on the President’s exclusive power and that it was objectionable because it attempted to force the Executive branch to violate its policies by recognizing Israeli sovereignty over territory without the conclusion of a mutually agreed upon settlement with the Palestinians.

            But other than that, Presidents are not arguing that congress doesn’t have the right;-) (NOT!)

          • RoHa says:

            “Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel”

            Capital, dammit! Why is this so hard?

  18. NYT allows article by Pussy Riot as Op ED even after the nature of their activities have become known to the people
    ” Sochi Under Siege” by Maria Alyokhina . She Deplores the treatments meted out to the protesters brandishing slogan on T shirts and little flags by environmentalists . She deplores illegal construction and building . Her voice touches the pain of those who wants to love Russia but not the way Putin,the elected president wants .
    This is NYT. I have no love for Putin. I hope NYT allows the write up from Hamas or the Hizbullah . I hope NYT in same issue while denouncing the closure of critical TV station in Venezuela admits of similar incidents in Europe and America . But it does not. NYT is not done yet. It rambles on India for ” muzzling speech” . India has balked at any speech or writings that can inflame the religion or caste sentiment. India sees its security through this prism for that is the reality in India. This nation does not or can’t fall apart but only at the ideas of religious and tribal fault lines.
    NYT decides what it should allow and what it won’t . It is fine. But these views area key up by the wannabe human interventionist and politicians and by the aged celebrities looking to refurbish his or her image . These players then create the echo chamber consisting of their lips and of NYT front pages . It then travels to American military and homes with urgency of solving problem and zeal of rescuing the vulnerable s defined by the sitting members of the echo chamber .the results have always been disastrous , trying to impose solution on those on which it has no leverage and ignoring the behaviors of those on which it has immense leverage ( Saudi, Pakistan, Egypt, Israel)