The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine (Updated)

Israel/Palestine
on 203 Comments

I once believed that Israel has never defined its borders. It was one of those things that “everyone knows”. I was corrected by the blogger talknic. Mondoweiss is privileged to have talknic as a frequent commenter, and many readers here will be familiar with the document to which he pointed me: the letter written by Eliahu Epstein, the representative of the Jewish Agency in Washington, to President Truman and to the State Department, on May 14, 1948.

Epstein’s letter to Truman

In the letter, the Provisional Government of Israel formally requested the United States to recognize the new State of Israel which was about to be declared in Tel Aviv, effective one minute after midnight (6 p.m Washington time) when the British Mandate over Palestine ended. It begins (my emphasis):

My dear Mr. President, I have the honor to notify you that the State of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within the frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947.

(The full text is given in the link above, and also appears below.) The resolution referred to, UNGA Resolution 181, recommended the partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. The Zionist leadership had publicly accepted the Partition Plan, and this letter defines the borders of Israel to be those specified in the Plan (see map attached).

As soon as I read the words “proclaimed… within the frontiers…” I knew that I had been fooled by Zionist propaganda. Reflecting further, I realized that the idea of a state without defined borders is actually completely nonsensical. Suppose there were no defined border between Canada and the USA. People would not know in which country they were living; what was their citizenship; whose laws they needed to obey; what currency they could use. It would be chaos. The Montevideo Convention lists the following requirements for the existence of a state: a permanent population; a defined territory; government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. If Israel had really been declared as a state without borders, it would not have been a state at all.

To understand how the Zionist leadership came to make this border definition, and why later  they tried, very successfully, to convince the world that it never happened, we need to consider events in both Tel Aviv and Washington as the end of the Mandate approached.

Israel’s Declaration of Independence

Israel was reluctant to define its borders. According to an article on the Israel Government website, the Provisional Government of Israel met in Tel Aviv from May 12 to May 14 to consider the draft declaration of independence. It was led by David Ben-Gurion as Prime Minister and Defense Minister.

Partition plan, UN 1947, with '49 armistice delineated

Partition plan, UN 1947, with ’49 armistice delineated

There were heated discussions about the borders. Some said stick to the Partition Plan borders, while Ben-Gurion argued strongly that they should say nothing about the borders, because it was his intention to capture territory outside the Partition Plan borders and include it in the state. His view was accepted by a vote of five to four in favor, with the four other members being absent. This vote is the origin of the story that “Israel has never defined its borders”. Ben-Gurion went home on the evening of May 13 and completely rewrote the draft declaration of independence, removing all references to the Partition Plan.

His motive is clear. He wanted to create the sort of chaotic situation I outlined in my Canada-USA illustration. If there was no defined border between Israel and the rest of Palestine, then all of Palestine could be considered open territory, available for conquest.

On May 14, the Ben-Gurion’s rewritten draft was considered by the National Council, the embryonic parliament of the new state, and was approved unanimously on the second vote: so we know that changes were made. The article does not say what they were, suggesting they were minor in nature. But if we look at the text of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel we see that the references to the Partition Plan have been restored. Indeed, the Partition Plan is placed at the heart of the Declaration:

WE… BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.

Being based on the Partition Plan, the Declaration implicitly defines the borders to be those specified in the Plan, but does not say so explicitly. Since the declaration of a new state is a once-only event, whereas borders can be changed later, the absence of a border definition in the Declaration itself is not significant. It was Epstein’s letter that formally defined Israel’s borders.

Epstein’s telegram to Shertok

Later that day, May 14, after Truman had responded to Epstein’s letter by recognizing Israel, Epstein sent a telegram to Moshe Shertok (later Sharett), Foreign Minister in the Provisional Government of Israel. It tells the dramatic story of how, pledged to secrecy and against a deadline, he came to write the letter to Truman:

  1. United States Government has just recognized State in following language:

“THIS GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN INFORMED THAT A JEWISH STATE HAS BEEN PROCLAIMED IN PALESTINE AND RECOGNITION HAS BEEN REQUESTED BY THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT THEREOF. THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZES THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT AS THE DE FACTO AUTHORITY OF THE NEW STATE OF ISRAEL.”

  1. Informal conversations with White House representatives have made clear that recognition de facto rather than de jure because announced government provisional in nature.
  2. The surrounding circumstances are as follows. Clark Clifford, White House spokesman, phoned Washington friends advising that the State Department, at noon, May 14, will agree immediate recognition in event request therefor received. After careful consultation here with Ben Cohen and Ginsberg, following letter drafted and sent to the President and Secretary of State:

My dear Mr. President: I have the honor to notify you that the State of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within the frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that the 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 one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948 Washington time.

With full knowledge of the deep bond of sympathy which has existed and has strengthened over the past thirty years between the Government of the United States and the Jewish people of Palestine, I have been authorized by the Provisional Government of the new State to tender this message and to express the hope that your government will recognize and will welcome Israel into the community of nations.

Very respectfully yours,
/s/ Eliahu Epstein
Agent, Provisional Government of Israel.

  1. Wider consultation and prior notifications were precluded by pledge of secrecy demanded by Clifford.
  2. Earlier during the day Loy Henderson phoned to ascertain boundaries of new State. Advised that boundaries in accordance with U.N Resolution.
  3. Circumstances required that I take title for this act and assume responsibility for sending letter.

Clark Clifford was a strong supporter of the Zionist cause and encouraged Truman to recognize the State of Israel as soon as it was declared. In his memoirs he says that he helped Epstein compose the request for recognition, and that it was he who told Epstein “it was particularly important to claim nothing beyond the boundaries outlined in the UN Resolution”.

Loy Henderson was in the State Department, and had been opposing Truman’s recognition. Now that it was going ahead, he also wanted to make sure that Israel was defining its borders. Epstein gave a more detailed account of the phone call to Max Lowenthal, another Truman adviser. Henderson had asked whether the Jewish State wanted any territory other than was granted in the UN resolution. Epstein replied “No, and any territory taken until peace was achieved would be returned to the Arab state”.

It is clear that Israel would not have been recognized by the US if it had not declared on the Partition Plan borders.

The telegram suggests that Epstein was not able to communicate with the Zionist leadership in Tel Aviv before submitting his letter to Truman. Fortunately, both had made similar decisions: in Tel Aviv to base the Declaration on the Partition Plan; in Washington to define borders according to the Plan.

Israel and Palestine

There was no doubt in the 1948-49 period about the location of Israel’s borders. The text of Epstein’s letter, together with Truman’s response recognizing Israel, was released to the world press in Washington on May 15, 1948. Talknic’s website and my own list several occasions on which Israel publicly acknowledged the existence of these borders. All the states recognizing Israel knew the extent of the territory it was claiming.

The words of the Declaration are intended to suggest that the creation of Israel was authorized by the United Nations. This is not correct. The UN does not have authority under its Charter to create or divide states. The Partition Plan was a recommendation only. The Plan envisaged a process, starting at the end of the Mandate, which would lead to the establishment of two states in a series of parallel stages. Because the Plan was rejected by the Arab side, it could not be implemented.

Israel was created as a sovereign state by the decision of the Zionist leadership to preempt the process envisaged in the Plan, and to declare the State of Israel immediately on termination of the Mandate. The borders specified at that time are its sovereign borders: the borders within which Israel claimed and exercised sovereign authority and on which it was recognized by other states.

It is sometimes asked whether the creation of Israel was legal. The answer is that it was neither legal nor illegal, because there is no system of law governing the creation of states. Israel exists as a sovereign state because it satisfied the requirements of the Montevideo Convention, and was recognized as such by other states.

Israel’s Declaration partitioned the land into two territories: the State of Israel, and the remainder of Palestine outside the sovereign borders of Israel, corresponding to the area of the Arab state in the Partition Plan. Palestine was in a sorry state, with much of its population having become refugees, and it had no government because the Mandate had ended, and there was nothing to replace it. It became a non-self-governing territory.

The Jewish National Home policy of the British Mandate had made it impossible for the Palestinians to exercise their right of self-determination in Mandatory Palestine, as confirmed by the report of the UN Special Committee on Palestine (II.176). But, because Israel’s border definition limited the sovereign extent of the State of Israel to that specified for the Jewish state in the Partition Plan, it also defined the borders of the non-self-governing territory of Palestine, creating the possibility that the Palestinians could exercise that right, the right to their own state, in the territory allocated to the Arab state in the Partition Plan.

Borders can be changed, but a state can only acquire territory from a neighbor by legal annexation, that is, by agreement, and with a referendum of the population. Obtaining territory by war violates fundamental principles of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, this is what Israel did.

Israel expands: the 1948-49 war

Israel was founded in the midst of civil war between Jews and Arabs. At 00:01 on May 15, 1948, when the Declaration became effective, Jewish militias were already fighting outside Israel’s sovereign borders, in the territory of Palestine. That same night, forces of the Arab states entered Palestine, and the civil war became a war between Israel and the Arab States. Knowing the location of Israel’s borders gives a better understanding of the nature of this war. Israel was not invaded by five Arab states. Most of the fighting was in Palestine, outside the borders of Israel, and no Jordanian forces entered Israel. The Arab League told the UN that they were entering Palestine to protect Arabs from Zionist attack: Israel told the UN that its forces were operating in Palestine, outside its borders, in order to protect Jews from Arab attack. The UN did not identify either side as an aggressor.

Having achieved recognition by declaring the partition lines as its border, a few days later, on May 20, the Provisional Government decided that “Israel would not respect the partition lines”. On June 3 Ben-Gurion said, in a report to the Provisional Government, “the entire expanse of the State of Israel allocated to us under the terms of the UN resolution is in our hands, and we have conquered several important districts outside those boundaries… we will remain constantly on the offensive, which will not be confined to the borders of the Jewish State”, thus confirming both the existence of the borders, and his intention to capture territory outside them. As the war progressed Israel continued to gain territory, until the fighting stopped with the Armistices of 1949.

In the captured territory between the partition lines and the armistice lines (see map above), Israel applied Israeli law, rather than a military occupation under the laws of war, making the territory in effect (de facto) part of Israel. The armistice lines (collectively the Green Line) therefore became the de facto border of Israel. Needless to say, this was not a legal annexation, as the armistice agreements themselves make clear: “the Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary”. Since Israel has no intention of returning this territory, it is rightly called stolen land.

Israel’s sovereign territory amounts to some 55% of Mandatory Palestine, the stolen land another 23%, with the remaining 22% comprising the West Bank and Gaza. The stolen land includes the cities of  Acre, Ashkelon, Jaffa, Nazareth, Ramle, Beersheba, Lydda, and West Jerusalem, all except the last having being allocated to the Arab state in the Partition Plan as they were major Arab population centers.

Under Chapter XI of the UN Charter a “sacred trust” is automatically created when a state (in this case Israel) administers a non-self-governing territory (parts of Palestine). Under this trust the responsibility of Israel in the stolen land was to recognize that “the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount” and to help them “develop self-government and free political institutions”. In other words, to help the Palestinian people achieve their right of self-determination in their own land.

Israel seriously violated this sacred trust. Making the territory part of Israel prevents its people from developing free political institutions and self-government. The refusal to allow Palestinian refugees to return, the destruction of their villages, and their replacement by immigrant Jews, puts the interests of the Palestinian people below those of Jewish immigrants into Palestinian territory.

Chapter XI of the Charter also applies in the West Bank and Gaza, occupied by Israel in 1967. As the administration there is military, it must also obey the Geneva Conventions. Israel has violated those as well.

Palestine’s right to territorial compensation

Nothing has changed the status of the border between Israel and Palestine since 1949, as there has been no peace treaty between the two sides. The partition line is still the declared and recognized sovereign border of Israel. The Green Line is still the de facto border of Israel. And please, everyone, stop calling it the pre-1967 border: it is not a recognized border, and it did not move an inch in 1967. Nor is the territory inside the de facto border ‘Israel proper’. The stolen land is improperly regarded as part of Israel since it was obtained by war in violation of the UN Charter.

Palestine has said that, in the interests of peace, Israel can keep the land stolen in 1948-49. This is a wise decision. The stolen land is fully integrated with the rest of Israel, and this situation is irreversible. It is also a very generous offer. In fact too generous, because Palestine has not even asked for territorial compensation for the loss of much of its heartlands. This is a mistake. Israel has a population of around 8 million. The Palestinian population, including the West Bank, Gaza, and stateless refugees with a right to return, is around 9 million. A peace agreement that left only 22% of Palestine under Palestinian Arab sovereignty could not possibly be considered a viable or just solution which would lead to a lasting peace.

The failure to ask for compensation may have arisen because the Palestinian leadership has accepted the prevalent but incorrect view that Israel has never defined its borders (see section below on “Israel’s deceptions”). Consequently, they do not understand the legal distinction between Israel’s sovereign territory and the stolen land. Furthermore, a PLO adviser, Francis A. Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, told them that UN Security Council Resolution 242 “set forth” the boundaries of the Palestinian State. This is also incorrect. Resolution 242 says nothing about the position of any borders, nor could it, because the UN has no authority to tell a state where its borders are; that is for states to agree between themselves. Nor does the resolution mention Palestine or the Palestinians.

I believe that Palestine can make a strong case that, in terms of justice, international law, and viability, it deserves and needs a transfer of territory from Israeli sovereignty in the southern Negev (that is, south of Beersheba, the city itself being within the stolen land). This would achieve three things: provide territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza; provide space for the returning refugees; and enable the Bedouin, if they so wish, to transfer from Israeli sovereignty to Palestinian sovereignty.

This is not a new idea. The Negev was allocated to the Jewish state in the Partition Plan as an area capable of absorbing large numbers of Jewish immigrants, having at the time only a small population of mostly Bedouin. The UN Mediator was the first to suggest, (see his September 1948 Progress Report [One.III.6]), that some of the Negev be transferred to the proposed Arab state, at that time as compensation for the loss of western Galilee. The Arabs, at the failed attempt at a peace conference in Lausanne in 1949 said that they would need the Negev to accommodate the returning refugees, since Israel was not willing to accept them. (See this report of the Conciliation Commission [IV.15]). During the conference President Truman wrote a secret Note to Ben-Gurion deploring Israel’s refusal to provide territorial compensation for areas it had acquired outside the Partition Plan borders.

The expulsion of 750,000 non-Jewish Palestinians and Israel’s de facto enlargement in the 1948-49 war meant that the original reason for allocating the Negev to Israel had become obsolete. Although Israel has been actively developing the Negev for Jewish occupation since 2005, population density is still low. It should be possible to produce a suitable division of territory. To keep contiguous both Israeli and Palestinian territory, there could be a neutral crossing point between the two states, similar to those in the Partition Plan (see them in the attached map, to the south-west of Nazareth and of Ramle).

Negotiation of new borders needs to be handled with respect to the wishes of residents. It would not be legal to transfer people from one sovereignty to another unless the majority of them agreed, and the border lines should be drawn so as to minimize the number of people who consider themselves adversely affected. For example, as far as possible Jewish settlements in the Negev should be kept within Israel. Everyone whose sovereignty is changed should be given dual citizenship

The one-state solution

All this discussion of borders and territories would immediately become irrelevant if there were a one-state solution. I expect this will happen eventually, my own view being that the solution with the greatest chance of success would be a union of the two nations to form a single state, along the lines of the England-Scotland model. But at the moment, the two states already exist, and the only way that they can successfully become one is by a voluntary merger, federation or union. It cannot be voluntary unless the two nations negotiate on an equal basis. So, a one-state solution can only proceed by way of an intermediate two-state solution. The territorial question must be sorted out.

Israel’s deceptions

Israel’s declaration of sovereign borders on May 14, 1948 was a deception practiced upon President Truman and the rest of the world, designed to elicit recognition of Israel. Israel never had an intention to stick to those borders. Since those days, Israel and its Zionist supporters have practiced another deception: that the border definition never happened.

How did such a nonsensical and easily disproved idea become something that “everyone knows”? And “everyone” includes some surprising people: the historian Avi Shlaim, Professor at Oxford University, said in an interview that “the Armistice Lines are the only internationally recognized borders that Israel ever had”; John V. Whitbeck, an international lawyer and Palestinian adviser, has said that “Israel has never defined its own borders, an act that would necessarily place limits on them”; Uri Avnery, veteran Israeli journalist, politician and peace activist, has said that “from its first day, the State of Israel has refused to fix its borders”; Jeremy R. Hammond, editor of Foreign Policy Journal, in his book The Rejection of Palestinian Self Determination (Chapter IV) says, of the creation of Israel, “significantly, no borders for the newly proclaimed state were specified”; John B. Judis, political historian, in his recent book Genesis about Truman, Zionism, and the creation of Israel, discusses the events of May 14, 1948 in Washington (page 317), mentioning that Clifford worked with Epstein on the letter asking for recognition, but shows no knowledge of its content and gives no reference to the text.

Provision of misleading information, such as the article about Israel’s Declaration of Independence discussed above, is one Zionist propaganda technique, but the main one is simple silence and suppression of information.

I may be exaggerating somewhat by describing Epstein’s letter to Truman as “hidden”, since it has been in the public domain since May 15, 1948, but for a document of such historic significance it has a very low profile on the internet. As far as I can determine there is not a single Israel Government or Zionist website which mentions this letter when talking about the foundation of the State of Israel and Truman’s recognition. The full text appears on only three well-known websites: as an unsearchable facsimile of the original in the Truman library; the Avalon project at Yale Law School; and in the Jewish Virtual Library, where it is indexed only as a “Letter from Provisional Government to USA” and nowhere are its contents or significance discussed. Otherwise it appears mostly on blogs, news archives and discussions.

Active suppression also takes place. I have sometimes entered a polite and relevant comment, quoting the first sentence of the letter, into the website Times of Israel, to find that it has quickly been moderated out.

My second document, Epstein’s telegram to Shertok, is both a fascinating piece of history and of great importance since it confirms that the US would not have recognized Israel if it had not defined its borders according to the UN partition lines. This one has really been well hidden. A link to it, as an unsearchable facsimile, first appeared in 2012 in a story on the website of the Israel State Archivist (Document No. 3). Until now, the only other links to it on the internet have been from my own writings, and the only plain text copy of the document on the internet has been on my website.

Summary of conclusions

The Zionist leadership did not want to define the borders of Israel when they declared independence from the rest of Palestine on May 14, 1948, but were forced to specify borders according to the UN Partition Plan in order to achieve recognition by the USA. The territory captured by Israel outside these borders in the 1948-49 war and incorporated de facto into Israel was obtained by war in violation of the fundamental principles of the UN Charter. Since 1949 Israel has attempted, very successfully, to convince the world that this border definition never happened in order to hide the fact that the captured territory is outside Israel’s declared and recognized sovereign borders and is  therefore rightfully part of the territory of Palestine, within which the Palestinian people have the right of self-determination. Although the Palestinian leadership has accepted that Israel can keep this territory in a peace agreement, there is a very strong case for compensation for its loss in the form of a transfer of Israeli territory in the southern Negev to Palestinian sovereignty.

For more details on the topic of this essay please see my website article The Borders of Israel and Palestine.

Requests to readers

Did Ben-Gurion really turn up on the morning of May 14, 1948 with a new version of the Declaration that did not mention the Partition Plan? Or was it actually he who realized overnight that the idea of creating a state with undefined borders was not going to work? The various drafts of the Declaration are said to be on display in Independence Hall in Tel Aviv. Is there an Israeli reader who could go along, take a look and let us know?

How did the Zionists manage to persuade “everyone” that “Israel has never defined its borders”? It would take a major project in social psychology to answer that question fully, but it would be interesting to hear the views and experiences of readers. I will respond to all comments.

This piece was updated following a clarification from Professor Boyle of Illinois University about the advice he gave to the PLO concerning the border issue.

About David Gerald Fincham

Dr. David Gerald Fincham is a retired academic scientist from the United Kingdom. He now writes about the relationships between religion, science, and peace. His website is religion-science-peace.org.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

203 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    October 23, 2014, 11:02 am

    If the letter writer spoke for the government of Israel when he named the territory as in UNGA 181, then the rest of the pre-67 Israeli territory is occupied territory (although not “territory occupied in the 1967 war” a formula often seen which seems to suggest an earlier occupation).

    Some will say that Israelis have lived in the earlier occupied territory for so long that they have earned a right to consider it their home. nd certainly only a force majeure could move them out of it.

    My view is that Israel has a “bit in its teeth” and has gone crazy and cannot be expected to make a “just and lasting peace” with the Palestinians on the basis of the 1967 lines UNLESS and UNTIL a force majeure is applied to it. It is the function of BDS to develop that “force majeure” in the form of sanctions imposed by a sufficient number of nations, sanctions in favor either of making the occupation comply with law (evict settlers, etc.) or in favor of making peace and ending the occupation.

    My view is that the nations will come to such a convergence of policy (in favor of applying sanctions against Israel) so slowly and Israel will continue its aggressions so industriously and so blindly (w.r.t. world opinion) that by the time sanctions-in-bulk come into force — if they ever do — the by-then-way-over-enormous disfavor in which Israel will be held will motivate the sanctioning nations to apply sanctions to even bigger goals, such: [-] as rolling back not merely the 67 occupation but also the 48 occupation, or such as [-] enforcing PRoR, or [-] both.

    But in my analysis, the possibility that the nations will NEVER get their act together to do sanctions is nevertheless very likely.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      October 23, 2014, 11:22 am

      As much pressure as possible should be applied as soon as possible by as many people as possible. My view is that there are two things that Abbas should do immediately.

      First, bring a war crimes case at the ICC against all Israeli politicians authorizing the West Bank settlement program, and the military governors implementing it. It is an open and shut case (slam-dunk in American) with no need for investigation or witnesses, it could be over in an afternoon.

      Second, get friends at the General Assembly to institute a resolution asking the ICJ for an Advisory Opinion as to whether the incorporation into Israel of land outside its sovereign borders captured in the 1948-49 war violated international law. Another slam-dunk.

      • Marnie
        October 24, 2014, 3:52 am

        I sure hope its a slam dunk but after reading this I have to wonder how truman et al were so stupid in the first place, that’s pretty depressing. But going back to pre ’48, there was nothing but deception and lies on the part of the future israelis. Some things never change.

      • gamal
        October 29, 2014, 11:00 pm

        In respect to the naqab/negev, might i make some observations. Currently the Israeli government is ethnically cleansing Israeli citizens, who serve in the IDF, from it. The Negev is not a terra nullis it belongs to the bedu, Palestinian citizens of Israel. there also moshavim etc, which have already dispossed them cruelly.

        So having come to the conclusion that addressing the core issues would infringe on the rights of Israeli civilians, largely Jewish, you suggest, that land that belongs to Palestinian Israelis be given to forcibly denationalized displaced Palestinians? are you sure that Palestinians and the people of the region as a whole are interested in solutions which do not address the core issues of justice, legality and human rights, which are not the preserve of Israeli Jews alone. Palestinian rights can not be made to disappear via borders Mahmud Darwish wrote elegant poems on that theme.

        Re the Arab battle plans 1947-49, firstly Arabs will justly treat the suggestion that the “five armies” had co-ordinated plans, or plans at all, with humour and derision, but just think, what was the middle east environment like just post ww2, take a British military source for 1947:

        “After the Great War, the United Kingdom maintained strategic interests in the Mediterranean and Middle East. The main reason for this was to provide a safe sea and air route between the U.K. and India, but control of oil supplies and national interests were also factors in this policy.

        Gibraltar is a British possession in the Western Mediterranean. It had a Governor-General, army garrison and Royal Navy dockyard. Malta was a British colony in the central Mediterranean with a Governor-General, army garrison and significant Royal Navy presence.

        Egypt was an interesting situation in that the United Kingdom maintained a significant measure of control of what was in theory an independent country. Indeed, Egypt housed the largest British Army presence outside of the United Kingdom and India. The main reason for this was the presence of the Suez Canal, the key artery that facilitated maritime access between the U.K., India and the Far East.

        Another country in which the U.K. faced policing a troubled state was in Palestine”

        makes you think? could i suggest some broadening of your research parameters, if you want to talk to Arabs about our recent history, some of which we recall more or less clearly.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        October 30, 2014, 5:48 pm

        Thanks Gamal, I will try and answer point by point, but perhaps I could first explain again what I am trying to achieve, because it seems I have not made myself clear.

        The international community and the current Palestinian leadership has accepted the proposition that a future Palestinian state will consist of the West Bank and Gaza, 22% of historic Palestine. I start by pointing out that putting 9 million Palestinians currently living in the West Bank, Gaza and in refugee camps into 22% of Mandatory Palestine, leaving 8 million Israeli citizens with 78% cannot possibly lead to a just and lasting peace, or make Palestine a viable state. Of course I am concerned with justice.

        I then go on to show that the Palestinian leadership and the international community have been misled into believing there is no alternative to accepting this injustice, because they do not know the legal distinction between the territory within Israel’s 1948 declared borders and the territory outside those borders which Israel stole in the 1948-49 war. I think the first thing that the Palestinians should do is to ask their friends in the GA to ask the ICJ to give an Advisory Opinion saying that the territory captured by Israel in 1948-49 was acquired by war, in violation of international law. Then everyone will know the truth, and Palestine will clearly have a right to territorial compensation. Of course I am concerned with legality.

        Everything I say about human rights applies, of course, to everyone. For example, if, in a territorial adjustment, citizens of Israel (Jews or Arabs) were forced to choose between becoming subject to Palestinian rule, or leaving their homes to go to another part of Israel, that would be a violation of their rights. That is why I say that the delineation of borders should be done to avoid this situation as far as possible, and if some citizens are affected adversely they should have dual nationality so they always have the option of changing their mind later.

        In the case of the Bedouin, I say that their territory should transfer to Palestinian sovereignty IF THEY WISH. In their case I think it is likely that they would, for the reasons you mention.

        The only just solution for the refugees is that they go where they want to. Some will want to stay as citizens where they are, some will want to go back to current Israeli territory, if that is where they originated, and some would prefer to go to Palestine. I suspect that more would prefer the third option than the second. Anyway, it is most unlikely that Israel will ever agree to take a substantial number of refugees. So, returning to my starting point, Palestine will need more territory, and the Negev is the best choice, for three reasons: it has a low population density providing room for extra numbers: it could make the Palestinian state contiguous; and it would give a real choice to the Bedouin.

        I do not understand why you think I am not addressing the core issues. I am addressing them in a realistic way. If by “addressing the core issues” you mean pushing Israel back inside the partition plan borders, then you are living in dreamland.

        I cannot find where I talked about the Arab battle plan, but I think I said it was an initial plan. Jordan of course reneged on it immediately, and the war ended up with the Arab states just competing for territory.

        I don’t understand why you are quoting stuff about British military history.

      • Not Your Casual Mondoweisser
        May 25, 2015, 4:28 am

        The territories gained after the 1948 War are necessary for Israel’s existence as the previous borders were simply indefensible. Israel will never go back to pre-1948 borders no matter what and I don’t think the international arena should even waste time trying to implement this idea.

        Also, about the ICC. By going to the ICC, Palestine would be violating the Oslo Accords which explicitly mentions that both parties ought not the take unilateral steps because it’s impossible to solve a conflict no matter how lawfully or forcefully you engage in it unless the other side isn’t compromising (and in this case we are talking about a strong state, not just a kid who can be punished by his/her teacher). Also, since Fatah is now in a unity government with Hamas (yet has requested the Arab leaders to rid Gaza of Hamas) and Hamas has repedeadeltly broken rules of war by summary executions of alleged Israel collaborators, indiscriminate firing of rockets, targeting civilian areas with rockets, not wearing uniforms which causes civilian casualties in urban warfare and probably much more. So, Hamas leaders are most certainly guilty of their crimes and Abbas is now cooperating with them as they are in a unity government but I don’t thin the law applies to Abbas too since it shouldn’t be retroactive and unless Hamas starts raining rockets again, Abbas should be safe.

      • James North
        May 25, 2015, 10:22 am

        Shift change at Hasbara Central.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 25, 2015, 11:06 am

        Shift change at Hasbara Central.

        and making his/her entrance on an old thread. hmm.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 25, 2015, 10:57 am

        both parties ought not the take unilateral steps

        i think everyone here would agree israel ought not to have unilaterally annexed jerusalem, built illegal settlements or placed the apartheid wall on palestinian land.

        Israel will never go back to pre-1948 borders no matter what …. it’s impossible to solve a conflict no matter how lawfully or forcefully you engage in it unless the other side isn’t compromising

        do you mean it’s impossible to solve a conflict no matter how lawfully or forcefully unless the other side is compromising? because history tells us that’s not true. unless you’re suggesting to solve a conflict peacefully. but obviously israel appears quite willing to engage in non peaceful problem solving, so if all the cards are on the table (“no matter how lawfully or forcefully”) then i would have to disagree. it is possible to force solutions on populations, israel is no exception.

        By going to the ICC, Palestine would be violating the Oslo Accords

        agreements in the oslo accords are no longer applicable. they were set up for 5 years and were continually breached by israel during that time anyway.

        Hamas has repedeadeltly [sic] broken rules of war by summary executions of alleged Israel collaborators, indiscriminate firing of rockets, targeting civilian areas with rockets, not wearing uniforms which causes civilian casualties in urban warfare and probably much more.

        all the more reason to go to the ICC. how is this an argument against palestinians going to the ICC? hamas has already agreed palestinians should engage with the ICC, only israelis (gov officials and pro israel hasbrats such as yourself) are balking. a fair minded person would have both parties (israel and palestine – regardless of what political affiliations/persuasions likud or hamas or whatever) judged in terms of who’s “broken rules of war”. Israeli leaders are most certainly guilty of their crimes, equal to and much worse (all that grass mowing) any crimes committed by hamas.

      • just
        May 25, 2015, 11:16 am

        “Shift change at Hasbara Central.

        and making his/her entrance on an old thread. hmm.”

        They’re ‘slow’… among other things.

        “Good thing Arabs invaded Israel, it gave Israel a reason to capture territories and consolidate it’s security.”

        ~ and~

        “Also, about the ICC. By going to the ICC, Palestine would be violating the Oslo Accords…”

        There’s so much wrong with both of NYCM posts that it’s hard to pick and choose, but these two are lame in the extreme.

      • Kris
        May 25, 2015, 12:19 pm

        Annie, why is NYCM commenting on this article from last October?

        Is this an attempted diversion from something else that Hasbara Central doesn’t want discussed right now?

      • just
        May 25, 2015, 12:27 pm

        Kris~ my guess is that he/she is trying to establish a MW personality before attempting to go head- to- head with Hostage like “Cautionary Crow”, Jackdaw, on this thread:

        http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/congress-legislatures-against#comment-146672

        lol.

      • tree
        May 25, 2015, 2:58 pm

        The territories gained after the 1948 War are necessary for Israel’s existence as the previous borders were simply indefensible.

        This takes me back full circle to the very beginning of my questioning of the Israeli narrative at the turn of the millenium. This bit of hasbara is so illogical and yet it is repeated mindlessly by so many Zionists. If the 1948 borders (or the even smaller 1947 Partition Plan borders) were “simply indefensible” then Israel would not have been able to defend them. That is the clear meaning of “simply indefensible” and yet it is so clearly not the case with the Partition Plan borders, the 1948 borders and even the current de facto borders, which includes all of Mandate Palestine. All have been easily defended by Israel, and in fact Israel has continually expanded its “indefensible” borders, and even managed to commit offenses again numerous adjacent borders (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon) over the years without any significant danger to its own borders.

        And of course, if “indefensible borders” was a legitimate excuse for the acquisition of territory through war, then the Palestinians would have every right to do what the Zionist Israelis did, which is ethnically cleanse Israel and claim all of Palestine, because of Palestine’s “indefensible borders”. But of course, the hasbarists don’t really believe that “right” of acquisition accrues to anyone else, and most certainly not to Palestinians. Its simply a bit of apologia to excuse Israel’s naked agression.

        So why do Zionists repeat these untruths? Do they really believe, counter to all evidence to the contrary, the crap they spew, or is the need to be a part of the cult so strong that they don’t bother to question the idiocy they repeat to see if it has any logical consistency?

      • eljay
        May 25, 2015, 3:03 pm

        || Not Your Casual Mondoweisser: The territories gained after the 1948 War are necessary for Israel’s existence as the previous borders were simply indefensible. ||

        Israel accepted its (Partition) borders, so it must not have had concerns about their defensibility.

        Israel defended its (Partition) borders, so they must have been defensible.

        In order to exist, Israel does not need to keep any of the land it has stolen, occupied and colonized.

        Not Your Casual Mondoweisser, but most definitely Your Typical Zio-supremacist.

    • talknic
      October 28, 2014, 8:10 am

      @ pabelmont “If the letter writer spoke for the government of Israel when he named the territory as in UNGA 181…”

      No ‘if’. It is indisputable.

      ” then the rest of the pre-67 Israeli territory is occupied territory (although not “territory occupied in the 1967 war” a formula often seen which seems to suggest an earlier occupation).”

      There was indeed earlier occupation. The territories which according to the Israeli Govt of 22nd May 1948 were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”“, were acquired by war by Israel before Israel was accepted into the UN.

      It was not within the remit of the UNSC to mention them because only on being accepted as a Member can states be directly censured/named in UNSC resolutions, except in respect to their being accepted as Members. The UN/UNSC can only tell its members how they may or may not act towards non-members.

      However, all states, including those who’re not UN Members are required to adhere to International Law and Customary International Law including the Laws of War.

      We can see in Israel’s statement of May 22nd 1948 to the UNSC it was aware of its legal obligations in “areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard

      “international regulations” at the time said;

      Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III

      “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

      Again on the 12 Aug 1948 the Provisional Israeli Government proclaimed

      Jerusalem Declared Israel-Occupied City- by Israeli Government Proclamation 12 Aug 1948

      It is again confirmed by the Israeli attempt on the 31st Aug 1949 to claim those territories “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”. The claim was rebuffed referring Israel to the Armistice Agreements.

      Further to which as recently as 2004

      9th July 2004 International Court of Justice the Court refers to the provisions of the Hague Regulation of 1907, which have become part of customary law, as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, applicable in those Palestinian territories which before the armed conflict of 1967 lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict

      Occupation can actually be dated from May 22nd 1948.

  2. lonely rico
    October 23, 2014, 11:52 am

    Thank you Dr. Finchman for this excellent summation and elucidation of some of the extensive resources available at talknic’s fine site (http://talknic.wordpress.com/about/), plus the link to your own site (http://www.religion-science-peace.org/), another rich resource on the history of Israel/Palestine.

  3. Sycamores
    October 23, 2014, 12:39 pm

    another area that needs equal attention is the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees.

    Talknic’s web page on Right of Return of Palestinian refugees is very informative.

    one example:

    Many Palestine refugees were NOT from the territory that was proclaimed as and became Israel. They were from non-Israeli territory that Israel has illegally acquired over 65 years

    http://talknic.wordpress.com/palestine-refugees-right-of-return-why-israel-refuses-to-recognize-it/

    • David Gerald Fincham
      October 23, 2014, 2:15 pm

      Thank you Sycamores for drawing attention to this. I have limited myself to the territorial question only, but the refugee problem is of huge importance, and is of course related to the territorial question. I think there is no possibility that refugees will be allowed into Israel, that is why it is essential that Palestine receives more territory from Israel in a final agreement.

  4. just
    October 23, 2014, 12:43 pm

    “talknic” is a fount of information and truth.

  5. alan
    October 23, 2014, 12:47 pm

    Also significant in the formation and US recognition of Israel is the draft document quoted in the telegram. Here it is with the interesting alteration (by Truman himself?):

    http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/index.php?documentdate=1948-05-14&documentid=48&collectionid=ROI&pagenumber=1

    • David Gerald Fincham
      October 23, 2014, 1:14 pm

      Yes. Truman’s reply recognizing Israel was actually drafted first, and then Clark Clifford asked Epstein to write the request for recognition. Neither of them knew the name of the Jewish state at the time, it was put in later in both documents, when Epstein heard a short-wave radio broadcast from Tel Aviv announcing the name of the state.

  6. talknic
    October 23, 2014, 1:05 pm

    The plea for recognition is arguably the second most important legal document in the history of the State of Israel. One would think a state would be proud of its proclamations. Seems it’s simply too incriminating! It undermines the Israeli narrative, revealing a 66 year litany of lies!

    BTW it would seem a similar letter was sent to other world leaders, not just the US.

    Russia 17 May 1948

    Letter from Mr. Molotov stated: “Confirming receipt of your telegram of May 16, in which you inform the Government of the USSR of the proclamation, on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947, of the creation in Palestine of the independent State of Israel and make re-quest for the recognition of the State of Israel and its provisional government by the USSR. I inform yon in this letter that the Govern-ment of the USSR has decided to recognize officially the Stale of Israel and its Provisional Government.”

    Australia 28 January 1949 “… on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947…” ( the relevant passage is missing from the text on the left of the Trove page. I suspect some under handed editing has taken place . . can’t prove it tho :-)

    New Zealand 29 January 1949 “It is the understanding of the New Zealand Government that the settlement of boundaries and other outstanding questions will be effected in accordance with the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 11 December 1948.”

    <a href="http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1950/apr/27/jordan-and-israel-government-decision&quot; British 27 April 1950 ” His Majesty’s Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it. Secondly, that His Majesty’s Government cannot regard the present boundaries between Israel, and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon as constituting the definitive frontiers of Israel, as these boundaries were laid down in the Armistice Agreements concluded severally between Israel and each of these States, and are subject to any modifications which may be agreed upon under the terms of those Agreements, or of any final settlements which may replace them.”

    On the 31st Aug 1949 Israel attempted to claim non-Israeli territories the Israeli Govt had earlier stated (May 22nd 1948) were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”.

    If as Israel’s propagandists claim, Israel did not proclaim its boundaries, how could anyone say with any certainty that Israel was attacked? Fact is, without defined boundaries they could not have, no-one would know where Israeli territory began or ended and;

    when we look at Israel’s proclaimed boundaries in its plea for recognition, we see that no one did invade Israel. There are no UNSC resolutions condemning the Arab States for their declared invasion of “Palestine”. Nor are there any UNSC resolutions demanding any entity withdraw from any Israeli territory.

    Jerks who point out the discussions about not mentioning the boundaries are laughable. Like, really really stupid. A) They were not mentioned in an attempt to deceive! B) Not mentioning Israel’s boundaries in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel did not mean boundaries did not exist. It only meant they were not mentioned!

    There is absolutely no doubt that Israel proclaimed its borders to the world and was recognized by them! By default what remained of Palestine, was NOT Israeli and;
    as corpus separatum was never actually instituted, Jerusalem was never separated from what remained of Palestine. Resolution 476 “1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;”

    Now examine the US position. May 15th 1948, at 00:12 the US recognized Israel as Israel asked to be recognized! No more, no less and recognition is irrevocable! . The US has never recognized any further territories as Israeli. In fact it would be illegal to recognize as Israeli any territories acquired by war by Israel.

    UN Member states even those on the permanent Security Council, cannot vote against Chapt VI resolutions re-affirming and emphasizing International Law and the UN Charter, because the Law and UN Charter are binding!

    All the US can do is stall by veto in the UNSC. Instead of attempting to rectify matters while the veto holds, Israel takes it as a sign that the frog can stay in the pot

    • David Gerald Fincham
      October 23, 2014, 1:57 pm

      thanks talknic for the links, especially the Russian one which I have not seen before.

      “No-one did invade Israel”

      Lebanese, Syrian and Iraqi forces entered north-east Galilee, Israeli territory. Syria captured a few square miles of Israel sovereign territory and held it under military occupation until 1967. One Egyptian column crossed the Negev to reach central Palestine, a second captured Gaza. These troop movements were justified by the need to protect Arabs from Israeli attack. However, I believe that the Egyptian column which captured Gaza would have gone on to Jaffa, which was under Israeli attack, and then Tel Aviv, if it could. We may think it an exaggeration, but it is not unreasonable for Israel to call these troop movements an invasion, in my view.

      • pjdude
        October 23, 2014, 3:34 pm

        yes it is unreasonable for the m to view it as an invasion. invasion require actually entering said territory.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        October 23, 2014, 6:21 pm

        Pjdude: please read my reply to talknic again. The forces of the Arab states DID enter Israeli sovereign territory (except for Jordanian forces).

      • talknic
        October 24, 2014, 12:36 pm

        pabelmont
        ” (Of course, Israel later claimed to annex bits of occupied territory such as Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. Annexing would seem to indicate a change of borders. However, for waheter it’s worth, UNSC said all the annexing was null and void.)”

        Israel didn’t actually attempt to annex the Golan, it’s acquisition by war was however condemned UNSC Res 497

        The unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem was condemned in UNSC res 252 and its eight reminders re-affirming and emphasizing binding International Law, the UN Charter and relevant conventions.

        252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 452 (1979) 20 July 1979, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 June 30 1980 and 478 August 20 1980

        BTW The Hasbara claim that Chapt VI and UNGA resolutions are not binding is also a nonsense. All law is by its nature binding and the UN Charter is binding in its entirety on all member states. The Laws and UN Charter and Conventions re-affirmed and emphasized in any UN/UNGA/UNSC resolution are binding!

      • talknic
        October 24, 2014, 1:18 pm

        @ David Gerald Fincham

        “Lebanese, Syrian and Iraqi forces entered north-east Galilee, Israeli territory”

        Once war has been started the Laws of war come into effect. Cross border incursions are allowed and not considered invasion.

        “Syria captured a few square miles of Israel sovereign territory and held it under military occupation until 1967. “

        I am un-aware. On the 22nd May 1948 the Israeli govt claimed control of ALL Israeli territory http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/B4085A930E0529C98025649D00410973

        “I believe that the Egyptian column which captured Gaza would have gone on to Jaffa, which was under Israeli attack, and then Tel Aviv, if it could.”

        Speculation doesn’t count. They stopped at Isdud http://wp.me/pDB7k-tM#isdud-vs-ashdod

      • David Gerald Fincham
        October 24, 2014, 2:25 pm

        When does an incursion become an invasion?

        According to John B Judis in Genesis, the Arab war plan was originally intended to destroy the Jewish state, with the Iraqi, Syrian, Lebanese and Jordanian armies making a pincer operation in the north-central region which would cut off galilee from the rest of Israel. The Egyptians would head up the coast toward Tel Aviv. My speculation is reasonable: the Egyptians would certainly have tried to get to Jaffa to liberate this Arab town from the Israelis, and since Tel Aviv was then a suburb of Jaffa, they could hardly help being involved in a battle over its control.

        It is referred to in Article 24 of the Palestine National Charter 1964 as the Himmah area. This is somewhat confusing, as the ancient ruins of the Al-Himmah hot bathing springs complex
        The territory occupied by Syria was to the south-east of Lake Tiberias. You need to compare the ’49 Armistice line with the Syrian-Palestinian border to see that it is inside Israeli territory.
        are 2km over the Syrian border, and the modern bathing facility is the other side of the Yarmouk river in Jordan.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        October 24, 2014, 2:27 pm

        to talknic – my last post to you was scrambled – the bit about the Syrian-occupied territory. Re-arrange the lines until they make sense.

      • Not Your Casual Mondoweisser
        May 25, 2015, 4:32 am

        “These troop movements were justified by the need to protect Arabs from Israeli attack.”
        And the territories captured by Israel in 1948 were needed for the Jews to not get massacred once again because an invasion was just too easy with the 181 territories. Good thing Arabs invaded Israel, it gave Israel a reason to capture territories and consolidate it’s security.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 25, 2015, 11:18 am

        Good thing Arabs invaded Israel, it gave Israel a reason to capture territories

        reason? you must mean an excuse. zionists with their colonialist enterprise, already had a reason to capture palestine. their objective was made abundantly clear, prior to any so called ‘arab invasion’, by brutal massacres such as dir yassin and the expulsion of thousands of palestinians in the so called ‘civil’ war prior to the founding of the state. so whatever facade you try to place on the land grab, the reason only becomes more and more transparent with time. no amount of hasbara will erase the historical record.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      October 31, 2014, 3:54 pm

      talknic, your New Zealand link is a search in Google books, which finds nothing in books and then returns this page!

  7. Horizontal
    October 23, 2014, 1:12 pm

    A very important and informative post, Dr. Fincham. Thank you.

    I’m currently reading John B. Judis’ book, Genesis, but have yet to get to the Truman era; I’m sorry to learn that even he gets these vital details wrong. Looks like we all have our work cut out for us.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      October 23, 2014, 2:08 pm

      Thank you.

      It is really amazing how many serious historians and international lawyers simply do not know about Israel’s border declaration on May 14, 1948. How the Zionist propaganda has been so successful is a mystery to me.

      • 666
        October 23, 2014, 4:13 pm

        david gerald fincham says

        “really amazing”

        he told him who phoned him who said that because he heard this from them and so on……..

        anddddddd the “secret documents” are available to you courtesy of “talknic”

        but you only talk about israel .

        so what were the arab declarations at the time for a state,where are the “secret documents”on this

        we know that the mandate had ended but surely arab leaders must have wanted their own state ?

        did all these declarations actually exist in a vacumn

      • David Gerald Fincham
        October 23, 2014, 7:04 pm

        In 1947 the Arabs proposed an alternative to the Partition Plan. It was that Palestine should become an independent democratic bi-national state with equality for all. This was exactly the intention set out in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in 1922, and exactly what the World Zionist Congress proposed in 1921 [ http://religion-science-peace.org/?p=1062%5D

      • American
        October 23, 2014, 9:11 pm

        I think you mean Israel’s ‘semi-admittance’ for the sake of expediency, of the borders that the UN Res 181 had set out.
        When they declared their state on the basis of UN 181 they ‘accepted’ those borders although as we all know they claim ‘they’ didn’t declare any borders.
        But what they claim is actually beside the point. Israel never had a legal right to declare any borders, they had to accept the UN boundaries in UN 181 if they wanted it to be approved.

        I also think if you review all the legal opinions on this you find the Israeli nonsense hasn’t really escaped the international lawyers.
        It definitely hasn’t escaped the UN in all their legal Advisory Opinions issued on the Israeli settlements.

      • talknic
        October 24, 2014, 2:27 am

        @ 666 “anddddddd the “secret documents” are available to you courtesy of “talknic””

        Courtesy of the Truman Library, the UN, even the Knesset actually. Are the documents incorrect? Don’t actually exist? I’ll await your honest reply……….. Thx

        “but you only talk about israel”

        Correct. Only Israel proclaimed its borders. Only Israel has been lying about its borders, deceiving Israelis for generations, illegally selling them non-Israeli territory

        Go whine to the Zionist Federation, Jewish Agency and their propagandists who try to keep the truth from being known http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War/Archive_12#The_addition_of_an_entirely_new_section:_The_legal_status_and_extent_of_territories_at_the_outset_of_the_1948_Arab.E2.80.93Israeli_War

        “so what were the arab declarations at the time for a state “

        For the same reason Israel wasn’t declared an independent state while the British occupied Palestine under the LoN Mandate for Palestine, the Arab State could not have been declared independent while Jewish forces occupied territory slated for the Arab State.

        By 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) Jewish forces under Plan Dalet, were occupying non-Israeli territory. They’ve never left BTW. So although Palestine can and has declared a state and that state has been recognized by the majority of the Comity of Nations and by certain UN bodies, it is still impossible for Palestine to declare Independent Statehood because it is not independent of Israeli occupation.

        Never the less the Arab statements were the same as they were in 1922. Very reasonable, within the Law and reflective of the League of Nations Covenant. A democratic unity state with equal rights and freedom of religion.

        “we know that the mandate had ended but surely arab leaders must have wanted their own state ?”

        Uh? They had their own state, Palestine. The British occupied it as trustees under the LoN Mandate for Palestine.

        The state existed, only recognition was provisional on that state gaining independence. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#art22

        It was a state in which Jewish folk could immigrate, achieve Palestinian citizenship, buy land and settle anywhere in the Jewish People’s historic homeland. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7

        Their state, Palestine, was partitioned without their being asked.

        “did all these declarations actually exist in a vacumn”

        Certainly not. They actually exist in the official records of the US, the UN/UNSC, British Hansard and the Knesset etc. Quite easy to find if you know they exist. But the Israeli Govt and education system won’t tell you they do.

        I suggest you take your pathetic whining to the Jewish Agency, Zionist Federation/Movement and Israeli Govt. They’re the folk who’ve been duping Jewish folk with their lies!

      • Mooser
        October 24, 2014, 11:56 am

        “Only Israel has been lying about its borders, deceiving Israelis for generations, illegally selling them non-Israeli territory”

        Well, there’s “tribal unity”, and then there’s ‘tribal utility’.

  8. Denis
    October 23, 2014, 4:03 pm

    These historical posts and comments are, IMO, the most valuable contributions to MW. This sort of research takes a lot of effort and is appreciated, and I include talknic’s contributions when I say that.

    GoI has survived largely by promoting a two-part emotional meme of 1) the miracle of Israel, which is a 2) tiny democratic country surrounded by enemies and terrorist groups. That tactic has to be countered by promoting a two-part historical reality that 1) the i-Jews stole (and are stealing) the Palestinians’ lands 2) by terrorism, duplicity, and illegal military assaults.

    Most Americans automatically side with GoI because Americans have a problem getting over a very high emotional barrier created by Munich, Achille Lauro, decades of Palestinian bus and market bombings, & etc. In the past there has been no way for Americans to understand that the excesses of violence by the Palestinians in the aggregate do not come close to the terrorism inflicted by i-Jews on Palestinians right back to the early 1940’s. The Palestinian side of the historical story has been kept sub rosa by the MSM. Like, when was the last History Channel program on Irgun.

    Perhaps high-volume websites like MW promoting the historical perspective of scholars like David and talknic can overcome the massive failure, if not collusion, of the MSM to get out the Palestinians’ side of the story.

    A couple of comments on the post:

    “And please, everyone, stop calling it the pre-1967 border: it is not a recognized border, and it did not move an inch in 1967.”

    Thank you, David. I have been trying to drive that point home for years. “Green-line” or “1967 borders” – hasbara that everybody buys into and constantly re-tweets. The proper boundary recognized by the UN, the US, and every other country is the 1948 partition line and that’s what we should all be referring to. It’s also the minimum of what the Palestinians should be demanding, IMO.

    “Palestine has said that, in the interests of peace, Israel can keep the land stolen in 1948-49. This is a wise decision. The stolen land is fully integrated with the rest of Israel, and this situation is irreversible. ”

    I can’t agree with your soft position. Nothing that is man-made is irreversible. The fact that GoI has “fully integrated” Palestinian land means nothing about who has a moral and legal claim on it.

    If your neighbor builds his garage on your backyard and “fully integrates” that part of your backyard into his property, that doesn’t constitute or justify a transfer of ownership. Now, if you ignore the problem for 20 years or so, then the doctrine of adverse possession can be used by the neighbor to acquire legal title. This is why Hamas’ hardline makes sense.

    Also the “Palestine has said” clause causes me slight heartburn. Perhaps you could give us a citation of “Palestine” saying such a thing.

    As for your discussion of a wider view of border negotiations — bingo! Maybe that map you base the post on ought to be completely discarded and the entire borders issue thrown wide open.

    I favor the well-known last-brownie approach to settling the dispute. When kids fight over the last brownie, many moms will make one of them cut it in two, and the other one then gets first choice.

    The world’s powers should force both sides of this dispute to sit down at a table with a map of the former Palestinian Mandate. One side is given a pen and a straight edge and instructed to draw a straight-line border across the map anywhere they please. The other side then chooses the part that is theirs. Such a line would almost have to run generally E-W and north of Jerusalem but south of Tel Aviv. My guess is that most i-Jews would prefer Tel Aviv and Golan to Jerusalem, the Negev, and access to the Gulf of Aqaba, and most Palestinians the opposite.

    Just dreamin’ . . . The world’s powers are too stupid to take such a simple approach to the world’s most dangerous problem. Eventually, it’ll be solved by WWIII, in which case Dimona will glow for a thousand years and nobody will want the Negev — or any of it.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      October 23, 2014, 6:51 pm

      “The fact that GoI has “fully integrated” Palestinian land means nothing about who has a moral and legal claim on it.”

      Yes it does. The Israeli citizens living in the “fully integrated land” have the same human rights as every one else. It is not their fault that the Israeli government took that land from another people 66 years ago. They cannot legally be driven from their homes, nor can a piece of territory legally be transferred from one sovereignty to another without the agreement of a majority of its residents. That is why I say Palestine should be given territory (empty as far as possible) in the Negev as compensation for the territory which was stolen from it in 1948-49.

      • oldgeezer
        October 23, 2014, 7:23 pm

        ” They cannot legally be driven from their homes, nor can a piece of territory legally be transferred from one sovereignty to another without the agreement of a majority of its residents. ”

        I think a lot of your posts make sense but not this one.

        Certainly the settlers have the human rights as everyone else but there is no right to build upon other people’s land. The fact that they managed to build a home/settlement on it does not change that. And yes the fact that the GoI took the land from someone else years ago does matter. Your position would absolutely negate provisions against population transfer and would legitimate almost all land theft by states as long as they managed to get individuals to populate that land which could be done overnight.

        They also would not able to avail of the protection that sovereignty of the land cannot change without the agreement of a majority of the residents as it was never a part of Israel and therefore it’s not being changed.

        And let’s get real, land in the Negev is in no way comparable to the land and water resources that have been stolen.

        Should they be forced from their homes? No, provided they take citizenship in a new Palestinian state. Abbas has made it clear that Israeli’s may not stay so they will have to revoke their Israeli citizenship as well which seems more than fair after a half century of theft and oppression. Despite claims that they want the land Jew free, he has made it specifically clear that they can remain under those conditions.

      • oldgeezer
        October 23, 2014, 8:29 pm

        As an addendum any legal claims that settlers forced to move back inside Israel would be against the state of Israel which perpetrated a fraud on them.

      • American
        October 23, 2014, 9:54 pm

        avid Gerald Fincham
        October 23, 2014, 6:51 pm

        “The fact that GoI has “fully integrated” Palestinian land means nothing about who has a moral and legal claim on it.”

        Yes it does. The Israeli citizens living in the “fully integrated land” have the same human rights as every one else. It is not their fault that the Israeli government took that land from another people 66 years ago. They cannot legally be driven from their homes, nor can a piece of territory legally be transferred from one sovereignty to another without the agreement of a majority of its residents.”

        Well you did fine until you got to that.
        First you are ignoring International Law re “illegal settlers” and going off into ‘ human rights’ of illegal settlers—-supposedly because’ it wasn’t their fault’ they went to live on stolen land.

        I think you would find that if International Law was implemented thru the ICC the human rights of ‘the Palestine victims of Israeli violations’ of International law would trump the illegal settlers human rights.

        Just a sampling of the many legal Advisory Opinions issued :

        The International Court of Justice says these settlements are illegal in a 2004 advisory opinion.
        “Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004”. International Court of Justice. 9 July 2004. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

        The United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel’s construction of settlements constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

        Resolution 465 (1980)
        Adopted by the Security Council at its 2203rd meeting
        on 1 March 1980
        http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/3822b5e39951876a85256b6e0058a478/5aa254a1c8f8b1cb852560e50075d7d5

        At present, the view of the international community, as reflected in numerous UN resolutions, regards the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as a violation of international law. UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal[83] as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice.
        http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

        In late January 2013 a report drafted by three justices, presided over by Christine Chanet, and issued by the United Nations Human Rights Council declared that Jewish settlements constituted a creeping annexation based on multiple violations of the Geneva Conventions and international law, and stated that if Palestine ratified the Rome Accord, Israel could be tried for “gross violations of human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law.’
        http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/world/middleeast/un-panel-says-israeli-settlement-policy-violates-law.html?hp&_r=0

        I have seen enough claims of the ‘irreversibly’ of the illegal settlements by liberal zionist to choke a hog.
        Usually described as ‘unthinkable’ !— ‘would never happen’!— a travesty’!– and all seemingly predicated on the people that would be moved off the Palestine land are Jews who should be given special exemptions from International Law.
        So please explain why you think the settlements which are recognized by all legal experts and even by the US ‘officially’ I might add, would not be ‘reversible’ and the Jewish settlers transferred into Israel proper and land they occupy which formerly ‘legally’ belonged to Palestines returned to them, if so declared by the ICC based on International law.

      • oldgeezer
        October 24, 2014, 12:13 am

        Well I’m not sure why my previous reponses aren’t getting through but let me try this way.

        Your assertion that Israeli citizens can not legally be driven from their homes totally turns the legal principle of Nemo dat quod non habet on it’s head.

        I would suggest a more qualified legal authority be consulted.

      • michelle
        October 24, 2014, 1:10 am

        .
        by your own measure the right of return is in favor of the Palestine people
        who were removed from their ancest. lands through an illegal sovereignty
        .
        G-d Bless
        .

      • talknic
        October 24, 2014, 2:47 am

        @ David Gerald Fincham
        //“The fact that GoI has “fully integrated” Palestinian land means nothing about who has a moral and legal claim on it.”//

        “Yes it does. The Israeli citizens living in the “fully integrated land” have the same human rights as every one else”

        They can have those rights in the country to which they are citizens. It is NORMAL for people who’re not the citizens of a country and who’re there without the express permission of that country, to be deported and their assets frozen pending clarification of legalities

        “It is not their fault that the Israeli government took that land from another people 66 years ago. “

        It’s not today’s German citizens fault that Hitler came to power. Germany has paid and paid and paid and is still paying with TODAY’s German taxpayers money.

        Israel TODAY is STILL illegally acquiring Palestinian territory. TODAY’s Israeli govt is encouraging illegal settlers, illegally building more in non-Israeli territory. Israelis TODAY elected TODAY’s Govt!

        “They cannot legally be driven from their homes”

        Nonsense. Illegal aliens are deported. It’s NORMAL.

        ” nor can a piece of territory legally be transferred from one sovereignty to another without the agreement of a majority of its residents. “

        To be precise , without the agreement of a majority of its legitimate citizens. Sans illegal settlers!

        “That is why I say Palestine should be given territory (empty as far as possible) in the Negev as compensation for the territory which was stolen from it in 1948-49”

        Why? Give Israelis illegally in Palestinian territory a choice, become Palestinian citizens or go live in Israel. There is no need for ANY land/territorial swaps.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        October 24, 2014, 11:42 am

        I couldn’t disagree more.

        The State of Palestine has never claimed sovereignty over the stolen land. It has never had effective sovereignty over that land. It has never asked for return of the stolen land. It is unlikely to want the return of the stolen land, because it contains around 2 million Jews (my estimate), and an additional 2 million Jewish Palestinians would compromise the nature of Palestine as an Arab and Islamic state.

        The citizens of Israel living within the stolen land are not illegal aliens living in Palestine. They have broken no laws. They are living in territory which once was part of Palestine, was indeed stolen from Palestine, but has been an integral part of Israel for 66 years. Human rights trump the rights of states. Those citizens have a right to continue their lives in the security of their homes and to not have their citizenship taken away from them.

        When an Israeli politician suggested that some Arab towns in the West Bank should be transferred to Palestinian sovereignty, there was an outcry from the residents that they would be forced to choose between their homes and their citizenship. And those were Arabs. Imagine what the outcry would be if 2 million Jewish Israelis were forced to accept citizenship in an Arab and Islamic state with Sharia a main source of law, or else lose their homes.

        Sometimes, when things are stolen, it is not possible to return them even if the thieves are caught: they may be lost, broken, hidden or melted down. Then, the owner has to accept compensation. In this case I suggest that compensation in the form of territory in the Negev would be the most appropriate, for the reasons I gave.

      • pabelmont
        October 24, 2014, 10:49 am

        D G Fincham:

        Does this “fully integrated land” reasoning mean that the (new) settlers who have (only) lived in West Bank for at most 47 years — rather than for at most 66 years as in the case of the settlers in parts of Palestine (in excess of Israel-181) occupied in “1948” — also have a right to remain in their homes where they are universally acknowledged to be present illegally (the illegality being on the part of their government rather, in most cases, than on their own part)?

        If so your principle (of long residence giving right to reside) is at least consistent. Otherwise, why is 19 years (1967-1948) so important? But if so, can the UNSC demand as it did in UNSC-465 the removal of all settlers? And if UNSC-465 was “kosher”, why cannot another UNSC resolution demand the removal of the settlers from the lands occupied in 1948-67, the land in excess of Israel-181?

      • David Gerald Fincham
        October 24, 2014, 12:16 pm

        Reply to pabelmont – please read my reply to talknic first.

        You ask about the situation of the residents in the West Bank. It is a very different case from the land stolen in 1948-49, which is fully integrated into Israel, where Israeli law is applied, where the territory is generally treated as part of Israel, and where Palestine does not claim sovereignty.

        No-one ,outside extreme Zionist circles, says that the West Bank is part of Israel. Palestine claims sovereignty over it. It is not governed under Israeli law, but by decree of the Military Governor who derives his authority from the laws of war. Under these laws the settlement program is illegal, and the Israeli Government minister and the Military Governors are war criminals. If the SC says these settlers should return to Israel, then so be it.

        My personal view is that if there are Israeli settlers in the West Bank living at peace with their neighbours, with good legal title to their land, and have been there some years and intend to make it their permanent home, and are willing to become Palestinian citizens, then they have acquired at least a moral right to remain, and it would be of benefit to the State of Palestine if they did so.

      • talknic
        October 24, 2014, 8:39 pm

        @ David Gerald Fincham I almost don’t believe I’m reading this. But it’s there in B/W as though someone has hijacked your name or slipped you a ziocaine mickey

        “The State of Palestine has never claimed sovereignty over the stolen land”

        That’s an irrelevant and fetid Hasbara dropping. It is entirely irrelevant to the actual legal status of Israeli sovereignty. If it isn’t sovereign to Israel via legal process, it is simply not Israeli and is by default what remained of Palestine and; under the notions of self determination and the “human rights” you mention, the Palestinians should decide what they’d like to do with their territory. They could without Israel occupation, declare independence as one state or divide it into several states or decide to become a protectorate under some benevolent entity

        ” It is unlikely to want the return of the stolen land, because it contains around 2 million Jews (my estimate), and an additional 2 million Jewish Palestinians would compromise the nature of Palestine as an Arab and Islamic state”

        A) Well, there’d be a very substantial and justifiable compensation payment due, for which a chunk of unwanted and barely habitable desert ain’t gonna make the grade

        B) Not all Israelis would wish to stay.

        C) Palestine has yet to decide by democratic process what sort of Independent state it will be.

        D) Palestine has already signaled, in front of the world at the UN that it is willing to forgo 78% of its rightful territory for peace with Israel. http://pages.citebite.com/e9p5s8u2yhcd

        When one realizes Israel DID proclaim borders a number of things become apparent:
        1) the legal baselessness of Israeli claims to any territory beyond its legal boundaries and, contrary to the Hasbara:
        2) the generosity of the Palestinians in their efforts to achieve a peaceful outcome (ibid)

        “The citizens of Israel living within the stolen land are not illegal aliens living in Palestine. “

        More Hasbara droppings. The citizens of Israel living within the stolen land are by definition illegal aliens! Contrary to the popular belief that the notion of “possession is 9/10th’s of the law” favours the possessor, it in fact cuts both ways. People are convicted for possessing stolen goods. At times whether they personally stole them or not.

        “They are living in territory which once was part of Palestine, was indeed stolen from Palestine, but has been an integral part of Israel for 66 years”

        It has not been a part of Israel. Stolen goods do not belong to the thief. A car thief might drive a car around for a decade, repaint it, change the engine, change the body, the seats, the wheels, tyres until there’s nothing of the original vehicle and still be charged with theft.

        “Human rights trump the rights of states. Those citizens have a right to continue their lives in the security of their homes and to not have their citizenship taken away from them”

        Then they’d best hot foot it back to ISRAEL where they are citizens, because they are not citizens of Palestine. Palestinian human rights in Palestine trump the human rights of illegal Israeli settlers in Palestine

        “When an Israeli politician suggested that some Arab towns in the West Bank should be transferred to Palestinian sovereignty, there was an outcry from the residents that they would be forced to choose between their homes and their citizenship”

        Another Hasbara dropping. They would have been Israelis, the descendants of people whose homeland has always been in territory that became Israeli in 1948, folk who opted to be Israeli citizens, correct? It was a minister from Israel, their own state attempting to cleanse them!! Of course they objected! Who would not object if their own state tried to get rid of them? It’s what Nazi Germany did to its Jews FFS!!

        “Imagine what the outcry would be if 2 million Jewish Israelis were forced to accept citizenship in an Arab and Islamic state with Sharia a main source of law, or else lose their homes.”

        More Hasbara droppings. They can go live in Israel, that’s what it was declared for, so Jewish folk can live under the laws of a Jewish state.

        “Sometimes, when things are stolen, it is not possible to return them even if the thieves are caught: they may be lost, broken, hidden or melted down. “

        More Hasbara poop. See above. It is not a car. The territory is still there. A voluntary transfer of citizenship is not a death sentence. If they opt to repatriate to Israel, compensation is due by the transgressor, the State of Israel.

        All of which brings us to the strangest point. You are outlining and willing to enable the Zionist Plan for a Greater Israel! Ignore the law and create as many illegal facts on the ground as possible making reversal as difficult as possible then wailing about how unfair it would be on innocent Israelis, who happen to be Jewish and who the Zionists hope will outnumber the non-Jewish inhabitants of the territory many of whom will have been driven by force or despair to leave, compromising ” the nature of Palestine as an Arab and Islamic state”

      • talknic
        October 25, 2014, 9:43 am

        @ David Gerald Fincham

        “You ask about the situation of the residents in the West Bank. It is a very different case from the land stolen in 1948-49, which is fully integrated into Israel, where Israeli law is applied, where the territory is generally treated as part of Israel, and where Palestine does not claim sovereignty”

        Whoa …. Thieves steal a car, drive it around as though it is their own, making up their own road rules. Whether the victim wants the car years later does not negate the fact that a crime was committed and compensation is due. The perpetrator can be stripped of their freedom, stripped of whatever of the car remains and stripped of any profits made from the disposal of the car or its parts to his pals.

        In this instance we are talking about territorial theft by war and other illegal means maintained by a occupation army. There is no statute of limitations on war crimes.

        “No-one ,outside extreme Zionist circles, says that the West Bank is part of Israel”

        Successive Israeli Govts have been elected by a majority. Successive Israeli Govts elected by a majority have assisted Israelis to illegally settle in the West Bank, territory that is not yet Israeli.

        Successive Israeli Govts have been very quite when it comes to the Israeli plea for recognition, because it is quite simply too incriminating. It is the thread that if tugged at will unravel the whole propaganda garment

        Instead, successive Israeli Governments elected by a majority, have illegally claimed and illegally sold land to illegal settlers it illegally assists to settle in territory that is not yet Israeli while lying to Israeli citizens about their state boundaries

        Successive Israeli Governments elected by a majority, have ignored their own boundaries and hundreds of UNSC resolutions remindingb and giving Israel the opportunity to rectify the issue by adhering to the binding Laws, UN Charter and relevant conventions those resolutions re-affirm and emphasize!

        Successive Israeli governments have been extremists of the worst kind. Pathological liars and thieves, coveting other folks property. Completely out of step with with the most basic of Judaisms tenets, which is rather odd for a so called ‘Jewish state’

        “My personal view is that if there are Israeli settlers in the West Bank living at peace with their neighbours, with good legal title to their land, and have been there some years and intend to make it their permanent home, and are willing to become Palestinian citizens, then they have acquired at least a moral right to remain, and it would be of benefit to the State of Palestine if they did so.”

        Quite. Are any territorial swaps necessary to bring that scenario to fruition? Israel can simply get the f^&* out of Palestine.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        October 25, 2014, 5:48 pm

        oldgeezer: my article says nothing about the illegal settlements in the West Bank. Please read it again.

      • Mooser
        October 26, 2014, 10:56 am

        “@ David Gerald Fincham I almost don’t believe I’m reading this. But it’s there in B/W as though someone has hijacked your name or slipped you a ziocaine mickey “

        Ditto.

    • jon s
      October 24, 2014, 10:57 am

      Dr. Fincham writes:

      “In 1947 the Arabs proposed an alternative to the Partition Plan. It was that Palestine should become an independent democratic bi-national state with equality for all. ”

      Who were “the Arabs” who made the proposal? Where?
      As far as I know the bi-national option was supported, pre-1947, by Hashomer Hatzair, Brit Shalom and other individuals on the Jewish-Zionist side, but was rejected by the Arab side. Establishment of a bi-national state was certainly not the goal of the Arab side in the 1948 war .

      • talknic
        October 24, 2014, 8:45 pm

        @ jon s
        // “In 1947 the Arabs proposed an alternative to the Partition Plan. It was that Palestine should become an independent democratic bi-national state with equality for all. ”//

        “Who were “the Arabs” who made the proposal? Where?”

        http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook1/Pages/5%20Arab%20League%20declaration%20on%20the%20invasion%20of%20Pales.aspx

        “As far as I know the bi-national option was supported, pre-1947, by Hashomer Hatzair, Brit Shalom and other individuals on the Jewish-Zionist side, but was rejected by the Arab side. Establishment of a bi-national state was certainly not the goal of the Arab side in the 1948 war”

        See link above

        The Governments of the Arab States emphasise, on this occasion, what they have already declared before the London Conference and the United Nations, that the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed.

      • Horizontal
        October 25, 2014, 12:09 am

        jon s ~

        From John B. Judis’ book, Genesis, page 121, hardbound edition:

        “The Chamberlain government invited Palestinian Jews and Arabs, along with Arab state leaders, to London for a conference in February 1939 at St. James Palace. . .

        “To appease the Arab leaders, the British cabinet acceded to the Arab states’ proposal to allow only 75,000 immigrants for the next five years, after which the Palestinian Arab population would have a veto on further immigration. Jews would amount to no more than a third of the population. Land sales from Arabs to Jews would be restricted. Both Arabs and Jews would participate in government according to their population — in other words, Arabs would enjoy a political majority. And after ten years Palestine would become an independent binational state.

        As the British had hoped, the leaders of the Arab states backed the proposals. And as they had expected, the Zionists walked out of the conference.

        Britain was distancing itself from the Balfour Declaration, seeing that it had set up an impossible conflict within the region and had in fact made matters much worse between the Palestinian Arabs and the Jews. They were also wanting Arab backing in the region in the approaching shadow of WWII.

        The point being, that despite this, had the Zionists been willing to accept a binational state in 1939, we could have avoided much of the sad history which has followed. But they didn’t want this; they wanted their own state, regardless of who they had to displace to get it.

        This information seems to run exactly counter to the information contained in your post.

      • Mooser
        October 25, 2014, 12:27 pm

        “jon s” the more you argue that those who don’t have a militarized “state” of their own have no rights, and that states have a right to control the ethnic or religious content of the population, the more you validate the reasoning behind the Holocaust. But, hey, you go on and be your bad self, “jon s”

      • tree
        October 25, 2014, 10:08 pm

        jon,

        Who were “the Arabs” who made the proposal?

        I’ll quote at length from Hostage on this:

        On September 29, 1947, the representative of the Arab Higher Committee, Jamal Husseini, appeared before the General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee hearing on Palestine. He said:

        “The future constitutional organization of Palestine should be based on the following principles: first, establishment on democratic lines of an Arab State comprising all Palestine; secondly, observance by the said Arab State of Palestine of human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law; thirdly, protection by the Arab State of the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities; fourthly, guarantee to all of freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places.”

        There were minority proposals from the Second Subcommittee of the UNSCOP, the Second Subcommittee of the General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee, and from the Arab States during the 2nd Special Session of the General Assembly based upon Jewish and Arab cantons in a bi-national state.

        The report of the 2nd Subcommittee of the Ad Hoc Committee is here:
        link to un.org

        Mr Malik of Lebanon offered the proposal for establishing a single federal union with separate Jewish and Arab states, based upon the model of the US Constitution during the 2nd Special Session:

        “Principle number five: The Constituent Assembly, in defining the powers of the federal state of Palestine, as well as the powers of the judicial and legislative organs, in defining the functions of the cantonal governments, and in defining the relationships between the cantonal governments and the federal state, will be guided by the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as the constitutions of the individual states of the United States of America. — Yearbook of the United Nations for 1947-48

        Original 2012 comment from Hostage complete with his links here:

        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/12/israels-mythological-borders-an-interview-with-rachel-havrelock#comment-410800

    • Mooser
      October 24, 2014, 12:02 pm

      When kids fight over the last brownie, many moms will make one of them cut it in two, and the other one then gets first choice.”

      What about when a larger kid smashes the face of a smaller child, and then steals his lunch, complete with brownie?

      Denis, you know what you can do with that lame equivalency hasbara? Every solution you ever thought of skips any kind of Zionist accountability. Why is that?

      • jon s
        October 24, 2014, 11:28 pm

        talknic,

        The text you cite proves my point: the term” bi-national state ” is nowhere to be found.
        The Arab side always rejected that option.

      • jon s
        October 25, 2014, 5:02 pm

        Mooser, Are you hallucinating? I have no idea where I supposedly said what you’re accusing me of saying.
        Incidentally, I’m still waiting for the results of your analysis of the time-stamps on my comments.

      • Mooser
        October 26, 2014, 11:03 am

        “Incidentally, I’m still waiting for the results of your analysis of the time-stamps on my comments.”

        Try and be patient. If you would like to help, hold your breath until I e-mail you the spread-sheets.

      • Mooser
        October 26, 2014, 11:07 am

        “Mooser, Are you hallucinating?”

        Yup, I’m hallucinating a terrible period in history when the right of a state to order its “social fabric” superseded basic human rights and about 6 million Jews died, (and probably just as many people of other origins, too.)

        So you just keep saying that people who aren’t organized into a military or administrative state have no rights.

    • American
      October 24, 2014, 5:17 pm

      David Gerald Fincham
      October 24, 2014, 11:42 am

      I couldn’t disagree more.

      The State of Palestine has never claimed sovereignty over the stolen land. It has never had effective sovereignty over that land.>>>>>

      Please enough of the pilpul.
      It doesn’t matter whether you agree or not.
      You stated the illegal settlements aren’t reversible—they clearly are reversible under the law… “If’….. International law was ever applied to the situation.
      Regurgitating what ‘you’ want to happen as an answer is not a legitimate argument to our comments on this. .

      • Mooser
        October 25, 2014, 12:23 pm

        “You stated the illegal settlements aren’t reversible—they clearly are reversible under the law…

        Gee, Mr. Fincham, it occurs to me that just a fraction, a mere fraction of the money the US or private donors give Israel could re-settle the people from the illegal settlements anywhere they wanted to go, and in high style, too. And give ’em a gilt-edged annuity, to boot.

      • jon s
        October 25, 2014, 4:50 pm

        Horizontal,
        I haven’t read Judis’ book, but , from the citation you provided, I think he’s wrong:
        After ten years Palestine would have become an independent Arab state, not a bi-national one. The Arab side never agreed to the bi-national option, which implies recognition of the Jews as a legitimate nation in Palestine, with whom the land is to be shared.
        Moreover , I doubt that the Arab leadership proposed allowing 75,000 immigrants over five years. They didn’t accept any Jewish immigration.

        The discussion here was focused on 1947-48, and you went back to 1939, but that’s ok, the Arab position was consistent.

        I would sincerely appreciate any proof of Arab support for the bi-national option. I will have learned something new.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        October 25, 2014, 6:00 pm

        American: I did not mention the West Bank settlements in my article. Please read it more carefully.

      • American
        October 25, 2014, 9:32 pm

        Fincham
        October 25, 2014, 6:00 pm

        American: I did not mention the West Bank settlements in my article. Please read it more carefully
        >>>>>>>>>>>>

        I wasn’t referencing your article . I was referencing your statements in your comments.

        You made the following statements about illegal settlements and settlers:

        #- “”The citizens of Israel living within the stolen land are not illegal aliens living in Palestine. They have broken no laws. They are living in territory which once was part of Palestine, was indeed stolen from Palestine, but has been an integral part of Israel for 66 years. Human rights trump the rights of states. Those citizens have a right to continue their lives in the security of their homes and to not have their citizenship taken away from them –

        # “They cannot legally be driven from their homes, nor can a piece of territory legally be transferred from one sovereignty to another without the agreement of a majority of its residents.’

        You only ‘ differentiated’ the West Bank settlement from the ‘fully integrated settements” this way:

        #”My personal view is that if there are Israeli settlers in the West Bank living at peace with their neighbours, with good legal title to their land, and have been there some years and intend to make it their permanent home, and are willing to become Palestinian citizens, then they have acquired at least a moral right to remain, and it would be of benefit to the State of Palestine if they did.”

        The FACT remains that the West Bank settlers are illegal under the law. Period.
        If the West bank was returned to Palestine it would be up to Palestine–not Israel, not the WB settlers whether they could stay or not.
        You have made some ridiculous statements ‘as if they were fact.’ Although you did qualify the one on the WB as ‘your opinion.’

        Here’s what you have done–you did the ‘bad Israel’ thing—-then you did the ‘but it cant be undone’ thing.

        Complete with the ‘ human rights of the illegal Israeli Jews’.
        And you say basically these Jewish human rights trump whatever human rights the Palestine had in 1948 to the present.
        And you even call it a ‘moral right’.
        And you magnanimously suggest a piece of the desert be given Palestines them as compensation.

        Classic liberal Zionist pilpul. We’ve heard it a thousand times.
        So I will just borrow a bit of a movie title….We know Who (and What) You are and We Know What You Did….and are still doing.

      • RoHa
        October 25, 2014, 10:27 pm

        “The Arab side never agreed to the bi-national option, which implies recognition of the Jews as a legitimate nation in Palestine, ”

        What do you mean by “a nation in Palestine”? Some sort of separate community? Why should they agree to that?

        “with whom the land is to be shared. ”

        Equal rights and full citizenship is sharing the land.

        “Moreover , I doubt that the Arab leadership proposed allowing 75,000 immigrants over five years. They didn’t accept any Jewish immigration. ”

        Why should they? They didn’t invite the foreigners, and the foreigners had no other right to enter the country.

      • American
        October 25, 2014, 10:31 pm

        Fincham
        October 25, 2014, 6:00 pm

        American: I did not mention the West Bank settlements in my article. Please read it more carefully
        >>>>>>>>>>>>

        I wasn’t referencing your article . I was referencing your statements in your comments.

        You made the following statements about illegal settlements and settlers:

        #- “”The citizens of Israel living within the stolen land are not illegal aliens living in Palestine. They have broken no laws. They are living in territory which once was part of Palestine, was indeed stolen from Palestine, but has been an integral part of Israel for 66 years. Human rights trump the rights of states. Those citizens have a right to continue their lives in the security of their homes and to not have their citizenship taken away from them –

        # “They cannot legally be driven from their homes, nor can a piece of territory legally be transferred from one sovereignty to another without the agreement of a majority of its residents.’

        You only ‘ differentiated’ the West Bank settlement from the ‘fully integrated settements” this way:

        #”My personal view is that if there are Israeli settlers in the West Bank living at peace with their neighbours, with good legal title to their land, and have been there some years and intend to make it their permanent home, and are willing to become Palestinian citizens, then they have acquired at least a moral right to remain, and it would be of benefit to the State of Palestine if they did.”

        The FACT remains that the West Bank settlers are illegal under the law. Period.
        If the West bank was returned to Palestine it would be up to Palestine–not Israel, not the WB settlers whether they could stay or not.
        You have made some ridiculous statements ‘as if they were fact.’ Although you did qualify the one on the WB as ‘your opinion.’

        Here’s what you have done–you did the ‘bad Israel’ thing—-then you did the ‘but it cant be undone’ thing.

        Complete with the ‘ human rights of the illegal Israeli Jews’.
        And you say basically these Jewish human rights trump whatever human rights the Palestine had in 1948 to the present.
        And you even call it a ‘moral right’.
        And you magnanimously suggest a piece of the desert be given Palestines them as compensation.

        Furthermore you say…”I say to those commenters: your heart is in the right place, but you have lost your heads. Think it through. The two states have to agree their mutual border. The UN does not have authority to impose a solution.””

        LOL ……if the UN doesn’t have the authority to say where Israel’s borders—- then it didn’t have the right to partition Palestine and set out the borders in 1948 either.

        Classic liberal Zionist pilpul.
        Typical convoluted pseudo rationalizing.

  9. Henry Norr
    October 23, 2014, 4:36 pm

    Thank you, Dr. Fincham – fascinating stuff!

    Was there any discussion of Israel’s borders at the UN Security Council or General Assembly when Israel’s admission to the UN was under discussion? Or at the “Ad Hoc Political Committee” that apparently considered Israel’s request first?

    I note that there’s nothing about borders in the actual GA resolution that admitted Israel (General Assembly Resolution 273-III of May 11, 1949), just a clause in the preamble “Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it “unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations.”

    • David Gerald Fincham
      October 23, 2014, 5:09 pm

      Yes Henry, there was a great deal of discussion of the borders at the GA. This is what the delegate from Lebanon said:

      “It was difficult to distinguish between what the authorities considered part of Israel and what they considered merely temporarily-occupied territory, if such a qualification existed at all in their thinking. To admit Israel before it had given up territories which had not been allotted to it by the Assembly’s decision [the Partition Plan] was equivalent to giving it a blank cheque to draw its frontiers wherever it wished. In effect, it meant condoning, by a solemn act of the United Nations, the right of conquest.”

      http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479d/1db943e43c280a26052565fa004d8174

      I think he expressed it perfectly. Nevertheless, Israel was deemed to be a “peace loving state” and admitted to Membership.

    • jon s
      October 26, 2014, 3:01 am

      RoHa,
      “Bi-national state” implies that there are two nations on the land, both legitimate, and they reach an agreement as partners in sharing it. My point was that the Arab side didn’t accept that option at the time.
      Jews were not, and are not, “foreigners” in the Jewish historic homeland. (or aliens, invaders, colonialists … all those terms). We are quite at home here.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 26, 2014, 12:47 pm

        obviously many of the jews who arrived in palestine were foreigners when they arrived. it takes a contortion of reality to believe otherwise. i can’t show up in scotland having never been there and claim i am not a foreigner because some long lost relative of mine allegedly came from there in the 4th century, hundreds of generations ago. this defies all normal concepts of ‘foreign’. “historic homeland” is an excuse, not a carte blanche justification for colonization. by these standards we’re all natives of africa because that’s where humanity began.

        “Bi-national state” implies that there are two nations on the land

        palestinians are as much a nation of people as jews are, arguable, if not moreso. you’ve simply got no argument jews are “a nation of people” if you don’t hold the same or similar standards for others.

        We are quite at home here.

        yeah well i can move to timbuk2 and live there for a few decades and feel “quite at home”, still doesn’t detract from the fact i arrived as a foreigner. however, i do think people who were born there are not foreigners, but that doesn’t mean their relatives were not foreign immigrants.

        in a nutshell, europeans are natives to palestine like humans are all natives of africa. but by modern day standards, they are foreign immigrants.

      • RoHa
        October 26, 2014, 9:58 pm

        “Bi-national state” implies that there are two nations on the land”

        What do you mean by “nation”?

        “they reach an agreement as partners in sharing it.”

        I repeat: equal rights and full citizenship is sharing the land. What more would you want?

      • eljay
        October 27, 2014, 8:09 am

        >> Jews were not, and are not, “foreigners” in the Jewish historic homeland.

        There is no country called “Jewish historic homeland”. There was Palestine, and now there is Israel and Occupied Palestine. People who were or are not from the legitimate geographic areas comprising those states (as defined by Partition borders, which Israel accepted) or who are not up to n generations removed from those states are foreigners to those states.

  10. Mooser
    October 23, 2014, 4:38 pm

    Gee, I know I should have more faith in people, but for some reason I am compelled to ask, why, when the top Zionists had a chance to make a secure state for the poor, beleaguered and persecuted Jews from Europe who had emigrated to Palestine, they choose instead to put them in a precarious, tenuous position which would require continued intransigence and violence, and had at bottom (expansion of territory by war) an illegal aim.
    Why, it’s almost like they didn’t care about them!

    • Bornajoo
      October 23, 2014, 6:28 pm

      @Mooser
      Actually a great question. I can only assume that the agenda and ultimate objectives were more important than the daily lives of these mere mortals

      • Mooser
        October 23, 2014, 7:10 pm

        “I can only assume that the agenda and ultimate objectives were more important than the daily lives of these mere mortals”

        Well, it doesn’t seem like tribal unity to me. Maybe it’s something we should call “tribal utilitarianism”?

      • Mooser
        October 24, 2014, 12:15 pm

        I think I will call it “tribal utility”. It’s the idea that what would normally be considered the worst kind of inter-actions (coercion, deceit, manipulation) can be countenanced or even freaking made noble (making the desert bloom, redeeming the land) if it’s done to people in the “tribe”.

    • Stephen Shenfield
      October 24, 2014, 7:59 pm

      As early as 1922 the Russo-Jewish philosopher Mikhail Gershenzon predicted that a Jewish state in Palestine would be in a state of constant war with its neighbors (in his “Fate of the Jewish People”).

      • Horizontal
        October 25, 2014, 12:16 am

        As early as 1922 the Russo-Jewish philosopher Mikhail Gershenzon predicted that a Jewish state in Palestine would be in a state of constant war with its neighbors.

        Hell, I have a one-eyed cat who could have figured that one out.

    • jon s
      October 26, 2014, 4:45 pm

      Annie, I never said that the Palestinians are not as much a nation of people as Jews are. You must know by now that I support mutual mutual recognition and a two state solution. This land is the homeland of two nations -(that’s the conflict in a nutshell) and they need to find a way to co-exist.
      As to your analogy to being natives of africa – it doesn’t work. Humans outside of Africa didn’t maintain ties to Africa, didn’t dream of and pray for a return to Africa…
      I know you disagree , but in my view Jews in Israel are not foreigners. I do realize that in the eyes of most of the Palestinian population they were perceived as such.

      • Mooser
        October 27, 2014, 2:32 pm

        . “This land is the homeland of two nations”

        ‘Jon s’ can you explain to me again how being the descendant of a European or Eastern European people who long ago converted, or were converted, to Judaism, gives them a “homeland” in the Middle East?
        As opposed to the people who were living there, and whose ancestors may very well have been living there?
        Now, please, take it slow, Jon s, I want to make sure I understand it. Is it “because Bible” or something?

      • RoHa
        October 28, 2014, 2:08 am

        Give Jon s a chance.

        He’s still trying to figure out what he means by “nation”, and why equal rights and full citizenship aren’t enough.

      • RoHa
        October 28, 2014, 2:14 am

        ” in my view Jews in Israel are not foreigners.”

        In my view I am irresistible to women. I fear that by the time reality conforms to my view, I will be too old to benefit from it, even with pharmacological assistance.

  11. Bornajoo
    October 23, 2014, 5:11 pm

    Dear Dr Fincham, thank you for this superb article and many thanks to talknic for the incredible research.

    So the deeper we dig we find even more lies and deception. Okay, no real surprise there but I am surprised that the likes of Uri Avnery and Avi Shlaim have just gone along with the propaganda.

    It seems to me that the PA have a serious legal claim of negligence against Francis A. boyle! I wonder what his response has been to this compelling information?

    Surely this is something that the PA should act on immediately as this should leverage their legal position considerably. But are/will they?

    • David Gerald Fincham
      October 23, 2014, 6:29 pm

      I have submitted to the Palestine Chronicle a related article with the same conclusion but tailored for a Palestinian audience. I will also post a copy to President Abbas. We will see what happens.

      • gamal
        October 26, 2014, 4:33 pm

        ” but tailored for a Palestinian audience.” how did you do that?

      • David Gerald Fincham
        October 27, 2014, 9:17 am

        Less about the Truman recognition, more about UNSCR 242.

      • gamal
        October 27, 2014, 9:24 am

        During your research have you come across the name Salman Abu Sitta?

      • David Gerald Fincham
        October 27, 2014, 11:08 am

        No, but I am now looking at his Wiki page. Many thanks.

      • gamal
        October 27, 2014, 9:29 am

        a link to a Palestine Israel Journal article by Abu Sitta, you may find interesting

        http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=1217

    • jon s
      October 29, 2014, 4:31 pm

      Ro Ha,
      What I mean by “nation”?
      Here’s from from the webster on-line concise encyclopedia, good enough for me:

      nation noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
      People whose common identity creates a psychological bond and a political community. Their political identity usually comprises such characteristics as a common language, culture, ethnicity, and history. More than one nation may comprise a state, but the terms nation, state, and country are often used interchangeably. A nation-state is a state populated primarily by the people of one nationality.

      • RoHa
        October 29, 2014, 10:35 pm

        On that basis, Jews in general were not and are not a nation. (“Common identity” and “ethnicity” need defining, but the rest is pretty clear.)

        But we could argue that the Zionists who moved into Palestine started forming themselves into a “nation”. And now we move back to the questions:

        Why is this important?

        What does “recognition of the Jews as a legitimate nation in Palestine” imply?

        Why isn’t full citizenship and equal rights for all residents sufficient for “sharing the land”?

  12. Talkback
    October 23, 2014, 5:49 pm

    This one is the best, May 1948 after the proclamation:

    “REPLIES OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL TO SECURITY COUNCIL QUESTIONNAIRE.

    Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947?

    “In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem.

    The above areas, OUTSIDE THE TERRITORY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard. The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed.””
    http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/B4085A930E0529C98025649D00410973

  13. Mooser
    October 23, 2014, 7:06 pm

    “How did the Zionists manage to persuade “everyone” that “Israel has never defined its borders”?”

    And persuade Zionism’s supporters that this was an acceptable situation. Let me take a wild guess, it was everybody else who was keeping Israel from declaring its borders?

  14. ThePolemicist
    October 23, 2014, 11:49 pm

    Excellent analysis. Something new for me. Really would like to see Boyle’s response to this.

  15. michelle
    October 24, 2014, 1:27 am

    .
    might not apply but in some places when ‘you’ buy property
    the actual land is not part of the sale, (i learned this while house hunting)
    seems like the Palestines might not need to give up any ownership
    just collect a land rent
    .
    sure would be nice just to know that they are free and are treated fair by their neighbors
    .
    G-d Bless
    .

    • David Gerald Fincham
      October 24, 2014, 5:03 am

      talknic is right on this one, Michelle. I think what you have in mind is that Palestine should receive financial compensation for the loss of the stolen land. They certainly have the right to ask for that, but they have a greater need for territory than money, and it would also be more just for them to receive territory in exchange for territory. Did you read the Note from Truman to Ben-Gurion in 1949 [ http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1949v06&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=1072%5D He expressed very strongly the need for territorial compensation.

      God Bless you.

      • michelle
        October 24, 2014, 10:25 am

        .
        Hello David Gerald Fincham
        I hope your day is wonderfilled
        .
        i did read the Truman note to Ben-Gurion/1949
        the lack of follow up/through from world leaders is a worry
        .
        it reads (here) that some of the encroached Palestine lands
        will prove more of a challenge to vacate (publically used lands?)
        i suggest that some of these Palestine lands/propertys
        might while reverting to Palestine rule/law
        remain open to long term use by Israel (and the public as a whole)
        at a fair price
        .
        i was considering the thought that Israel could own the building but rent the land
        i do understand that this would not work out
        Isreal won’t bend and Palestine is about broken from bending over backward
        .
        Palestine has waited far too long to be self governing
        the world should help them take full control of all their
        legal lands now
        .
        Israel needs to be taught to be a good neighbor asap
        Palestine has shown itself to be up to this task
        .
        G-d Bless
        .

  16. talknic
    October 24, 2014, 3:27 am

    @ michelle “in some places when ‘you’ buy property
    the actual land is not part of the sale, (i learned this while house hunting)
    seems like the Palestines might not need to give up any ownership
    just collect a land rent”

    Land is ‘real estate’ for which individuals or companies or institutions hold some form of deed. ‘real estate’ exists in the ‘territory’ of states. For example Chinese companies can and do own real estate in Australia, they have no territorial or citizenship rights what so ever.

    Territory belongs to all the legitimate citizens of that territory whether they own ‘real estate’ rent or lease real estate or are homeless and live under a bridge.

    The Palestinians do not have to show deeds to real estate to prove the territory is Palestinian. It is Palestinian by default of what was not proclaimed as or recognized as Israel, what has never been legally annexed to Israel and what was not the territory of the surrounding Arab states.

    • michelle
      October 24, 2014, 11:12 am

      .
      i ran ahead without notice
      for myself proof of ownership is done
      it’s the eviction i’m looking at
      and more so at the harder to vacate propertys
      .
      G-d Bless
      .

      • michelle
        October 24, 2014, 5:19 pm

        .
        i’m truly sorry for my poor spelling
        i should have taken the bit of time
        to check my spelling and so on and so forth
        property’s
        properties
        publicly
        Israel
        i am shamed
        .
        G-d Bless
        .

  17. MiPerception
    October 24, 2014, 8:51 am

    Two very interesting books worth reading regarding the birth of Israel – Alan Hart’s – Zionism the real enemy the Jews (3 vols) & Against our better judgement – Alison Weir.
    Both will churn the stomach of anyone of conscience.

  18. 666
    October 24, 2014, 9:34 am

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Palestine_Government

    talknic says

    “Uh? They had their own state, Palestine. The British occupied it as trustees under the LoN Mandate ”

    talknic do i understand you correctly.are you whining that there existed a palestinian state with a palestinian government,a leader of that state,a palestinian monetary system,legal system in other words a fully functioning state that was a member of the league of nations or united colours of beneton or whatever

    talknic ……yes or no

    did there ever exist a palestinian state before 1948

    the link above disputes your statement

    • talknic
      October 24, 2014, 10:08 pm

      @ 666 “do i understand you correctly”

      You can’t afford to. Your Hasbara fantasy world would fall to pieces.

      “are you whining that there existed a palestinian state with a palestinian government…”

      What I wrote is factual, there for all to see, supported by official documentation. You’re whining and ignoring. In denial. Desperate.

      A) I gave the links to verifiable primary source documents showing there was indeed a state of Palestine administered under the LoN Mandate for Palestine until such time as that state achieved self government, i.e., independence.

      B) You’ve linked to a wiki article on ” the 1948-59 administration in Gaza” (this is the full, non-mobile version)

      C) Wikipedia can and is written by anyone. Wikipedia’s editorial policies favour third hand opinion over truth or indisputable primary documents with provenance.

      “.. a leader of that state”

      It was administrated by the British under the LoN Mandate for Palestine.

      “a palestinian monetary system”

      The Palestine Pound https://www.google.com.au/search?q=The%20Palestine%20Pound (which was Israel’s first currency BTW)

      ” legal system “

      Under which Jewish folk could gain Palestinian citizenship http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7

      ” in other words a fully functioning state that was a member of the league of nations…”

      LoN Membership? Irrelevant. Was the US a Member? https://www.google.com.au/search?q=members%20of%20the%20league%20of%20nations It never the less existed as a state.

      BTW Israel was not a state until it’s allotted territories, free of the control of any other entity http://pages.citebite.com/t2u4m0k3m9jje , were proclaimed and the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel came into effect

      Until precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 ME time http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf Israel did not exist as a state.
      It did not have an Israeli Government or even an administrative Government.
      It did not have an Israeli monetary system.
      it did not have any elected Israeli leaders.
      It did not have an Israeli legal system.
      It was not a member of the UN.
      There were no Israeli citizens.
      The State of Israel didn’t exist.

      Even today Israel has yet to have a legally elected Government, under a constitution, as promised under the Declaration of statehood!

      Say…. did you have a point?

      Meanwhile, according to official LON documents, Palestine did exist. It had citizens some of whom were Jewish and it had an administrative Government, a monetary system and a system of laws. It even had International contracts with other states, all of which are on the official records of those states. http://wp.me/pDB7k-Qh

      “did there ever exist a palestinian state before 1948”

      If it didn’t exist, what was given provisional recognition?

      “the link above disputes your statement”

      Third hand opinion of Wikipedia is not authoritative. LON documents are!

      • 666
        October 25, 2014, 12:05 am

        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Palestine_Governmenttalknic says

        “Third hand opinion of Wikipedia is not authoritative. LON documents are -”

        third hand opinion ?

        talknic you mean LOL ……..league of liars

        are you saying that the infomation in the link above is false

        if so please point out what parts are

        e4e

      • Mooser
        October 26, 2014, 11:16 am

        C’mon 666! You got to do better than this! You’re not holding up your end of the stool buddy!

        Look, you tell this “talknic” character that we don’t need no stinkin’ facts. The Jewish State is 6,000 years old, and takes precedence over everybody let alone a passel of grubby Palestinians!
        If that “talknic” guy wants “documents”, tell him to go ask G-d for the documents!

    • Brewer
      October 26, 2014, 1:37 am

      “did there ever exist a palestinian state before 1948 – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/10/documents-borders-palestine#sthash.qYNKIpDg.dpuf

      Very silly question asked by those who have never examined the Ottoman system of governance. Doubly silly because a negative answer would not alter one jot of the indigenous people’s right to their own property. Terra nullius was a discarded concept long before Herzl donned his first kippa (or ate his first kipper).

      We who live abroad are accustomed to believe that almost all Eretz Yisrael is now uninhabited desert and whoever wishes can buy land there as he pleases. But this is not true. It is very difficult to find in the land, cultivated fields that are not used for planting. Only those sand fields or stone mountains that would require the investment of hard labour and great expense to make them good for planting remain uncultivated and that’s because the Arabs do not like working too much in the present for a distant future. Therefore, it is very difficult to find good land for cattle. And not only peasants, but also rich landowners, are not selling good land so easily…

      –Ahad H’am 1891.

      • Mooser
        October 28, 2014, 12:17 pm

        Ahad H’am 1891

        Linked to the name is a wonderful post, based on the text, with pictures of old Jaffa.
        Don’t forget the reports on the events of ’48 from the British Mandate administration, it’s at the bottom of the post.

      • RoHa
        November 5, 2014, 11:52 pm

        In other threads some Harbaristas (ivri and Mayhem, for example) have denied my claims that the Zionists intended to take over the land and subjugate the Arabs.

        “To suggest that the Zionists clearly intended from the start to dominate and/or expel the Arabs is absolute baloney – the Zionist were only responding to the way in which the Palestinian Arabs reacted to their growing presence.” (Mayhem)
        “In reality the greater part of the Jewish settlers wished for harmony with the locals and some even romanticized aspect of the Arab way of life and tried to emulate it – with that showing their keen interest for peaceful cooperation.” (ivri)
        http://mondoweiss.net/2014/10/shaking-campus-palestine#comment-718011

        And what do we see here, from Ahad H’am in 1891?

        “[When] the day will come in which the life of our people in the Land of Israel will develop to such a degree that they will push aside the local population by little or by much, then it will not easily give up its place..”

        “We have to treat the local population with love and respect, justly and rightly. And what do our brethren in the Land of Israel do? Exactly the opposite! [T]hey behave toward the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, infringe upon their boundaries, hit them shamefully without reason, and even brag about it.”

        Well, perhaps Ahad was one of those who “wished for harmony with the locals”, but he sems to have been a minority.

  19. pabelmont
    October 24, 2014, 10:17 am

    I just love the idea that the first, last, and only time that Israel stated its borders was on May 15 and that it stated its borders were those of UNGA-181. (Of course, Israel later claimed to annex bits of occupied territory such as Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. Annexing would seem to indicate a change of borders. However, for waheter it’s worth, UNSC said all the annexing was null and void.)

    Now, hem, hem, I have long suggested that Israel should, in any workable :: “just and lasting” :: peace, fall back onto a smaller territory than that which it controlled on June 1, 1967. Of course I thought that that “control” was the same as its “borders”. Now I know different. OTOH, a lot of countries have seemed to think that Israel’s borders were fixed as the June 1, 1967 control-borders. Maybe some of the documents of “recognition” of Israel, even the USA’s, can be interpreted to support the borders-as-in-181 thesis. International lawyers, please step up to the plate to explain if recognition goes with formal documents only or goes with usages, customs, the flow of history, etc.

    I recommend to Israel the benefits to it of falling back onto its declared territory, that is, UNGA-181. Why? Because in that case, enabling a PRoR (which might one day be required) would result in a smaller inflow of Palestinians into Israel — that is, only those refugees who came from Israel-181 woulr return to Isrfael-181, the rest returning to (new, smaller) Palestine.

    • Rusty Pipes
      October 25, 2014, 3:10 pm

      The UN could clarify that it recognizes Israel within its 1948 declared boundaries, making any properties claimed by the Israel Land Authority outside those boundaries beyond its jurisdiction. Placing the responsibility upon the ILA to provide housing within its boundaries for Israeli citizens should go hand in hand with facilitating the Right of Return for Palestinians whose property had been confiscated by the ILA outside Israel’s boundaries.

      On the other hand, the 181 borders do leave those remaining Palestinians with a higher concentration of right-wing Zionist neighbors.

  20. talknic
    October 24, 2014, 12:06 pm

    Here’s an overlay for Google Earth of Israel’s proclaimed boundaries as expressed in the Israeli Govt’s plea for recognition. The outlines following as closely as I am able to UNGA res 181 .

    https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9Vis_gBvX6aYjc5Mjk0YmUtMDRkYS00YmQyLTk1YjQtYzVmNDJiY2MzY2Q0&hl=en_GB

    For help adjusting the transparency in Google Earth http://talknic.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/overlaytransparency01.jpg

  21. Mooser
    October 24, 2014, 12:31 pm

    Gee, talknic, I hate to say this, but when I read all this stuff, I wonder if the Zionist leaders, whom we have always assumed were intent on doing something for the Jewish people, weren’t actually simply, like a lot of other people, more intent on doing something to them. Nah, I shouldn’t think like that.

  22. yonah fredman
    October 24, 2014, 5:38 pm

    The question of Israel’s borders in regards to the partition resolution cannot be neglected particularly by legal minds but also by all people who wish to reflect the truth and fairness.

    yet, jerusalem was not included in the partition plan’s jewish state and it had a population of 100,000 jews at the time. what precisely do you think should have happened to those jews, after the implementation of a trusteeship over jerusalem was nowhere near the table.

    i think if sharett rather than ben gurion had had the power after the war of independence a treaty could have been reached between the Arabs and the Zionist Jews, probably a treaty that would have been resented by most Palestinians as the years would turn into decades, but a treaty nonetheless. ben gurion was not of the personality of compromise, but of assertiveness.

  23. Horizontal
    October 25, 2014, 12:29 am

    I hear all this emphasis on Palestine not being a real state prior to being expropriated by Israel, but isn’t this a bit beside the point? There were people living there for thousands of years, who lived, died and buried their ancestors there. It was, in every sense of the word, their land. Regardless of what they called themselves or what political entities they built for themselves, they existed. And that existence should grant them the right not to be killed, enslaved or driven off their lands by European colonialists, regardless of how entitled or immoral those colonists feel.

  24. talknic
    October 25, 2014, 6:32 am

    @ yonah fredman ” jerusalem was not included in the partition plan’s jewish state and it had a population of 100,000 jews at the time. what precisely do you think should have happened to those jews, after the implementation of a trusteeship over jerusalem was nowhere near the table”

    Well, from at least the Roman era, without the help of the Zionist Federation, Jewish folk could and did hold Palestinian citizenship, buy real estate, settle anywhere in the Jewish people’s historic homeland, including Jerusalem, as your figure appears to attest. Amongst the local majority of non-Jews, they seem to have survived, had children, homes, businesses ….

    The verifiable documented chronological historical record tells us the sh*te started to hit the fan and discontent spread when the Zionist Federation began making noises about having a Jewish state and began financing Jews who were not from the region with no ties to the land, to colonize Palestine. They even encouraged illegal immigration and armed illegal settlers.

    I can’t think of any population who hasn’t taken actions against being colonized by foreigners whose sole aim is to create a state in their territory, can you?

    Especially by foreigners who weren’t from the region, financed by foreign money from a foreign organization that wasn’t from the region, run by people who weren’t from the region, inspired by a foreign guy who wasn’t from the region.

    During his life time Herzl could have gone to live in Palestine, get legitimate citizenship, buy some land and settle anywhere in the Jewish People’s historical homeland. He didn’t even bother, nor did his family.

    • Mooser
      October 25, 2014, 12:33 pm

      Thanks, talknic.

      • Mooser
        October 25, 2014, 12:40 pm

        Ah yes, those poor Jews in Jerusalem! Just about driven out, weren’t they? Barely hanging on to the place.

      • Mooser
        October 27, 2014, 12:30 pm

        Sorta gotta wonder, was the administration of Jerusalem a big sticking-point in the original negotiations?

    • Denis
      October 25, 2014, 3:15 pm

      @talknic: Well, from at least the Roman era, without the help of the Zionist Federation, Jewish folk could and did hold Palestinian citizenship

      Beg pardon?? What, exactly, did “Palestinian citizenship” look like under the Crusader’s occupation in the 12th c. AD, or under the Mongols in the 13th C., or under the Ottomans — to name but a few.

      • talknic
        October 26, 2014, 8:14 pm

        @ Denis under the crusaders occupation, Mongols, Ottomans to name a few, was it not called Palestine?

        The point was to emphasize the fact that Jews existed in the region alongside their fellow inhabitants relatively equally.

        Zionism’s demand for a separate Jewish state has driven a nasty wedge between Jews and non-Jews in the region and what is very likely the most divisive wedge ever between Jews that we have had to face in our history.

        You do help make a point tho. Palestine has ALWAYS been under some form of occupation in part or completely since at least the Roman era, the latest being by the State of Israel.

        Even between the ending of the British occupation under the LoN Mandate at midnight May 14th 1948 and the Israeli declaration coming into effect at 00:01 May 15th 1948, Jewish forces had control of territories not slated for a Jewish state.

        Contrary to the Hasbara, there has NEVER been an opportunity to declare independent statehood for the Palestinians to miss.

        Whereas the Zionist colonizer’s demand for a state has meant missing the opportunity time and time again for Jewish folk and now Israelis to live anywhere in the Jewish People’s historic homeland.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      October 25, 2014, 5:08 pm

      Thank you very much.

    • talknic
      October 26, 2014, 8:41 pm

      jon s “The origins and background of Israel’s declaration of independence have been researched extensively, including the various drafts.”

      So what? Only the final draft has any legal significance and it enshrines UNGA res 181. As do the Israeli plea for recognition and numerous statements by official Jewish representatives at the UNSC before and after independence and long after rejection of UNGA res 181 by the Arabs.

      Because as Rabbi Silver said at the UNSC Friday, 5 March 1948 “As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision of the United Nations. We regard it as binding, and we are resolved to move forward in the spirit of that decision. “ (More)

      Likewise Rostow’s and other opinionsso often held up by the Hasbarristers as tho they are evidence, when in fact before and/or after the final draft they are actually irrelevant to the legality of the final draft of UNSC res 242 and;

      Contrary to the Hasbara bullshit, the final draft of UNSC res 242 doesn’t contain the word ‘negotiate’ or for that matter ‘Palestine’. Why would it? It was a resolution to end hostilities between already defined and already ‘recognized’ states. (More)

  25. michelle
    October 25, 2014, 4:23 pm

    .
    bought the Brooklyn Bridge
    got it for a song
    moving in tomorrow
    want to come along
    .
    G-d Bless
    ,

  26. David Gerald Fincham
    October 25, 2014, 7:27 pm

    Everyone involved in the Israel-Palestine negotiations towards a two-state solution has so far assumed that the final settlement will leave Israel within its current de facto borders, and Palestine consisting of the West Bank and Gaza. I have argued in my article that Palestine should receive additional territory from Israel, in compensation for territory outside its sovereign borders stolen by Israel in the 1948-49 war, and that this territory should be in the southern Negev.

    Some commenters here have suggested an alternative approach: the land was stolen from Palestine in 1948; it should be returned to Palestine now. Israel would be reduced to the territory it declared in 1948. Israeli residents in the stolen land would be given a choice, stay in your homes and become Palestinian citizens, or move back into Israel, within its declared borders. I say to those commenters: your heart is in the right place, but you have lost your heads. Think it through. The two states have to agree their mutual border. The UN does not have authority to impose a solution. Can you produce a plan for political and legal action that could persuade Israel and Palestine to accept what you propose? None of the attempts since 1948 to resolve the conflict have given consideration to the idea that Israel should withdraw to the partition plan boundaries. I suggest that is because it is obviously doomed to failure.

    My proposal has demonstrable benefits for the Palestinians. It is based on the idea of territorial compensation first raised in 1949 by Count Bernadotte, the Arab States and President Truman. I believe it has a chance of success.

    I welcome constructive criticism. But please, it is not helpful to introduce wild alternative ideas that are not thought out, and then denigrate my work when I disagree with what you say.

    • oldgeezer
      October 25, 2014, 9:28 pm

      I don’t disagree with your current post at all. While we may agree, in my opinion, that is not remotely close to what your opening post said. That post stated there was no legal basis on which it could, or would, happen. I disagree and I again feel you overlooked a number of legal issues.

      I agree totally on the reality of the situation.

      That the land does not belong to Israel and that it’s inhabitants have no right to be there is a major point. It is a bargaining chip for the Palestinians in an attempt to get justice. And it needs to be protected as they have few bargaining chips left.

      I wish you had provided some legal reference to refute the legal issues, and principles, raised by many of us but you chose not to.

      With all due respect Dr I find your reference to other’s posts as ill thought out as rather denigrating in and of itself.

    • Mooser
      October 26, 2014, 11:22 am

      ” I say to those commenters: your heart is in the right place, but you have lost your heads. Think it through. “

      I have, and as an American, I have no desire for a solution which will leave Israel dependent on American aid and protection.

    • Mooser
      October 26, 2014, 11:25 am

      ” Can you produce a plan for political and legal action that could persuade Israel and Palestine to accept what you propose?”

      Sure! A slight political shift in the US which makes Israel depend on its own resources for security, and not one in which the US guarantees their superiority. In that case, I think Israeli standards would change.

    • talknic
      October 27, 2014, 12:39 am

      @ David Gerald Fincham

      “I have argued in my article that Palestine should receive additional territory from Israel … etc … that this territory should be in the southern Negev”

      A) Why should there be territorial swaps at all when a change of citizenship could be an option that does not require people to sacrifice their home or any entity to have to sacrifice any of its own?

      B) ‘Think it through’ .. OK … Why should it be the Palestinians who must uproot themselves, why not the Israelis who’re now wrongfully in Palestinian territory and who don’t want to become citizens of Palestine? They can go live in the Negev. Again, no territory swap necessary

      Would you agree to uproot your family from where you do have a right to live, to allow someone who didn’t have the right to live there ?

      There is no equality or for that matter justice in your suggestion. Nor is there in any Israeli suggestion. Israel only intends to swap Palestinian territory for Palestinian territory so it can keep Palestinian territory.

      “Some commenters here have suggested an alternative approach: the land was stolen from Palestine in 1948; it should be returned to Palestine now”

      As a hard bottom line under the law it is actually what is required. As a just basis for where negotiations ought start, rather than based on the Israeli fantasy that territories acquired by war by Israel, are somehow Israeli.

      It also serves to illustrate that, contrary to the Israeli narrative the Palestinian and Arab offers have been INCREDIBLY generous, even compassionate when you consider that innocent Israeli citizens have been duped by consecutive Israeli Governments. Whereas Israeli offers have been the exact opposite. Greedy, having no legal basis what so ever and in contravention of the basic tenets of Judaism re- stealing, coveting other folks property etc, kind of like the UN Charter :-)

      “Israel would be reduced to the territory it declared in 1948. Israeli residents in the stolen land would be given a choice, stay in your homes and become Palestinian citizens, or move back into Israel, within its declared borders.”

      Quite normal expectations. Why should Palestinians have to move to accommodate people who simply have no legal right to be in Palestinian territory?

      “None of the attempts since 1948 to resolve the conflict have given consideration to the idea that Israel should withdraw to the partition plan boundaries. I suggest that is because it is obviously doomed to failure”

      Any suggestion will be doomed for failure if one party refuses to accept it or on acceptance then refuses, demanding more and more. Humanity developed the concept of the Law in order to A) hopefully prevent and/or B) resolve such instances where no resolution can be otherwise reached

      “My proposal has demonstrable benefits for the Palestinians. It is based on the idea of territorial compensation first raised in 1949 by Count Bernadotte, the Arab States and President Truman. I believe it has a chance of success.”

      Having to move from where they have a right to be, is not a demonstrable benefit to the Palestinians.

      Having to move from where they have a right to be, into territory they don’t want and will have to develop, is most definitely not a demonstrable benefit to the Palestinians.

      Having to move from where they have a right to be into territory they don’t want and will have to develop, so that Israelis can stay where they have no right to be, is most definitely not a demonstrable benefit to the Palestinians.

      Why are you not suggesting that Israelis simply move into the Negev if they don’t wish to become Palestinian citizens BTW?

      • David Gerald Fincham
        October 27, 2014, 8:35 am

        Talknic: no time for a full reply, just a few points.

        I have not suggested any Palestinians should move from where they are now.
        My proposal has several benefits for Palestinians BEYOND WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR NOW.
        (1) More territory (2) A contiguous territory (3) An opportunity for the Bedouin to stay where they are now, but be under Palestinian rather than Israeli sovereignty, if they so wish.
        It has not been established that the State of Palestine has a legal right to sovereignty over the ‘stolen land’.
        It has not been established that the Palestinians would prefer the ‘stolen’ land to land in the Negev.
        You are talking about “what should be”, I am talking about “what is the nearest thing to what should be that can be”.

        More later.

    • michelle
      October 27, 2014, 1:30 pm

      .
      if they live in what is legally Palestine territory then
      aren’t they already citizens of Palestine
      .
      it is said by ‘Israel’ that the Palestine people are terrorists
      who kill their loved ones
      it is said by ‘Israel’ that the Israeli people only want justice safety & peace
      .
      that being said the Israel people need to vacate the stolen
      property of the Palestine people or register themselves as
      Palestine citizens in the name of justice safety & peace
      .
      G-d Bless
      .

  27. 666
    October 26, 2014, 1:30 am

    . Jerusalem area based on Vatican model with revolving administration by UN

  28. 666
    October 26, 2014, 1:41 am

    Also soccer stadium to be built in central hebron……. Eu

    Train line from Gaza to Cairo to be built by qatar

    Ford truck manufacturing plant in West bank…. World bank

    Gaza to be extended into Sinai with desalination plant based at Al arish….. Australia

  29. 666
    October 26, 2014, 1:54 am

    Right of return for original refugees

    West bank annexed by Israel,Arab population offered either Israeli or Jordanian citizenship

    South Syria area annexed by Israel incorporated into West bank for resettlement of refugees. Land swap with Syria of parts of golan Heights with strategic areas controlled by Israel or NATO

  30. 666
    October 26, 2014, 1:56 am

    All above to be agreed as part of regional peace agreement enforced by NATO….. Not UN

  31. Brewer
    October 26, 2014, 2:33 am

    Interesting article, reminiscent of the early online Historical debates we thought would settle the matter once and for all.

    We thought once people were made aware of the History, settlement of the issue would swiftly follow.
    Instead, Settlements followed. Facts on the ground. Lebanon. Cast Lead. Mowing the lawn. All illegal.

    It is my current belief that Israel does not give a tinker’s damn for the legal basis of its establishment or any possible ramifications at the U.N. That does not mean we should give up on the legal route however. Every up-tick in awareness of the illegality brings more support for BDS and other, perhaps more effective, strategies. It also undermines the power of the lobby which, in my opinion, is the prop that holds the whole disgraceful edifice together.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      October 26, 2014, 1:30 pm

      Hello Brewer, thanks for your comment. The legal route does put pressure on Israel, but the pressure that would really make a difference would come from the US Government. First step, for the US to back a Chapter 7 at the UNSCE demanding a stop to the settlement building, and be prepared to enforce it with massive sanctions. And Abbas should stop pussyfooting around and go straight to the ICC with a case against all the Israel government ministers authorizing the settlement program, and the military governors implementing it. It is a slam-dunk case, over in an afternoon: except that the suspects won’t turn up for questioning. Still, having arrest warrants out for them would certainly make a big impact.

  32. 666
    October 26, 2014, 4:36 am

    48 kfc built in negev ……

    32 sheep pen for bedouin

    new airport outside ramallah for international flights

    chinese shoe manufacturing plant in lod

    sewerage and waste reclaiming jerusalem east

  33. 666
    October 26, 2014, 4:45 am

    oh and a freeway multi lane linking egypt and turkey with pipeline for gas and oil including 200 macdonalds every 500 km

  34. 666
    October 26, 2014, 4:50 am

    anyway dave at least you gave it a try,one thing i can say though you missed out on a great worldwide sabbath project and challah bake.

    perhaps that will give you an idea of which way things are truly headed

  35. David Gerald Fincham
    October 26, 2014, 1:34 pm

    Response to talknic and others

    I was once a victim of the hasbarists, until I was released by you. No longer. Everything I say is based on my own research and thought processes.

    You have a theory that Israel is legally obliged to surrender to Palestine the territory it captured, outside its own borders, in the 1948-49 war – a.k.a ‘the stolen land’. I have strong doubts about this theory, for various reasons which I have tried to outline.

    But suppose it to be correct: this does not necessarily mean that it should, or could, be enforced.

    The Palestinians deserve and need redress for the illegal theft of their territory. That redress should be in the form of something that helps the Palestinians, and which Israel might accept if under sufficient pressure. The Palestinians do not want the stolen land which is already inhabited, with a mostly Jewish population: they have already said Israel can keep it. And nothing could persuade Israel to surrender it. They would fight even Nato to keep it. Your idea is a non-starter.

    What Palestine really needs is more territory, empty or with a low population, in which the refugees can start a new life. Israel will certainly not accept them. The Negev could be the answer, and it has other advantages as I have outlined.

    • American
      October 26, 2014, 3:05 pm

      They (Israel) would fight even Nato to keep it. Your idea is a non-starter. …..David Gerald Fincham
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      LOL…Go ahead, that’s one way to end the problem.

      Zionist National Anthem

      ♫♫ …..Suicide is painless
      it brings on many changes….
      The game of life is hard to play
      I’m gonna lose it anyway
      The losing card I’ll someday lay
      so this is all I have to say…..♫♫

    • BBSNews
      October 26, 2014, 3:15 pm

      David, many of us have known these facts for many years. No matter how many times they are seemingly newly unearthed, the illegal occupations continue and the state of Israel denies that its actions are illegal. You are fighting against people like Alan (the Dersh) Dershowitz who enjoys wide acclaim even though he expounds what are essentially Nazi methods when it comes to the state of Israel (and only Israel, I’m currently re-reading for the fifth time Beyond Chutzpah, Norman Finkelstein, 2005. It is incredibly depressing that no manner of Human Rights groups attempts have ended these horrific practices).

      A key is to globally recognize what the state of Israel’s borders really are. This helps define the extent of the crimes. The other crimes that flow from this original crime can actively be addressed once the entire planet tells Israel in no uncertain terms:

      “Hey, Israel, this (181) is the state that you legally declared and was recognized. Your attempt at hoodwinking all of us about your borders is now universally understood. Each and every colony outside of the state that you yourself declared to US President Truman is illegal, we know it, you know it, now it is time to own up.”

      It may very well be that the Palestinians will be magnanimous in land swaps and regarding just compensation. But it is the state of Israel, mislead by the racist ideology of Zionism, that got itself into this mess.

      For me, Zionism was satisfied after the state of Israel declared itself based on the borders of the partition. What has happened afterward, for decades, is a Crime Against Humanity from a people who should know better.

      And the only way to get a handle on what could be a massive resurgence of base antisemitism could be nipped in the bud by justice. And that does mean a Chapter Seven resolution, and a clear intent not to destroy Israel but to get it back to within its borders on a fundamental level; and that does not preclude the Palestinians from making concessions to end the conflict.

      The originator of the crimes must be held to full account. Restitution often comes after the trial. And sadly, the United States is going to be held to account for allowing this travesty to ensue. And the reasons for that collusion must also be ferreted out and addressed, because we are culpable. Thanks for your work. Every bit helps.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        October 27, 2014, 9:12 am

        Thank you for your support, I agree entirely with what you say except for one point “to get Israel back to within its borders on a fundamental level” – I suppose you mean the partition borders. I believe that to be both impossible and undesirable. But I certainly agree that the whole truth needs to be understood by everyone. The way to achieve that is for Palestine to ask its friends in the GA to ask the ICJ to give an Opinion as to whether the territory outside Israel’s borders captured in the 1948-49 war and incorporated into Israel was territory acquired by war in violation of customary International Law. That is a slam-dunk, the answer will be yes. And then the ICJ would suggest an appropriate remedy for that past wrong. In my opinion it is much more likely that they would decide on territorial compensation than on territorial return.

      • BBSNews
        October 27, 2014, 3:46 pm

        David, as you know there has been many compromises and offers of compromises by the Palestinians. But the fact remains is that it needs to be made clear to Israel and the world that the state of Israel declared itself inside the borders suggested by UNGA 181.

        This is the factual starting point for resolving the crisis. It is simply not realistic that modern jurisprudence rewards the criminal who committed the crime. You are starting from that point by suggesting that Israel gets to keep what it has stolen.

        When I wrote on a “fundamental level”, I mean it. The entire world must put Israel on notice that the game is up. We know what Israel declared its borders to be and what they accepted.

        It’s time also to put them on notice that those borders are the starting point. If the Palestinians, a provably patient people, want to make a deal, that is their right. But it’s time to make it clear to the planet as well as to the US government that the facts show it is Israel who is and has been in the wrong from the moment Ben-Gurion decided to deceive the world and President Truman and that this deception and blatant criminality is over.

        I believe that US national security depends on it. America has (mostly) always been admired and envied for operating under the rule of law. It’s time for the US to stop giving lip service to the rule of law where Israel is concerned. Much of that admiration has been squandered due to protection of Israel’s illegal colonies, and to the fact that we treat the Middle East as a gas station.

        After decades of being immersed in this subject, I don’t believe it is just politics, I believe there is a fundamental flaw in our being against Putin’s actions but giving a free pass to Israel to kill and steal whatever they want with impunity that no other nation state enjoys.

        I would be interested in knowing your thoughts on where and why that breakdown has occurred. What changed during the Reagan administration? Why was Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions suddenly not applicable to Israel’s colonialism? What happened during that time to render the bedrock international legal principle of ‘territory acquired by force of war is inadmissible’?

        Why did the rule of law suddenly be stood on its head and the USA actively started aiding and abetting Israel’s violent criminality?

      • David Gerald Fincham
        October 28, 2014, 5:11 am

        Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely the world must realize that Israel declared its borders on 14th May 1948 and know where those borders are. Since talknic pointed me in that direction a few years ago I have been saying that on every possible occasion to every possible audience that I can. My family call it an obsession, and they are right. I am overwhelmed with anger about the way the Palestinian people have had their land stolen and rights trampled upon. I am furious about the way in which the Zionists have created the situation if which “everyone knows” that “Israel has never declared its borders”. They fooled me, they fooled the history professors, they fooled the international lawyers and they fooled the Palestinians, and as a result the Palestinians have given away too much. What is needed is a clear Opinion from the ICJ that the territory captured by Israel in the 1948-49 war, outside its declared borders, was illegally acquired by war, and that the regime imposed there was in violation of Chapter XI of the UN Charter. Then everyone would know the truth, and the discussion about the future of Israel and Palestine could restart from that basis.

        I am not familiar with American politics. I think the rot started with Truman. He wrote a very strong SECRET letter to Ben-Gurion blaming him for the breakdown of the talks in Lausanne, and threatening to break off relations with Israel if it did not change its rigid attitude to both the refugee and the territorial questions. But what did he do politically when he was rebuffed? As far as I know, nothing.

        How can American citizens reverse the support given by their government to Israel’s manifold crimes? Here is an idea that has just popped into my head. Start a campaign in which Americans make a pledge to NEVER VOTE FOR A POLITICIAN WHO RECEIVES MONEY FROM AIPAC or other Zionist organisations. What do you think?

    • seafoid
      October 27, 2014, 9:16 am

      The Palestinians do not want the stolen land which is already inhabited, with a mostly Jewish population: they have already said Israel can keep it

      That is so wrong. they will never cede East Jerusalem and it doesn’t matter how many miserable settlers live there. If you want to talk about swaps why not cede northern Israel to the Palestinians? Why does it always have to be worthless land? Most Israeli Jews live in a narrow rectangle between Hadera and Ashdod anyway.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        October 27, 2014, 10:40 am

        Hello Seaford. I haven’t mentioned Jerusalem, but surely the only possible solution there is joint sovereignty. Both states have declared it to be their capital. Now Abbas has limited it to East Jerusalem. Big mistake.

        I have not proposed any land swaps, I have proposed the transfer of parts of the southern Negev from Israel to Palestine. I don’t agree that the Negev is worthless. I gave three reasons for selecting it (1) it has a low population density, so the land can be developed for the returning refugees (2) Palestine could be made contiguous; (3) the Bedouin could be transferred from Israeli sovereignty to Palestinian sovereignty without moving, if they wish. They probably would, since the Israel government wants to displace them to make way for Jewish settlers).

        Your idea of a transfer of territory in northern Israel to Palestinian sovereignty is interesting. In fact the Arabs asked for it as well as for the Negev in 1949. But again, the question is whether the existing population would agree to it. You cannot assume that the Arab residents would want to be Palestinian citizens rather than Israeli citizens.

      • Mooser
        October 27, 2014, 10:45 am

        “Hello Seaford”

        Said Finchman.

      • American
        October 28, 2014, 9:17 am

        ”Start a campaign in which Americans make a pledge to NEVER VOTE FOR A POLITICIAN WHO RECEIVES MONEY FROM AIPAC or other Zionist organisations. What do you think? …….David Gerald Fincham

        Much simpler to just say –and tell the politicians—you wont vote for any politician that supports Israel,——— any aid to Israel, any weapons to Israel, any ‘sharing’ of US Intel or tech with Israel’, any favoritism in trade or visas for Israel, any vetoing of UN Res on Israel.

        You cant usually tell what is pro Israel Pac money to politicians because they disguise their many Pacs with misleading names like Green River Citizens and etc. to cover their tracks.
        The fact they ‘hide’ the pro Israel aspect should tell you something.

        Here’s a partial listing of their Pacs, but this doesn’t show everything. Jewish orgs in each state regularly form pacs for a certain campaign to finance a certain politician and then disband it afterward and then will form a different one for another campaign.

        http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?cycle=2014&ind=Q05

      • David Gerald Fincham
        October 28, 2014, 4:05 pm

        I thought that basing it on AIPAC would help, because it emphasizes that the politicians are not only wrong, but also corrupt. But I am not an American, so over to you.

    • BBSNews
      October 28, 2014, 12:45 pm

      David, you write: “Start a campaign in which Americans make a pledge to NEVER VOTE FOR A POLITICIAN WHO RECEIVES MONEY FROM AIPAC or other Zionist organisations. What do you think?”

      I think it is a fine idea but would quickly be put down as antisemitic. It really needs to be done at the top, and we saw what happened with that when President Obama proclaimed that the 1967 borders should be the starting point. It was quickly a non-starter and gave the wingnuts in this country another batch of ammunition towards the ‘Kenyan, Muslim Boy King, stuffed shirt, community organizer, Marxist, Socialist, Communist’ etc etc.

      I was toying with the idea of a Kickstarter campaign to protect the state of Israel within it’s declared borders it accepted, and only was I being partially tongue-in-cheek. But a lone old grey-haired editor of a news site that many think is antisemitic because I side with the rule of law and the Palestinians would also be about as valuable as a fart in the wind…

      I’m not afraid of the anti-Semite charge because I am not in the least. But as a member of JVP and various other organizations I understand the huge wall of propaganda and sheer ignorance that stands in the way.

      Like the Lutheran article I just read here, and the latest comment I just answered at the Times of Israel, many people just focus on the latest carnage and never even bother to look at the root cause.

      The stock answer I often receive in trying to get out the truth is a non-answer to the facts, just that usual Hasbarian ‘what Palestine? What currency? It never existed. Palestinians are invented by Arafat, the KGB, the ___insert nonsense here___ type of answers and I know that this is because no leader, even when they nibble around the margins, ever comes out and squarely says, “the colonies are illegal, the emerging Israel declared it’s borders in accordance with UNGA 181 and it is illegal to steal land and resources outside of them.’

      But even after decades of trying, I will continue until I expire. Thanks David, we mostly agree and its been a pleasure.

    • Rusty Pipes
      October 28, 2014, 8:55 pm

      DGF,

      I hope you do take the opportunity to look further into Abu Sitta’s work. He has researched closely where the Palestinian refugees came from, where they went and what is the status of the real estate they left behind. He believes that the Palestinian ROR is doable, especially in stages.

      Even if a full ROR is not politically feasible, it is worth noting that around half of the refugees come from rural Palestine, often from farms that have been given to neighboring kibbutzim, from villages that have fallen into disrepair “for security reasons,” or have been hidden from view by JNF forests. Much of this land is not being farmed by Jewish Israelis. The kibbutz economy and ideology has changed considerably since the time of Israel’s founding. Many of the agricultural workers are brought into Israel illegally from Asia in large-scale agribusiness.

      The ILA and JNF are part of Israel’s systematic disenfranchisement and oppression of Palestinian refugees, both internal and external. All of the land which it confiscated “for security reasons” or through eminent domain from its own Palestinian citizens can not be reaccessed by them. Recognizing that some of that farmland is outside of the internationally recognized borders of Israel (and therefore not within Israel’s administrative rights to exercise imminent domain or to turn over to the ILA) could provide more basis to exert UN leverage for some Palestinian refugees, internal and external, to return to their farms and villages. While new urban developments in the Negev, may be feasible for some Palestinian refugees, they are not appealing to farmers.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        October 29, 2014, 12:07 pm

        Yes, I did read Abu Sitta’s article with great interest. Certainly I think that the maximum possible pressure should be put on Israel to allow the return of the refugees. It is great that Abu Sitta has shown that this realistic in terms of available land etc. But his starting point is that Israel should become a democratic state, not a Jewish state where non-Jews are always going to be at a disadvantage. How do you achieve that? And how long is it going to take?

        Another point is that it is now nearly 7 decades since 1948. People change, new generations are born, the world has changed in countless ways. Some of the refugees might prefer to stay where they are in the Arab states as citizens; some might prefer to end up in Palestine, rather than as a discriminated minority in the Jewish State, even if it means ending up in the Negev, and making their own desert bloom. Some might prefer to go to Europe or the USA or Chile. If not, the Negev does have its uses, it’s a great place for solar energy.

  36. Egbert Talens
    October 26, 2014, 4:39 pm

    If it wasn’t sad and disturbing for both Jewish and non-jewish inhabitants in the Palestinian region, one coluld speak of ‘interesting stuff’ re David Gerald Fincham, talknic, and other people, who are discussing a tragic topic for which there is no healthy or proper solution. As a matter of fact, the p-zp is an unpractical and unfeasible undertaking, despite the fact Israel exists since 14th May 1948. By p-zp I mean: the political-zionist project (der Judenstaat) as it was conceived around 1860 and gradually developed through the following decades. If democracy had been part of it, and the indigenous population of Palestine had been fully involved, Jewish ánd non-jewish, it would have been a complete different matter: a democratic development, with all the benefits of what democracy really means. Alas, a great worldwide sabbath project and challah bake is presented to us, it seems, but my expectations are of a complete different structure: one more generation to go, and this p-zp will have come to its end: approx. 2040 thís Israel will cease to exist…

    BTW: Dr Fincham, just for the sake of accuracy: Count Bernadotte cannot have presented an idea of territorial compensation in 1949. He was murdered in Jerusalem by a political-zionist group on 17th September 1948.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      October 27, 2014, 9:19 am

      Re: Count Bernadotte; you are quite right, that was a silly error on my part, thanks for the correction.

      • Mooser
        October 27, 2014, 10:54 am

        So, that does leave the question hanging: Is this a “territorial compensation” plan Bernadotte presented earlier, before his death, or is it not something Bernadotte did at all?

      • David Gerald Fincham
        October 27, 2014, 11:21 am

        Hello Mouser: the former. Oops, sorry Mooser, another silly mistake.

      • Mooser
        October 27, 2014, 12:34 pm

        “Hello Mouser: the former. Oops, sorry Mooser, another silly mistake.”

        Oh, don’t give it a second though, happens all the time.

      • Mooser
        October 27, 2014, 12:36 pm

        “The former”

        Then it was a plan submitted earlier by Bernodotte. Thanks.

      • Egbert Talens
        October 27, 2014, 1:43 pm

        On July 13th ’48 Bernadotte confronted UNSC with a seven-points-plan. Point 6 dealt with the urgent question of refugees; to be precise: Palestinian refugees. B. was very much surprised, if not flabbergasted, by the way his Israeli counterparts kept aloof in this matter. Altogether this plan made Bernadotte a marked man.

      • Mooser
        October 28, 2014, 12:21 pm

        “Altogether this plan made Bernadotte a marked man.”

        And by Sept. of that same year, he was assassinated.

  37. 666
    October 26, 2014, 6:29 pm

    egbert talens says

    .” Alas, a great worldwide sabbath project and challah bake is presented to us, it seems, but my expectations are of a complete different structure”

    of course everyone has expectations of a positive outcome but did you take part in the sabbath project

    if not would you consider this

    the sabbath project directly impacts on events in israel,not in 2040 or whatever date seems appropriate to you and only you

    unity amongst jews in the diaspora will enable jews in israel to make the important decisions they need to make.welcoming israeli jews into vibrant communities outside israel,a safety net,will release some of the demographic pressure that has built up in israel.the fact is that population growth is causing serious political problems and can only lead to genocide.

    sacred space in every person,in every house,in every country.

    • talknic
      October 27, 2014, 2:46 am

      @ 666 “unity amongst jews in the diaspora will enable jews in israel to make the important decisions they need to make.”

      Iinteresting theory. Please elucidate.

      Say … Do you think that if Jews in the diaspora knew Israel has been lying about its borders for the past 66 years they’d come down in favour of Israel’s illegal acquisition of other folks territory?

      “welcoming israeli jews into vibrant communities outside israel,a safety net,will release some of the demographic pressure that has built up in israel.”

      Uh? I always thought Israel is the safety net.

      “the fact is that population growth is causing serious political problems and can only lead to genocide”

      For a ‘fact’ it’s an interesting theory. Maybe the Israelis illegally in non-Israeli territory should leave.

      Here’s a fact: Israel is in breach of the law, refusing to stay in its own territory, has caused serious political, life and death problems and IS leading to genocide judging by the calls of “death to all Arabs”

    • Egbert Talens
      October 27, 2014, 6:28 am

      @666: For what it’s worth, Henry Kissinger predicted Israels fall to happen in the twenties of the 21st century.
      People, Jews also — of course; why shouldn’t they — tend to think about the future, especially about what will happen after their death. As such some of them create all kinds of precautionary measures, in which others may share, íf… showing adherence to such a structure of faith, belief a.s.f.; some call this religion, but I do not. For me, religion is the equivalent of morals, ethics; and though this sééms to refer towards a plurality, religion as such must be taken as the realm consisting of whatever ethical thought holds out in the practicallities of daily life: singular, therefore. I must apologize for my rather vague explication; I am almost following in your footsteps, a vain effort (to me!) to explain a circumstance in such a way that goes beyond mý imagination. It pleases me to see that talknic asks for an elucidation; somehow we seem to share similar thoughts ad hoc.

      An interesting, though seemingly wishfu,l observation: unity amongst jews in the diaspora. Why only there? So far, they seem to have been unable to bridge this gap… Friedrich W. Nietzsche could have commented: Menschliches, Allzumenschliches…

      • Mooser
        October 27, 2014, 10:51 am

        Damn, this should be interesting, Yonah has met his match!

        ” It pleases me to see that talknic asks for an elucidation”

        So why not give him one? Are you worried it would be premature?

  38. 666
    October 27, 2014, 8:23 am

    talknic

    the unity of jews in the diaspora is neccesary to create a counterweight to jews in israel,bring about a balance between excess and discipline this is called tiferet

  39. 666
    October 27, 2014, 8:29 am

    here is a basic explanation of tiferet

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiferet

    • Mooser
      October 28, 2014, 12:29 pm

      “The unity of jews in the diaspora is neccesary to create a counterweight to jews in israel”

      Unity among the Jews in the Diaspora? That. my friend, is going to be one hell of a job, not approached lightly or without training! Why don’t you spend a few years herding cats, as a start? Sort of work your way up to the big-time?
      I mean, you do want to keep in mind that unity among Jews (in or out of the diaspora) would be an unprecedented first, a state never seen before in this world.

      But let’s get started, shall we, “666”.
      First question: Unity along which lines? According to which model? I’m sure you’ve got something we can all agree to, right? What is it?

    • Egbert Talens
      October 28, 2014, 6:09 pm

      As soon as the Kabbala pops up, e.g. in combination with tiferet, I have to be cautious not to be carried away by … my own imagination. Especially where arithmatic in Tenach is concerned. Now you, 666, may be of service to me, by explaining to me the following: in Be’midbar (unfortunately distorted to Numbers) — the fourth Torah-chapter — this number is mentioned: 22.000 or rather: twenty-two-thousand (3:39). My question to you, 666, is whether this number is the sum of the preceding numbers: seven-thousand-five-hundred (3:22), eight-thousand-six-hundred (3:28), and six-thousand-two-hundred (3:34). ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ will do, to me; you don’t have to explain to mé this strange, or if you, 666, prefer peculiar, phenomenon, but others, say Mooser or talknic, might be curious in case they are unfamiliar with this ‘miracle’.
      I would be very much obliged to you, 666, if your eventual answer would be in plain writing; my intelligence is by far insufficient in comparison to yours, so please bear with me…

      • Mooser
        October 29, 2014, 8:48 pm

        ” but others, say Mooser or talknic, might be curious”

        We’ve already talked about this. And I’m stickin’ with Billy Preston.

      • Egbert Talens
        October 30, 2014, 5:35 am

        @Mooser: good of you, to keep me informed. And as far as 666 is concerned: she/he chooses to remain silent re my question. For obvious reasons, we may assume. And what is more: nó answer ís an answer. Subject closed.

      • seafoid
        November 5, 2014, 3:16 pm

        666 was the lowest point the S&P reached after the fall of Lehman Bros.
        Those Goldman kabbalists were surely behind it.

  40. Mooser
    October 31, 2014, 1:11 pm

    “Subject closed.”

    I guess so, since I can’t add.

    • Egbert Talens
      October 31, 2014, 1:32 pm

      @ Mooser: you cóuld add, by choosing the right button to reply; but there’s no need to, I think.

      I do have another question, though: you wrote “We’ve already talked about this…” and my question is, what this ‘this’ actually entails. Was it really about this error — I can only see it as such — in the fourth chapter of the Torah: Be’midbar 3:39? I really wonder if this would be the case. Tell me, please…

      • Mooser
        November 1, 2014, 5:45 pm

        We had a numerological discussion earlier, which also included information on the nature of “0” and its qualities.
        An interesting tangent, but I generally remain convinced by Preston’s Axiom.

      • Mooser
        November 1, 2014, 5:52 pm

        Oh, you’re right, I can add, there’s a calculator on the Desktop! Now let’s see what were those number? Okay, here they are:

        3.39+3.22+3.28+ 3.34 = 13.23

    • Egbert Talens
      November 2, 2014, 12:13 pm

      @Mooser:
      What can I say: funny stuff, or … ‘funny’ stuff. Let me try to explain. Your, Moosers, first mentioning ‘Billy Preston’ took me to the late USA-born singer Billy Preston, the one with the most impressive hairstyle. But now, by your mentioning ‘Preston’s Axiom’, it seems to me that you meant a different Preston than the American singer. Am I right?

      Related to my approach — rather distastefully handled, I admit; but people like 666 give cause to this by their discourteous tactics to prevent a proper discussion; what to say of 666′ total neglect of my question — ‘Preston’s Axiom’ arguably does make much more sense than a luxuriant hairstyle does, imho.

      However, unfamilliar with ‘Preston’s Axiom’ I will refrain from any comment at this moment. In case some change is going to occur at this end, I may feel need contacting you again.

      As far as your numbers are concerned: those mentioned by you are nót numbers, nór figures, but indications, in this case cyphers indicating biblical verses in the chapter Be’midbar (improperly mentioned chapter Numbers). The relevant numbers are 7.500, 8.600 and 6.200, totalling 22.300, and nót totalling 22.000 as Be’midbar will have it…

      • Mooser
        November 5, 2014, 10:43 am

        Preston’s Axiom? “Nothin; from nothin’ leaves nothin’, and you gotta have something, if you wanna be with me!”

        Forgive me, I have forgotten the original Hebrew, and the haunting melody. But the meaning abides with me eternally. It’s like I told ya’, I’m a soldier, in the war on poverty!

      • Mooser
        November 5, 2014, 10:46 am

        But really, much more important that that (Preston was, all things considered, not a major Rebbe, although he charted). Have you seen the update on the article?

      • Mooser
        November 5, 2014, 10:50 am

        “As far as your numbers are concerned:”

        I used a calculator, and I ” worked it out with a pencil” like another illustrious reformer. Don’t try any New Math on me, Mister.

  41. David Gerald Fincham
    November 7, 2014, 1:53 pm

    In my article I said that the Palestinian leadership does not understand the legal distinction between Israel’s sovereign territory (as declared and recognized on May 14, 1948), and the ‘stolen land’, outside those borders, acquired by Israel and illegally incorporated into the State during the subsequent war with the Arabs.

    I attributed that misunderstanding partly to the widely held and fictitious view that Israel has never defined its borders, and mentioned the views of Professor Francis A. Boyle, a PLO adviser, who seemed to support that misunderstanding when he said in 1990 that “Israel does not have determinate borders” http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/1/1/1136.pdf

    This page has now been updated with a response from Professor Boyle which appears at the head of the page. In this he explains that when he said “Israel does not have determinate borders”, he meant that the border between Israel and Palestine had not been agreed by the two parties, because the Palestinians rejected the Partition Plan.

    I am sorry that I misinterpreted his article, but I must say that it was not at all clear. The paragraph from which I quoted starts:

    “The territory of a state does not have to be fixed and determinate. For example, Israel does not have fixed and permanent borders (except most recently with respect to Egypt) and yet it is generally considered to be a state. Thus, the state of Palestine does not have to have declared borders either. Rather, borders will be negotiated between the government of Israel and the government of Palestine.”

    He seemed to me to regard ‘fixed and determinate’, ‘fixed and permanent’, and ‘declared’ as equivalent. I use the word ‘defined’ as equivalent to ‘declared’: ‘determinate’ is a stronger word and I assumed it to mean ‘defined and recognized’. And the borders of Israel certainly were defined on May 14, 1948, and recognized by the USA that day and later by many other states, although not by the Palestinians and Arab states.

    In his response above Prof. Boyle also says: “I advised the PLO not to accept the Partition Resolution 181 so as to maximize the extent of their territorial demands… My advice was not taken.” I find this remark incomprehensible, because in the same article he goes on to say “The Declaration of Independence explicitly accepts the General Assembly’s partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947” and he explains the importance of this.

    In his article Boyle goes on the say this:

    “To be sure, however, it is quite clear from reading the Palestinian Declaration of Independence and the attached Political Communique that the PLO contemplates that the new state of Palestine will consist essentially of what has been called the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with its capital being East Jerusalem.”

    It is not “quite clear” at all. The Declaration says “The Palestine National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem.” It does not define the extent of “our Palestinian territory” nor does it mention East Jerusalem.

    Similarly, the Political Communique, while emphasising the importance of ending the occupation, in line with UNSC Resolution 242, nowhere says that the Palestinian territory is limited to the territory occupied in 1967. Nor does it mention East Jerusalem.

    Arafat may have been contemplating a Palestine consisting of the West Bank and Gaza, but he was very careful not to say so, to give himself the maximum freedom in negotiations.

    In my article I mentioned another remark by Boyle, in his same article, concerning Resolution 242, which he says “set forth” the boundaries of the Palestinian state. I called it a “nonsensical fiction”. I would like to explain that at greater length.

    The Resolution listed two fundamental principles essential to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East:

    (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
    (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment 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.

    The resolution is easy to interpret if we bear in mind a simple principle: a Security Council Resolution is not a puzzle to be solved; it is a legal document which means what the words say.

    Principle(i) is a specific response to the 1967 Six-Day war in which Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights, and Sinai. A just and lasting peace cannot possibly include continuation of the recent occupations. Israel’s troops must go back to where they came from. That is back to Israel, inside Israel’s de facto border, the Green Line. Principle(i) is about the end of the occupation.

    Principle(ii) is general, and could be applied in any conflict situation. Put colloquially, it says that states in the area should stop fighting, get together to sort out where their borders are, and stick to them. Principle(ii) is about the negotiation of final status issues, including borders.

    Boyle and others have jumped to the conclusion that, because Principle(i) only asks for withdrawal to the Green Line, the Resolution confirms the Green Line as Israel’s border and legitimates the land theft of 1948-49.

    There is no justification for such a view. No such words appear. Nor could they, because the UN has no authority to tell states where their borders are: states must agree that between themselves. The two Principles are distinct, and both must be satisfied; (i) is not an implementation of (ii).

    Judge Al-Khasawneh of the International Court of Justice confirms this view:

    “The Green line is the starting line from which is measured the extent of Israel’s occupation of non-Israeli territory. There is no implication that the Green Line is to be a permanent frontier.” http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1685.pdf

    If Arafat was contemplating a Palestine consisting of the West Bank and Gaza, it may have been because he accepted the unfounded view of Boyle and others that this was what Resolution 242 was saying. Boyle in his 1990 article, after mentioning the significance of the Palestinian acceptance of 242, as he saw it, said “today, the PLO would be prepared to accept boundaries for the state of Palestine that would consist essentially of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.”

    As far as I have been able to determine, the PLO did not publicly make such a statement between 1988 and 1990. If I am correct, and such a statement was made privately by Arafat to Boyle, then in my view Boyle undermined the Palestinian negotiating position by making it public in his article.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      November 8, 2014, 8:05 am

      I have now figured out that when Boyle in his response said that he advised the PLO not to accept UNGA Resolution 181, this was an error, and he meant to say UNSC Resolution 242. I have rewritten this post accordingly, and the new version appears below.

  42. Egbert Talens
    November 7, 2014, 4:40 pm

    The Israeli-Palestinian conflict may well be called: a jungle of landrights legislation. There is hardly another conflict where students in international law could practice more intensely and/or in a broader sense, than with regard to what political zionists have been able to bring forward as ‘der Judenstaat’, the state of the Jews; nót the Jewish state. This political-zionist project (p-zp) would not have stood a chance, were it not for the Sho’a or the Holocaust. When, after probably more than two centuries from now, the real and whole background of this horrible crime will be known, the I-P-conflict itself will no longer exist, since the p-zp is untenable in this era of international law.

    A realistic observer cannot overlook the fact that either party, the state of Israel and the Palestinians, cannot honestly give in to what UN-GA res. 181-II has in store to them. Israel wants the whole area beween the river and the sea, and so do the Palestinians. As a modus vivendi the two-states-construction could and should be forced on them — by either the UN or the Quartet — and I am convinced the Palestinians could, would and wíll accept this. Playing the game well, the Palestinians will shortly be in a position to rule themselves in the 181-II Arab State. Their protection will/can be guaranteed by a UN-police force.
    Please observe that here is no indication re a two-states solution. Because a two-state construction leaves this question open: will it work, and if so, than after some decades the parties may resolve to reach a solution; in order to arrive at what in 1922 the LoN had in mind: a selfsupporting Palestine with space and possibilities for áll communities of whatever inclination regards faith, gender and political conviction: a true democracy therefore…

    This is not what the political zionists want, and amongst the Palestinians also there will be opponents to this concept. It is therefore a matter of what the majorities in either community are able to acclomplish…

  43. Mooser
    November 7, 2014, 8:18 pm

    “The Israeli-Palestinian conflict may well be called: a jungle of landrights legislation.”

    Absurd, patently absurd. I’m no expert, but I don’t think “landrights legislation” has, well, booger-all to do with it.

  44. David Gerald Fincham
    November 8, 2014, 8:09 am

    In my article I said that the Palestinian leadership does not understand the legal distinction between Israel’s sovereign territory (as declared and recognized on May 14, 1948), and the ‘stolen land’, outside those borders, acquired by Israel and illegally incorporated into the State during the subsequent war with the Arab states.

    I attributed that misunderstanding partly to the widely held and fictitious view that Israel has never defined its borders, and mentioned the views of Professor Francis A. Boyle, an adviser to the PLO on their 1988 Declaration of Independence. Boyle seemed to support that misunderstanding when he said in 1990 that “Israel does not have determinate borders” http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/1/1/1136.pdf

    This page has now been updated with a response from Professor Boyle which appears at the head of the page. In this he explains that when he said “Israel does not have determinate borders”, he meant that the border between Israel and Palestine had not been agreed by the two parties, because the Palestinians rejected the Partition Plan.

    I am sorry that I misinterpreted his article, but I must say that it was not at all clear. It seemed to me that when Israel defined its borders on May 14, 1948, and had been recognized on those borders by the USA, the USSR, and many other states (although not the Arab states or the Palestinians), its borders were determinate. How much better it would have been if he had said “agreed”.
    In his response ab
    ove Prof. Boyle also says: “I advised the PLO not to accept the partition Resolution 181 so as to maximize the extent of their territorial demands… My advice was not taken.” I find this remark incomprehensible, because by accepting the partition resolution in their Declaration of Independence, the PLO recognized the existence of Israel within the partition borders, and therefore maximised their possible territorial demands to all of the territory of the Arab state in the Partition Plan.

    I can only conclude that he has made an error in his response above, and he meant to say that “I advised the PLO not to accept UNSC Resolution 242 so as to maximise the extent of their territorial demands.” This is consistent with his view, which I quoted in my article, that Resolution 242 “set forth” the boundaries of the Palestinian state, and that these boundaries include only the West Bank and Gaza. In my article I called this a “nonsensical fiction”. I would like to explain that at greater length.

    The Resolution listed two fundamental principles essential to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East:

    (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
    (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and 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.

    The resolution is easy to interpret if we bear in mind a simple principle: a Security Council Resolution is not a puzzle to be solved; it is a legal document which means what the words say.

    Principle(i) is a specific response to the 1967 Six-Day war in which Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights, and Sinai. A just and lasting peace cannot possibly include continuation of the recent occupations. Israel’s troops must go back to where they came from. That is back to Israel, inside Israel’s de facto border, the Green Line. Principle(i) is about the end of the occupation.

    Principle(ii) is general, and could be applied in any conflict situation. Put colloquially, it says that states in the area should stop fighting, get together to sort out where their borders are, and stick to them. Principle(ii) is about the negotiation of final status issues, including borders.

    Boyle and others have jumped to the conclusion that, because Principle(i) only asks for withdrawal to the Green Line, the Resolution confirms the Green Line as Israel’s border and legitimates the land theft of 1948-49.

    There is no justification for such a view. No such words appear. Nor could they, because the UN has no authority to tell states where their borders are: states must agree that between themselves. The two Principles are distinct, and both must be satisfied; (i) is not an implementation of (ii).

    Judge Al-Khasawneh of the International Court of Justice confirms this view:
    “The Green line is the starting line from which is measured the extent of Israel’s occupation of non-Israeli territory. There is no implication that the Green Line is to be a permanent frontier.” http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1685.pdf

    In his article Boyle says this about the territory of Palestine:

    “To be sure, however, it is quite clear from reading the Palestinian Declaration of Independence and the attached Political Communique that the PLO contemplates that the new state of Palestine will consist essentially of what has been called the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with its capital being East Jerusalem.”

    It is not ” clear” at all. The Declaration says “The Palestine National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem.” It does not define the extent of “our Palestinian territory” nor does it mention East Jerusalem.

    Similarly, the Political Communique, while emphasising the importance of ending the occupation, in line with Resolution 242, nowhere says that the Palestinian territory is limited to the territory occupied in 1967. Nor does it mention East Jerusalem.

    If Arafat was contemplating a Palestine consisting of the West Bank and Gaza, it was because he accepted the unfounded view of Boyle and others that this was what Resolution 242 was saying. However, he was very careful not to say so, to give himself the maximum freedom in negotiations.

    Boyle in his 1990 article, after mentioning the significance of the Palestinian acceptance of 242, as he saw it, said “today, the PLO would be prepared to accept boundaries for the state of Palestine that would consist essentially of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.”

    As far as I have been able to determine, the PLO did not publicly make such a statement between 1988 and 1990. If I am correct, and such a statement was made privately by Arafat to Boyle, then in my view Boyle undermined the Palestinian negotiating position by making it public in his article.

    • ET
      January 28, 2016, 10:56 am

      No Sir,

      I PLO Chairman Arafat [PBUY] never considered that the borders were the 1949 Armistice Line
      .
      .
      II The 1987- 1990 Context
      1 Origin for backdoor channels at Oslo
      .
      1.1 Personally contacted Shamir & Begin in 1987
      .
      1.2 Personally contacted King Hussein in 1987
      .
      1.2.1 King Hussein dissolved Parliament that had West Bank Delegates since 1967 & reconstitute Parliament with those Delegates
      .
      1.2.2 King Hussein stopped paying the salaries of the Civil Servants at West Bank that Jordan had kept on paying since 1967
      .
      1.3 Note: Saeb Erekat was on the “Washington track”
      .
      2 Arafat’s Geneva speech is predicated on “International Legalities” manifesting the the recognition of UNGA 181, UNGA 273UNSC 242, UNGA 3236, & I_973 Geneva Conventions
      .
      Post 1990 Madrid: Utterance of the words “UNSC 242” were a condition of USA for sponsorship of the Oslo backdoor channel negotiations
      1 Washington DC Ceremony 1993
      .
      2 Later on agreement to UNSC 338 was also made conditional for continuance of USA sponsorship
      .
      .
      III Our position has not changed vis-a-vis UNGA 181, UNGA 273, UNSC 242, UNGA 3236, & I-973 Geneva Convention
      .
      1 Arafat_Rabin Agreement was breached at Camp David [2000] with Israeli unilateral introduction of “Clinton Plan” with “landswaps”
      .
      1.1 Its why Arafat walked away from that session
      .
      2 Note: Self-evident that Abbas has been corrupted with his 2007 coup
      .
      2.1 During the POTUS Bush43 Administration the negotiations where Israel vis-a-vis USA & not with Arafat
      .
      2.1.1 Self-evident with the Bush43 Letter to Sharon that is documentation of co-conspiracy to commit War Crimes
      .
      2.2 Abbas entertaining that “landswaps” proposal that with POTUS-Elect Obama entering the Whitehouse was renamed “Obama Plan” as if changing the name would grant that unlawful premise any validity
      .
      .
      3 Sharon at 1st rejected the Arafat_ Rabin Agreement & post Karine A did embrace the Arafat_Rabin Agreement that became the Arafat/ET_Rabin/Sharon Agreement
      .
      4 IDF Operation Barbarossa [2000] that triggered 2nd Initfada [2000-2005]
      .
      4.1 Siege at Arafats’ Compound [2002]
      .
      4.2 Netanyahu came along & this is where we are at of Breach of 1993 Oslo which is a UNSC 242 foundation agreement
      .
      4.2.1 Failure of USA beginning with Bush43 to honor its Trust as Guarantor
      .
      .
      IV Arafat_Rabin Agreement
      1 UNSC 242 Compliance
      .
      2 Offer to lease the geographacals of three largest settlements at UNGA 181 State of Palestine West Bank
      .
      2.1 Lease is not equal to cession of sovereignty
      .
      2.2 Lease is not equal to introduction of “landswaps” of sovereignty
      .
      3 Arafat/ET_Rabin/Sharon Agreement was inclusive of premised Lease of three largest geographicals
      .
      3.1 This offer has been withdrawn to address Netanyahu Breaches of UNSC 338, UNSC 242 foundation 1993 Oslo
      .
      4 Note: Your grasp of understanding for UNSC 242 ph 4., 1., subparagraphs (i) & (ii) is equal to our understanding
      .
      .
      IV Present position: 100% UNSC 242 & I_973 Compliance of vacating all I-973 Geneva Convention Article ipos facto War Criminal israeli Citizenry from UNGA 181 State of Palestine Greenline Gaza & West Bank territories
      .
      1 Offer to retro-Lease Whiteline Palestine territory of Negev, North Gaza, Rams Head, Beersheba, & Galilee

      1.1 1947 -2017 Retro lease
      .
      1.1. November 29th 2017 to November 28th 2027 Option: Ten Year Lease
      1.1.1 Negotiable & has 2nd ten year option
      .
      2 Gaza Territory: Full Sovereign Powers Five Year Fixed Term Transition

      2.1 Mandates lifting IDF War Criminal siege

      2.1.1 Whiteline Palestine East Gaza territory to be transferred to PINC_G political administration & National Defense
      .
      2.2 Transitionals: Real World Governance
      .
      2.2.1 Joint_Command: UNGA 181 State of Palestine Gaza Territorial Waters

      2.2.2 Border Commission #424 Five Year Fixed Term
      .
      2.3.2.1 Joint_Administration of Border Crossings at Highway #
      & #24
      .
      2.3.3 Israel collects tariffs; Joint Fund Control
      .
      3 West Bank Territory: Ten Year Fixed Term Transfer to Full Sovereign Powers
      .
      4 Mutual Security Guarantees
      .
      4.1 Transitionals
      .
      4.2 Joint_Command Construct
      .
      4.3 Status of IDForces at UNGA 181 State of Palestine West Bank Territory
      .
      5 Jaffa District
      .
      5.1 Offer for Sale withdrawn
      .
      5.2 Political condominium: Five year Fixed Term
      .
      5.2.1 Political Administration to PINC_G
      .
      5.2.1.1 UNGA State of Palestine retains sovereignty
      .
      5.2.2 Joint_Command for National Defense
      .
      5.2.3 Object: Provisional Capital of United Provinces of the State of Palestine
      .
      .
      VI Articles of Confederation of United Provinces of the State of Palestine
      .
      1 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=943633179059817&set=a.862461040510365.1073741848.100002394314450&type=3&theater
      .
      .
      .
      Emmanuel Tierra
      DC_CJOS
      MANCAT
      UNGA 181 State of Palestine
      .
      Former National Security Adviser
      PLO Chairman Arafat [1987-2004

  45. talknic
    November 21, 2014, 10:46 am

    @ Prof. Francis A. Boyle ” Israel did indeed accept the Partition Resolution 181 and its Borders. But the Palestinians never did. In fact the Palestinians rejected the Partition Resolution. So there were no mutually determined borders between Israel and Palestine.”

    However the borders of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt had already been determined and in the acceptance of Israel’s proclaimed sovereign extent by the majority of the International Comity of Nations, the borders of Palestine were defined by default of its neighbours’ borders, including those of Israel.

    Independence is by its nature unilateral. Mr. Herschel Johnson of the United States speaking on the Palestinian Question on 28 October 1947, stated, “The element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only.”

  46. ET
    January 28, 2016, 9:49 am

    I State of Israel with its May 11th 1949 UNGA 273 Accession top UN Charter “unreservedly agreed’ to the International Law context stipulated of UNGA 181 & UNGA 194
    1 Its not a Civil War of “two-state solution” insurgent secession where borders are to negotiated
    .
    .
    II Borders are non-issue for Israel_Palestine Negotiations
    1 Borders are defined in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries
    2 Its a Two_State UNGA 181 Resolution
    .
    2.1 Self-evident with UN Charter Chapter XII Artilce 85 UN Organ Administrator passing Artilce 84 functions & powers UNGA 3236 Recognition of PLO
    .
    .
    III Abbas has been corrupted & does not International Law Lawful represent the People of the United Provinces of the State of Palestine
    1 Corruption: Vienna Convention on Laws of Treaties Article 50
    .
    2 Self-evident with Abbas 2007 coup & subsequent entertaining “land swaps” proposals in breach of UNSC 242; Breach of
    UNGA 3236; & breach of I_973 Geneva Convention
    .
    2.1 Vienna Convention on Laws of Treaties Article 53 jus cogens disqualifies an agreement from the get-go that breaches any multi-lateral agreement that both parties are independently bound to honor
    .
    .
    IV Israelis object has been to commit fraud to get Abbas to cede Whiteline Palestine territory occupied in 1949 of Negev, East & North Gaza, Jaffa District, Rams Head, Beersheba, & Galilee
    .
    1 Self-evident with the Abbas Saudi [& French] sponsored UN Charter Chapter XII Article 83 UN Draft that pursues of object to contravene UN Charter Chapter XII Article 78 vis-a-vis A/RES/67/19
    .
    2 Vienna Convention on Laws of Treaties Article 49 Fraud
    .
    .
    V MANCAT Defense Policy vis-a-vis Abbas powers
    .
    1 Vienna Convention on Laws of Treaties Article 47 Notification
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=901471446609324&set=a.513375965418876.1073741833.100002394314450&type=3&theater

  47. Hanna Kawas
    January 28, 2016, 2:04 pm

    U.N. General Assembly resolution 273(111) was the basis for admitting Israel as a state to the U.N. That resolution stated: ” Recalling its resolution of 29 November 1947 (the Partition Plan) and 11 December 1948 (the Right of Return), and taking note of the declaration and explanation made by the representative of the government of Israel before the ad hoc Political committee in respect of the IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SAID RESOLUTIONS (my emphasis), the General Assembly … decides to admit Israel into the membership of the United Nations.”
    Israel has never implemented either.

Leave a Reply