The Making of Israel: Zionist settler colonialism in historic Palestine

Israel/Palestine

This Sunday May 15 marks the 68th Nakba Day, an occasion of commemoration for the over 750,000 Palestinians that were forcibly displaced by Zionist militias between 1947 and 1950. For Palestinian communities, the violence of the Nakba started much earlier than 1948 and continues today. Our latest visual covers 143 years of Zionist settler colonialism.

Data from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics shows how European Zionists began establishing population centers in Palestine in the 1870s, with British imperial support. From 1967 to present, Israel has continuously engaged with impunity in the construction and expansion of settlements defined as illegal under International Law.

VP partnered with 7amleh, the US Campaign to end the Israeli Occupation, and Zochrot on this visual. It is available in English, Arabic and Hebrew.

About Visualizing Palestine

Visualizing Palestine is the intersection of communication, social sciences, technology, design and urban studies for social justice. Visualizing Palestine uses creative visuals to describe a factual rights-based narrative of Palestine/Israel. To learn more visit visualizingpalestine.org.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

60 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    May 13, 2016, 5:20 pm

    I don’t get it. What am I missing? The map is just a time-static map, no history there. Is this a java-script problem?

  2. DaBakr
    May 13, 2016, 8:02 pm

    @pm

    i’l cut to the chase for you so you don’t have to miss anything:

    the map says: zionists stole and/or ethnically cleansed nearly 80% of the the land from the ‘river to the sea’ and probably more if you consider the only open land mass left is inhospitable desert, a lot of which the zionists went on to lie about making it bloom with irrigation technology when the ‘truth’ is it was all stolen water from palestinians. . also-they started doing it in the early 20thC long before ’48. oh-the map does not include the ‘de-colonization’ of gaza by the rotten evil zionist entity. other then that its a totally undistorted view of history. finally.

    • Mooser
      May 13, 2016, 10:47 pm

      “the map says: zionists stole and/or ethnically cleansed nearly 80% of the the land from the ‘river to the sea’ and probably more if you consider the only open land mass left is inhospitable desert, a lot of which the zionists went on to lie about making it bloom with irrigation technology when the ‘truth’ is it was all stolen water from palestinians. “

      Yes, of course, that’s the macro story, but you can zoom in all the way down to individual streets and towns, too.

    • echinococcus
      May 14, 2016, 12:41 am

      oh-the map does not include the ‘de-colonization’ of gaza by the rotten evil zionist entity.

      You mean when it was decided to undo the status of settlement area for colonist murderers and war criminals, pulling them out and overcompensating them so the place could be made into a giant concentration camp, where annihilation is conducted in the form of regular massive turkey shoots, in-between lower daily quotas of killings.

      Transforming a colonial murder occupation into an concentration/elimination camp is effectively some progress, only in which direction?

    • eljay
      May 14, 2016, 8:42 am

      || @Daa: … zionists stole and/or ethnically cleansed nearly 80% of the the land from the ‘river to the sea’ and probably more if you consider the only open land mass left is inhospitable desert, a lot of which the zionists went on to lie about making it bloom with irrigation technology when the ‘truth’ is it was all stolen water from palestinians. . also-they started doing it in the early 20thC long before ’48. oh-the map does not include the ‘de-colonization’ of gaza by the rotten evil zionist entity. … ||

      It’s nice to finally see you acknowledging the acts of injustice and immorality – the evils – that you and your Zio-supremacist co-collectivists have been advocating, undertaking, justifying, defending, supporting and/or excusing for decades.

      One can only hope that you and your Zio-supremacist co-collectivists will actually do something to right those wrongs instead of continuing to advocate, undertake, justify, defend, support and/or excuse them.

      • DaBakr
        May 15, 2016, 2:08 am

        @e

        what’s there to do? what you want is only going down with a fight. there is no other nation that would willingly give up sovereignty to a majority of people (the 20% citizenry which already enjoy full suffrage, legal protection and rights regardless of religion , colour or tribe) and their(palestinian) growing millions of unrestricted special-status so-called 3rd, 4th and 5th generation ‘refugees who have no interest in living in a jewish nation and homeland so-either you’ll live long enough o get your wish or you won’t. thats pretty much that. sorry if this is a blunt assessment but its not like you are not aware of my views.

      • eljay
        May 16, 2016, 8:51 am

        || DaBakr: @e what’s there to do? what you want is only going down with a fight. … ||

        What there is to do is justice, accountability and equality. That’s going up, not down. No need to fight it.

        || … there is no other nation that would willingly give up sovereignty … ||

        Israel doesn’t have to give up sovereignty. Israeli refugees are Israeli. Unlike non-Israeli Jews, they have every right to live in their Israeli homeland.

        || … its not like you are not aware of my views. ||

        I’m well aware that like all hateful and immoral Zio-supremacists you’re not worried about Israel – you’re worried about religion-supremacist “Jewish State”.

      • silamcuz
        May 16, 2016, 10:09 am

        Eljay

        What there is to do is justice, accountability and equality. That’s going up, not down. No need to fight it.

        Are “justice, accountability and equality” only expected of Israelis, and not Canadians or Americans? Is denying white privilege part of aspiring up towards “justice, accountability and equality”?

      • eljay
        May 16, 2016, 10:44 am

        || silamcuz: … Are “justice, accountability and equality” only expected of Israelis, and not Canadians or Americans? … ||

        It is expected of all people.

        || … Is denying white privilege part of aspiring up towards “justice, accountability and equality”? ||

        White privilege is not part of “aspiring up towards” justice, accountability and equality. I don’t deny that white privilege exists. Do you?

        Whataboutism – which you regularly engage in – is also not part of “aspiring up towards” justice, accountability and equality. You might want to stop engaging in it.

      • talknic
        May 16, 2016, 1:05 pm

        @ DaBakr May 15, 2016, 2:08 am

        ” what’s there to do? “

        Quite simple. Withdraw from all non-Israeli territories. Israel withdrew from all Egypt’s territories resulting in peace with an Arab state.

        ” what you want is only going down with a fight”

        It was illegally acquired by Israel by war and you advocate war to keep it. Why am I not surprised?

        “here is no other nation that would willingly give up sovereignty to a majority of people”

        Uh? Israel’s Jewish population long ago far outstripped the number of cleansed non-Jewish Israeli citizens and their lineal descendants were they to return to Israel.

        The UNRWA figure is NOT the number of refugees seeking to return to Israel. The UNRWA figure is the number of refugees, both non-Jewish Israelis and Palestinians who’re afforded assistance while they are refugees.

        “(the 20% citizenry which already enjoy full suffrage, legal protection and rights regardless of religion , colour or tribe) “

        Save the wholly holey Hasbara crapolla pal

        “and their(palestinian) growing millions of unrestricted special-status so-called 3rd, 4th and 5th generation ‘refugees”

        Only some of whom have a right of return to Israel. The majority have a right of return to what remained of Palestine when Israel Proclaimed its border effective May 15th 1948 in order to be recognized.

        ” sorry if this is a blunt assessment..”

        It’s Hasbara bullsh*t.

  3. James Michie
    May 14, 2016, 10:20 am

    Phil and Adam, your “visualizing” map is not visualizing on my computer screen. The screen remains a dull gray.

    That aside, again, I would suggest that you cease legitimizing Zionist Israel grand theft of Palestine land and territory. Ethnic cleansing deserves to be labeled what it is–“ETHNIC CLEANING”!

    Your headline, “The Making of Israel: Zionist settler colonialism in historic Palestine”, should read: The Zionist grand theft and ethnic cleansing of a country, historic Palestine.

    As you know, Phil and Adam, the Zionists who “founded” Israel did not purchase Palestine from its rightful owners, the Palestinians. The “founding” of Israel is grounded in massacre, brutality, racism, ethnic cleansing, ongoing grand theft and horrific military occupation of virtually all of Palestine.

    • Annie Robbins
      May 14, 2016, 11:33 am

      Phil and Adam, the Zionists who “founded” Israel did not purchase Palestine from its rightful owners, the Palestinians. The “founding” of Israel is grounded in massacre, brutality, racism, ethnic cleansing, ongoing grand theft and horrific military occupation of virtually all of Palestine.

      james, i’ll make sure they get this message in case they don’t read all the comments today, this really is startling information, i’m not sure i’ve ever heard it expressed with such conviction. thanks for sharing.

      oh, and about that dull grey computer screen. see if you can download flash or some app like that. it’s an interactive and working fine for me.

    • jon s
      May 14, 2016, 4:56 pm

      At least until 1948 -under the Turks and then the British -the land for Jewish settlement was purchased from the landowners.

      • gamal
        May 14, 2016, 5:39 pm

        “At least until 1948”

        at least we’ll always have that, no, no they can’t take that ….bought it fare and square, we disagree in the end it is our consent you will need, learn Arabic. Why are you always addressing others when talking about our world there are Arabs and Palestinians posting here talk to us.

        https://youtu.be/ehMx12dSF6w

      • talknic
        May 14, 2016, 7:11 pm

        @ jon s May 14, 2016, 4:56 pm

        “At least until 1948 -under the Turks and then the British -the land for Jewish settlement was purchased from the landowners”

        Real estate was bought, not territory and under the British adminstration Jews were to settle as citizens of the Nation State of Palestine, [per the LoN Mandate Article 7 and subsequent nationality law of 1925

      • Mooser
        May 14, 2016, 8:40 pm

        “At least until 1948 -under the Turks and then the British -the land for Jewish settlement was purchased from the landowners.”

        I guess the main qualification for an ‘Israeli history’ teacher is not knowing the difference between “real estate” and “national territory”

        Let me guess, “Jon s”, because Jews bought it, it becomes “Jewish land”?

      • jon s
        May 15, 2016, 6:42 am

        gamal,
        I’m not sure I understand your point. Sometimes a comment is addressed specifically to a fellow commenter, sometimes it’s not.
        I’m fully aware of the need for Israelis and Palestinians to talk to each other. The need for that dialogue is very high on my wish list.

      • Mayhem
        May 21, 2016, 12:38 am

        And remember Talknic Jews were entitled under the LoN Mandate to settle anywhere between the river and the sea.

      • talknic
        May 21, 2016, 1:07 pm

        @ Mayhem May 21, 2016, 12:38 am

        “And remember Talknic Jews were entitled under the LoN Mandate to settle anywhere between the river and the sea”

        Indeed, as Palestinian citizens in the Nation State of Palestine per Article 7 of the LoN Mandate for Palestine http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7 and the subsequent 1925 adoption of Palestine’s Nationality Law. Ever dared to read Article 7? Or is it forbidden?

    • Talkback
      May 15, 2016, 8:49 am

      James Michie: “That aside, again, I would suggest that you cease legitimizing Zionist Israel grand theft of Palestine land and territory. ”

      I was with you labeling settlements as “illegal settlements” but how much can one put into a headline without telling the whole story?

  4. Citizen
    May 15, 2016, 4:50 am

    Quora
    According to Jewish land purchase in Palestine, by 1943, $560000000 was paid for nearly 400000 acres, amounting to around 6% of the land.

  5. Mayhem
    May 21, 2016, 12:29 am

    I hear this statement over and over and over again

    expansion of settlements defined as illegal under International Law

    Just because the assertion of illegality is repeated over and over again doesn’t make it true. Most of the world have had their brains hijacked on this issue by those ignorant of the legal complexities, propagandists and pro-Palestinian sympathisers who follow the dictum “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”
    Professor Eugene Kontorovich makes the case debunking the notion of ‘illegality’ but hacks like Talknic keep harping on about Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention (inapplicable), violations of the Hague conventions re the principle that it is illegal to acquire territory by force (inapplicable ), the UNGA resolutions which are non-binding and UN Security Council resolutions under chapter VI which are actually intended to be followed and implemented via negotiated settlements between concerned parties etc.

    • talknic
      May 21, 2016, 3:30 am

      @ Mayhem May 21, 2016, 12:29 am

      “Just because the assertion of illegality is repeated over and over again doesn’t make it true”

      Correct. Same for the assertion that they’re not illegal. However, the UNSC unanimously adopted UNSC resolution 465 and it is very clear

      “Most of the world have had their brains hijacked on this issue by those ignorant of the legal complexities, propagandists and pro-Palestinian sympathisers who follow the dictum “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.””

      Comedy simply isn’t your forte

      “Professor Eugene Kontorovich makes … “ a bloody idiot of himself.

      “Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention (inapplicable)”

      Strange, the West Bank as it is now known, was legally annexed at the request of the Palestinians Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950). at the demand of the other Arab states and it was a part of a UN Member state by 1967, a High Contracting Power and signatory to the Geneva Conventions

      Which is why the UNSC adopted UNSC res 465 reminding Israel of binding International Law, the UN Charter and binding relevant convention by re-affirming and emphasizing binding International Law, the binding UN Charter and binding GC’s and outlining Israel’s obligations to binding International Law, Charter and Convention

      ” violations of the Hague conventions re the principle that it is illegal to acquire territory by force (inapplicable )”

      I see, the UNSC just puts that in for laughs. Aren’t they funny

      ” the UNGA resolutions which are non-binding and UN Security Council resolutions under chapter VI which are actually intended to be followed and implemented via negotiated settlements between concerned parties etc”

      All International Law is binding on all states at all times. The UN Charter is binding on all Member States at all times without exception. Conventions ratified by states are binding on those states no matter which UN resolution they’re reaffirmed or emphasized in. That’s why the UN/UNSC emphasizes and re-affirms them

      BTW thanks again for affording the opportunity to show honest readers just how full of wholly holey Hasbara crapolla jerks like Professor Eugene Kontorovich and his phsycophants (sic)are

      • Mayhem
        May 21, 2016, 9:26 am

        Talknic, your bluster is no substitute for the facts.
        The Jordan annexation of the West Bank was never recognised by the UN or any country other than the UK and Pakistan.
        UN Security Council resolution 465 makes no mention of international law. In fact if you go to the wikipedia discussion on the subject of international law you will find nothing that equates the frequent bigotry of UN resolutions with what is encompassed by international law.
        And I note above that you have not found a rejoinder to my remark about what the LoN mandate (a legally binding treaty) said about Jews being entitled to settle ANYWHERE in the mandate of Palestine.

      • talknic
        May 21, 2016, 1:51 pm

        @ Mayhem May 21, 2016, 9:26 am

        “Talknic, your bluster is no substitute for the facts”

        Fact is, I supplied links to sites stating the facts

        “The Jordan annexation of the West Bank was never recognised by the UN “

        Yes it was. UNSC res 465 tells us GC IV applies. It applies because by 1967 the West Bank was a part of a High Contracting Power, that being Jordan

        “or any country other than the UK and Pakistan”

        Uh huh. A) Recognition of annexation by other countries isn’t relevant. The legality is by agreement between the annexing country and the legitimate citizens of the territory to be annexed.
        B) Were it illegal, the UNSC would be bound by the UN Charter to condemn it, like they did the unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel.
        C) No country on the planet has ever recognized Israel other than by its plea for recognition

        “UN Security Council resolution 465 makes no mention of international law”

        Try reading it you stupid stupid person

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

        5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
        https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/5aa254a1c8f8b1cb852560e50075d7d5

        The fact that the majority of the International Comity of Nations have ratified GC IV means it has passed into Customary International Law.

        “In fact if you go to the wikipedia discussion on the subject of international law you will find nothing that equates the frequent bigotry of UN resolutions with what is encompassed by international law”

        A) Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and its editorial policies favour second hand opinion over citing actual documents. Editors use their own words, i.e., their opinions, to reflect the opinions of published authors. Entries can be included and maintained by consensus even if that entry can be proven by the cited documents to be false.

        B) Most UN/UNGA/UNSC resolutions against Israel are merely reminders of Israel’s obligations to adhere to International Law and the UN Charter. For example UNSC res 252 has EIGHT reminders. It’s not bias. When the power company issues reminders for breaking a contract by non-payment, are they biased?

        “And I note above that you have not found a rejoinder to my remark about what the LoN mandate (a legally binding treaty) said about Jews being entitled to settle ANYWHERE in the mandate of Palestine.”

        A) Strange, I did http://mondoweiss.net/2016/05/colonialism-historic-palestine/#comment-840369 and;
        B) I’ve mentioned it to you before
        http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/zionism-is-finally-in-the-news-as-officials-seek-to-conflate-anti-zionism-with-anti-semitism/#comment-834776
        http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/cut-the-gordian-knot-a-response-to-ban-ki-moons-landmark-speech/#comment-822082
        http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/cut-the-gordian-knot-a-response-to-ban-ki-moons-landmark-speech/#comment-822075

        B) Who was the ‘treaty’ between?

        C) I’ve answered all your requests. YOU on the other hand have a very looooong list of unanswered requests, quite typical of Ziojerks http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=Mayhem

      • Sibiriak
        May 21, 2016, 4:56 pm

        talknic: Were it [Jordanian annexation of the West Bank] illegal, the UNSC would be bound by the UN Charter to condemn it, like they did the unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel.
        ——————————-

        Likewise, if Israel’s annexation of territory inside the “Green Line” /outside UN res. 181 recommended borders were illegal, the UN would have condemned that illegality (or at least recognized it). That never happened.

        As Hostage described it:

        Under international law, an armistice agreement allows the belligerents the same rights and duties as those of an ordinary state. Those rights are not limited to the rules contained in the Hague regulations or the Geneva Conventions. Both Israel and Jordan extended their municipal jurisdiction to the new territories. Despite complaints from the Arab League,that was perfectly legal under the terms of their agreements. [emphasis added]

        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/05/obama-wont-have-to-write-another-speech-for-aipac-on-monday/#comment-320525
        —————————————
        The parties concerned entered into international armistice agreements which granted the belligerents civil jurisdiction to apply their municipal laws up to the “Green Lines”. That is the normal definition of annexation. [emphasis added]

        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/12/haaretz-columnist-says-2-state-solution-is-dead-and-global-community-must-help-us-toward-equal-rights#comment-408395
        —————————————
        Neither Jordan nor Israel were ever treated as “belligerent occupying powers” under the terms of the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements. Full Stop. Both countries extended the jurisdictions of their municipal laws and courts right up to the Green Line.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/on-the-jewish-israeli-street-theres-no-solution-to-palestinian-issue-but-more-violence#comment-517419

        ———————————-
        Jordan became a full member of the United Nations on December 14, 1955.

      • talknic
        May 21, 2016, 8:58 pm

        @ Sibiriak
        I’m at odds with Hostage’s assertion re “Under international law, an armistice agreement allows the belligerents the same rights and duties as those of an ordinary state. Those rights are not limited to the rules contained in the Hague regulations or the Geneva Conventions. Both Israel and Jordan extended their municipal jurisdiction to the new territories. Despite complaints from the Arab League,that was perfectly legal under the terms of their agreements.”

        Jordan annexed the West Bank by agreement with the majority of the legitimate inhabitants, thereby it was legal to extend their municipal jurisdiction to the West Bank.

        31st Aug 1949 Israel made an attempt to claim territories beyond the extent of its sovereign frontiers
        The claim was rebuffed , citing the Armistice Agreements, specifically the Armistice Demarcation Line is not to “be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary”

      • Sibiriak
        May 24, 2016, 9:10 am

        @talknic The main point of my post was this:

        You have repeatedly claimed that a lack of UN condemnation proves that Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank was legal.

        It follows then that the lack of UN condemnation of Israel’s annexation of territory within Green Line/outside UN res 181 recommended partition borders proves that that annexation was also legal.

        You can’t have it both ways.

        ——————————

        [talknic:] I’m at odds with Hostage’s assertion re

        “Under international law, an armistice agreement allows the belligerents the same rights and duties as those of an ordinary state. Those rights are not limited to the rules contained in the Hague regulations or the Geneva Conventions.

        Both Israel and Jordan extended their municipal jurisdiction to the new territories. Despite complaints from the Arab League, that was perfectly legal under the terms of their agreements. [emphasis added]

        Hostage has documented those assertions in many posts. What legal sources can you cite that contradict them?

        The argument is clear and logical:

        1) The UN sponsored Armistice agreements allowed Israel to legally extend its civil law over territory on its side of the Green line.

        2) A state’s extension of civil law (aka sovereignty) over territory is the very definition of “annexation”.

        3) Therefore, the Armistice agreements allowed Israel to legally annex that territory.

        A plebiscite is not required for an annexation to be legal. Nor does a plebiscite automatically make an annexation legal. If it did, all instances of annexation following a secessionist plebiscite, for example, would be legal. That’s not the case, as any review of the literature on secession/annexation will reveal.

      • Sibiriak
        May 24, 2016, 9:31 am

        Talknic: Jordan annexed the West Bank by agreement with the majority of the legitimate inhabitants, thereby it was legal to extend their municipal jurisdiction to the West Bank.
        ——————-

        (Trans)Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank was an orchestrated land grab, not a genuine exercise in self-determination. I’m not arguing that it wasn’t legal, but let’s not confuse legality with morality– sometimes they overlap; often they do not.

        It was the armistice agreements originally imposed by the Security Council as a “provisional measure” under Article 40 of the UN Charter that determined the exact border between Israeli territory and (Trans) Jordanian territory and constituted the legal basis for Jordan’s subsequent extension of Jordanian law over that defined territory.

        Following the 1948 War, Abdallah moved quickly to translate his ambitions into reality by taking several steps to annex the east-central part of Palestine. The initial preparatory step was accomplished on October 1, 1948, when many Palestinian “notables,” who were invited to Amman by King Abdallah, declared that no Palestinian government would be formed until all of Palestine was liberated.9

        The second step occurred on December 1, 1948, when a large number of the Hashemite supporters in the West Bank gathered in Jericho and called for unity between the West Bank and Transjordan under the leadership of King Abdallah. Abdallah, who attended the meeting, declared himself “King of Palestine.”10

        On April 24, 1950, a Jordanian parliament composed of East and West Bankers ratified the union of the two banks.

        It is important to note here that neither a plebiscite nor a referendum was employed before the Jericho Meeting or after it to involve the Palestinians of the West Bank in determining their future.

        King Abdallah had no intention of affording the Palestinians such an opportunity. In fact, the formation of an “all-Palestine government” and a Palestinian National Council in Egyptian-administered Gaza might have prompted Abdallah to hasten the annexation of the West Bank. [emphasis added]

        Ali Jalal Abed, “Israel’s Policies in the West Bank and Gaza” p.23
        ————————–

        So there was no plebiscite on annexation. What there was were rigged national “elections” after which representatives followed the dictates of King Abdallah and approved the annexation.

        John Glubb, commanding general of the Arab Legion (later the Jordan Royal Army) described the nature of Jordanian elections in that period:

        It is scarcely possible to arrange an election in Jordan in which there will not be foul play. The cheating takes place either at the ballot boxes or during the count. The officials at the ballot boxes can work from several methods. Some of the electors are illiterate, and the officials in charge of the boxes fill in their papers for them. At times, officials on the ballot boxes provide themselves with several thousand papers filled up in favour of the candidates whom they support. An opportunity will most certainly occur to slip these into the box. Some voters are undecided and pleased to accept the advice of the official. The procedure for counting also provides opportunity for cheating.

        Quoted in Roger Dietrich, “Factionalism and the Traditional Palestinian Arab Leadership’s Resistance to British and Jordanian Political Policy, 1920-1967”, p.47.

        —————————–

        Many Palestinians believed that Abdullah had been responsible for the humiliating defeat which the Israelis had inflicted on the Palestinian people. The Hashemite King was faced with the task of establishing some semblance of legitimacy for his regime in the eyes of the Palestinian community. He accomplished this task by using a loyal element of the traditional Palestinian Arab leadership. Abdullah recognized that the urban notable families still remained the recognized leaders of the population. Just as they had been integral players in the British Mandate, the “mediating” influence of the notables between the local population and the central government became indispensable to the government in Amman.

        Abdullah’s ideas on the annexation of the West Bank were in direct opposition to that of the Husayni supporters. The Hashemite King was determined to prevent the creation of an independent state that would thwart his expansionist objectives.

        To accomplish this task Abdullah could not allow the formation of a united front on the part of the urban notables.

        Jordanian strategy was aimed specifically at fracturing the Palestinian leadership so as to insure an impotent nationalist movement. The Husaynis had to be eliminated as a political force.

        […] the most significant wrongdoing which Abdullah could perpetrate in the eyes of the Husaynis was the King’s forceful lobby for partition in 1937. The Husaynis quickly realized that the Zionists were not the only imperialists who sought to occupy their territory. The Hashemites, with the Arab League, were a credible threat towards a Husayni dominated Palestinian state.

        […]The Husaynis remained the dominant faction of the Palestinian nationalist movement and were unwilling to relinquish control of this movement or to subordinate themselves to Jordanian interests. Any attempt to co-opt the Husayni side represented “plenty of danger” to the new Jordanian regime. As a result, Abdullah worked to exclude the Husaynis from Jordanian government.

        In order to do this Abdullah needed the support of some element of the urban notables. He found this element in the Nashashibis and their supporters. [….]Jordanian policy was directed mainly at exploiting the Nashashibi/Husayni split.

        […]At all levels of government the Jordanians excluded Husayni supporters from positions of power. The Jordanian system of government resembled a western democracy. Their existed a two house representative assembly with an Executive Body led by a Prime Minister.

        In reality these bodies were little more than window-dressing as all legislative power emanated from the King. The function of the Cabinet was to carry out the will of the King…

        […]In conclusion, the Jordanian Kings were successful in co-opting one element of the Palestinian leadership into their regime. The Nashashibis and their supporters willingly acted as collaborators, irrevocably fracturing the unity of the Palestinian national movement. The Husaynis were excluded from all positions of power…The Palestinian leaders allowed the Jordanian Kings to exploit the Husayni/Nashashibi split. The result was the Palestinian leaders put up no credible resistance to the Jordanian occupier. In this way factionalism had destroyed the Palestinian leaders’ ability to effect change.

        However, to say that the Palestinian leaders must assume the bulk of responsibility for not achieving Palestinian independence is to ignore the context in which they found themselves after 1948. Jordanian policies overcame the strengths and abilities of the Palestinian leaders.

        After 1948 the Palestinian leadership had no choice but to turn to the Jordanians. The Jordanians physically occupied the West Bank with a military force the Palestinians could not defeat. Moreover, in the absence of a superior military force the Palestinian leaders were tied to Jordan whether they liked it or not.

        This weakness made the Palestinian leaders susceptible to Jordanian policy. This policy was aimed at co-opting a section of the Palestinian leadership and ensuring that an all-West Bank leadership did not emerge. The control of Cabinet portfolios, stifling the West Bank political organization, marginalization of Jerusalem as a center of power and the encouragement of local interests kept the national leadership in disarray. [emphasis added]

        Roger Dietrich, “Factionalism and the Traditional Palestinian Arab Leadership’s Resistance to British and Jordanian Political Policy, 1920-1967” p.41-52
        ——————————————

        King Abdallah’s orchestrated Jericho conference and subsequent rigged elections may have provided a plausible justification for some states to recognize Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank–but they are not what made it legal.

        Don’t delude yourself. Jordan was not a democracy. Annexation of the West Bank was not Palestinian genuine self-determination. Despite the facade of elections and a parliament, Hashemite King Abdallah was an autocratic ruler bent on expanding his Kingdom and preventing at all costs the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

      • Sibiriak
        May 24, 2016, 9:59 am

        Talknic: 31st Aug 1949 Israel made an attempt to claim territories beyond the extent of its sovereign frontiers. The claim was rebuffed,
        ———————————

        When you tried to make that argument last year, Hostage quickly batted it down:

        [Talknic:][August 2015] As late as 31st Aug 1949 Israel was still attempting to claim territories beyond the extent of those in its plea for recognition Israel’s claim was rebuffed citing the Armistice Agreements

        [Hostage:] Bear in mind that the General Assembly was called back into session by the Security Council to reconsider the Plan – and that it had adopted a resolution on 14 May suspending the work of its Palestine Commission. The same resolution created yet another subsidiary organ, the Office of the UN Mediator for Palestine. The new organ had a legal mandate which amounted to a blank check to revise the plan, i.e. “Promote a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine;” See A/RES/186 (S2) link to yale.edu

        The General Assembly eventually replaced that subsidiary organ with yet another one, the Palestine Conciliation Commission with a much weaker mandate.

        I don’t see how anything it said “rebuffed” Israel’s new territorial claims, since the text of Article 40 of the UN Charter itself doesn’t even allow the Security Council to do that under the terms of a Chapter 7 “provisional measure” – and that was the Article it had cited in its resolutions on the cease fire and armistice lines. It says:

        “In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures. […] [emphasis added]

        http://mondoweiss.net/2015/08/independent-sovereign-palestine/#comment-789745
        ——————————-

        At that time you accepted Hostage’s clear reasoning. But now you are resurrecting the discredited argument.

        The Palestine Conciliation Commission was established by the UN to promote a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem (http://www.badil.org/phocadownload/Badil_docs/bulletins-and-briefs/Brief-No.5.pdf). It consisted of just three representatives, from France, Turkey and the U.S. As Hostage pointed out, that three-member commission with a weak mandate had zero power to “rebuff” claims by any of the involved states, let alone make definitive interpretations of international law.

        Ironically, Zionist Hasbarists, with their own reasons to denigrate the significance of the “Green Line,” also promote the notion that the Armistice lines cannot be legal international boundaries.

        Of course, anybody can manufacture a legal theory that suits their ideological objectives. The bottom line, as already pointed out above, is that to date neither the UN or nor the ICJ have ever condemned the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank or Israeli annexation of territory inside the Green Line (Jerusalem being a special case).

        If the lack of UN condemnation proves the legality of the Jordanian annexation—as you have repeatedly claimed– then it must prove the legality of Israeli annexation as well.

      • Sibiriak
        May 24, 2016, 10:56 am

        talknic: …citing the Armistice Agreements, specifically the Armistice Demarcation Line is not to “be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary”
        ————————–

        Actually, in regards to the “Armistice Agreement with the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom” ( as opposed to the agreements with Egypt and Syria), the Palestine Conciliation Commission cited Art. 6, paragraph 9, which states:

        The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto. [emphasis added]

        http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arm03.asp

        No one is arguing that the Green Line must be the permanent border in any final agreement. However, the phrase “without prejudice to future settlement or boundary lines” in no way precludes the Green Line from being an enforceable international border until such a future agreement materializes—and it may never materialize.

        [Hostage: ] […] international armistice lines of demarcation are legal boundaries under customary international law, especially ones that were adopted under the terms of Chapter VII Security Council resolutions.

        While they are open to modification by mutual consent, the same thing can be said for every other border on the planet. Neither the 1949 Armistice agreements, nor any subsequent ones, require either party to agree to any changes.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/01/endless-solution-annexation/#comment-527762
        —————————————-

        [Hostage:] The armistice lines are legally recognized frontiers just like many other internationally recognized boundaries. In fact, the Tripartite Declaration referred to them as “Armistice Borders”. link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        Like every other international border, they can only be altered by mutual consent, but that doesn’t mean that they ever will be legally modified. The UN Mediator negotiated and accepted the agreements under the auspices of UN Security Council resolution 62, which required the delineation of permanent armistice demarcation lines. The Security Council endorsed the agreements in its resolution 73 and ordered the parties concerned to implement and observe the agreements pending a final negotiated settlement. Both resolutions were adopted as provisional Article 40 measures under the terms of Chapter VII of the UN Charter and are legally binding on all UN member states.

        [emphasis added]

        ————————————-

        Beyond that, Hostage has explained that such “safeguarding clauses” are not a valid basis for denigrating the significance of the “Green Line” border.

        [Hostage:] The safeguarding provisions only preserved the right of the parties to present claims in the future regarding boundaries. It did not permit either side to treat the existing lines as anything other than the legal international boundaries.
        ——————————

        [talknic:] This is reflected in the 1949 Armistice Agreements (common): “The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question”

        [Hostage:] Yes the Arabs insisted on the addition of that language, but it is a distinction without any meaningful difference. Under customary international law, permanent armistice lines of demarcation have the very same legal effects and consequences as political or territorial boundaries.

        The parties have treaty, customary, and UN Charter obligations that require them to implement and observe those lines of demarcation pending any possible alterations that might be made through a mutually agreed upon final settlement.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/regurgitating-israeli-talking-points-amanpour-lectures-meshal-that-intl-agreements-bar-right-of-return/#comment-517733
        —————————–

        [Hostage:] […]The diplomatic history of the agreements shows that they were intended to be permanent settlements that would only be subject to minor revisions. The safeguarding clauses simply provided the negotiators with a plausible alibi.

        […]Under international law, an armistice agreement allows the belligerents the same rights and duties as those of an ordinary state. Those rights are not limited to the rules contained in the Hague regulations or the Geneva Conventions. Both Israel and Jordan extended their municipal jurisdiction to the new territories. Despite complaints from the Arab League, that was perfectly legal under the terms of their agreements.

        [emphasis added]

        ————————

        The Green Line is an internationally recognized provisional border, dividing Israeli territory from Palestinian territory. It is provisional only in the sense that it can be modified in a final agreement. Otherwise it has all the legal characteristics of a permanent border. Most importantly, if there is no final agreement–and there never may be one!–the Green Line remains the legal border. The ICJ made that fact crystal clear. Israel has full sovereign power within the Green Line; outside the Green Line it is a belligerent Occupying Power. Israeli settlement and the extension of Israeli civil law anywhere within the Green Line is completely legal; Israeli settlement and the extension of Israeli civil law outside the Green Line is completely illegal.

        Hostage has proven this in dozens and dozens of posts. And the reason he has spent so much time and energy doing so is that denigrating the significance of the Green Line has been a crucial Zionist talking point used to justify Israel expansion into the West Bank.

      • talknic
        May 24, 2016, 1:52 pm

        @ Sibiriak May 24, 2016, 9:10 am

        “You have repeatedly claimed that a lack of UN condemnation proves that Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank was legal”

        Annexation was requested by representatives of the a majority of the legitimate citizens of the territory. A bilateral agreement, i.e., the territory was not acquired by force/war. Self determination per the UN can hardly be condemned by the UN.

        Hostage has also written of the legality of that annexation
        http://mondoweiss.net/2015/08/independent-sovereign-palestine/#comment-787675
        MORE

        http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/congress-legislatures-against/#comment-770060 Jordan was admitted as a full UN member state and its ambassador’s credentials were always accepted as being the valid legal representative for both the East and West Banks until 1988

        MORE

        http://mondoweiss.net/2014/05/bloomberg-internal-palestine/#comment-669608

        *The State Department Digest of International Law 1963 devoted an entire chapter to “Territory and Sovereignty of States”. In § 8 “Annexation” there is a discussion about the acquisition of sovereignty over the West Bank by “Jordan” on the basis of the four resolutions of the Second Arab Palestine Conference (aka Jericho Congress) held on December 1, 1948. Note: A few weeks after the Congress the name of Transjordan was officially changed to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to reflect the new joint status (January 21, 1949). The Digest also described US recognition of the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan as an expression of the sovereign will of the two peoples. Secretary of State Acheson stated at his April 26, 1950 press conference that “The elections which were held on the 11th were on the basis of the incorporation of Arab Palestine into the Hashemite Kingdom. Those elections have taken place and this action of the parliament will be to ratify that decision. Now, our American attitude is that we have no objection whatever to the union of peoples mutually desirous of this new relationship.” See pages 1163-1168 of Marjorie M. Whiteman (editor), Digest of International Law, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963)

        “It follows then that the lack of UN condemnation of Israel’s annexation of territory within Green Line/outside UN res 181 recommended partition borders proves that that annexation was also legal”

        Unilateral, no agreement, the territory was acquired by force/war. Not self determined by the legitimate citizens of the territory.

        “2) A state’s extension of civil law (aka sovereignty) over territory is the very definition of “annexation”. “

        UNSC res 252 and eight reminders point to unilateral annexation and the extension of a state’s civil law as illegal on Israel’s part http://wp.me/pDB7k-W8

        They also tell us that GC IV applies. Not the kind of notions afforded by the UN were the annexation of the West Bank by Jordan illegal. Fact is, as of Jordan’s entry into the UN and its ratification of GC IV, the West Bank was a UN Member State and a High Contracting Power.

      • talknic
        May 24, 2016, 2:47 pm

        Correction : the West Bank was part of a UN Member State and a High Contracting Power

      • Sibiriak
        May 25, 2016, 9:34 am

        talknic: “2) A state’s extension of civil law (aka sovereignty) over territory is the very definition of “annexation”. “

        UNSC res 252 and eight reminders point to unilateral annexation and the extension of a state’s civil law as illegal on Israel’s part link to wp.me

        They also tell us that GC IV applies

        ————————-

        Those UNSC resolutions DO NOT apply to Israeli territory inside the Green Line– which is the issue here. They apply only to territory occupied in 1967. Same with GC IV. Per all UN resolutions and the ICJ, the Green Line divides Israeli territory from Occupied Palestinian territory.

        Israel’s extension of civil law to territory (annexation) inside the Green Line under the UN sponsored armistice agreements was LEGAL.

        Israel’s extension of civil law to territory (annexation) acquired in 1967 was ILLEGAL.

        Thank you for confirming that distinction.

      • Sibiriak
        May 25, 2016, 9:49 am

        The significance of the “Green Line” today cannot be understood just by pulling one or two lines from documents from 1949. You need to look at the complete set of political and legal facts.

        [Hostage:] The fact that the Armistice lines serve as the legal boundaries of Israel’s civil and military jurisdiction has been driven home repeatedly by the members of the Security Council, General Assembly, and the ICJ.

        See for example:

        *Tripartite Declaration Regarding the Armistice Borders : Statement by the Governments of the United States, The United Kingdom, and France, May 25, 1950
        — link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        * The General Assembly resolutions which say the credentials of the delegation of Israel do not apply to the Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, and the verbatim record of the General Assembly discussion of the matter in resolution 58/292 which indicates the words “pre-1967 borders” had intentionally been adopted to replace the words “Armistice Line of 1949”. link to un.org

        *The conclusion of the Secretary General’s Memorandum on the Preparatory Study Concerning a Draft Declaration on the Rights and Duties of States that: “The manifestation of sovereignty in tangible form is jurisdiction.” See UN Document A/CN.4/2 pdf page 49.

        *Abba Eban admitted the Armistice agreements are a legally binding settlement that can only be replaced by a peace agreement during the Security Council’s 433rd meeting. He also said that:

        “The armistice lines do not merely separate armed forces. They mark the clearly defined areas of full civil jurisdiction. The Government, the courts, the legislatures, the security authorities of each respective State operate smoothly and unchallenged up to the appropriate armistice line.

        These lines thus have the normal characteristics of provisional frontiers until such time as a new process of negotiation and agreement determines the final territorial settlement. They are also stabilized by the mutual undertakings of the parties and by the fullest international sanction for as long as the Armistice Agreements are valid.” link to un.org

        Mr Eban was correct. There have always been international boundaries or borders that are comprised of provisional demarcation lines. In the “North Sea Continental Shelf case (1968), the ICJ noted that:

        “There is no rule that the land frontiers of a State must be fully delimited and defined, and often in various places and for long periods they are not, as is shown by the case of the entry of Albania into the League of Nations (Monastery of Saint Naoum, Advisor): Opinion, 1924, P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 9, at p. 10).” See pdf file page 60 of 109) link to icj-cij.org

        Israel is another example of a state which was admitted to the UN before its boundaries were fully delimited.

        But the credentials committee has determined that the 1967 borders are the legal extent of its national jurisdiction pending the conclusion of some other settlement. [emphasis added]

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/01/endless-solution-annexation/#comment-527946

      • talknic
        May 25, 2016, 6:50 pm

        @ Sibiriak May 25, 2016, 9:34 am

        “2) A state’s extension of civil law (aka sovereignty) over territory is the very definition of “annexation”. “

        UNSC res 252 and eight reminders point to unilateral annexation and the extension of a state’s civil law as illegal on Israel’s part

        They also tell us that GC IV applies

        ————————-

        “Those UNSC resolutions DO NOT apply to Israeli territory inside the Green Line “

        A) That’s not the point being argued. UNSC res 252 and its eight reminders tell us a “state’s extension of civil law (aka sovereignty) over territory” is NOT “the very definition of annexation”

        B) I was asked to show how Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank was legal.
        (1) UNSC res 252 and its eight reminders condemn Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem. At the same time;
        (2) they afford legality to GC IV in respect to the annexation of the West Bank for the simple fact that Jordan incl the West Bank were accepted into the UN and became a High Contracting Power to GC IV after UN Membership.

        ” Same with GC IV. Per all UN resolutions and the ICJ, the Green Line divides Israeli territory from Occupied Palestinian territory.”

        Although International Law applies to states the UN/UNSC cannot directly censure non-Members and cannot directly censure Members retrospectively for their actions prior to membership.

        The Green Line was agreed on 30 November 1948 between Jordan and Israel, prior to Israel’s UN Membership on 11th May 1949 and prior to Jordanian Membership 14th December 1955

        Egyptian/Israel General Armistice Agreement 24th February 1949, Lebanon/Israel 22nd March 1949, Jordan/Israel General Armistice Agreement, 3 April 1949. All prior to Israel’s UN Membership

        “Israel’s extension of civil law to territory (annexation) inside the Green Line under the UN sponsored armistice agreements was LEGAL:”

        It might be generally accepted, but I’d argue it wasn’t legal. BTW none of the agreements are between Israel and Palestine.

      • Sibiriak
        May 25, 2016, 8:22 pm

        talknic: A) That’s not the point being argued. UNSC res 252 and its eight reminders tell us a “state’s extension of civil law (aka sovereignty) over territory” is NOT “the very definition of annexation”
        —————————–

        No. Res 252 reminds us that any Israeli annexation across the Green Line is ILLEGAL.

        [Hostage:]The parties concerned entered into international armistice agreements which granted the belligerents civil jurisdiction to apply their municipal laws up to the “Green Lines”. That is the normal definition of annexation. [emphasis added]

        Up to the Green Line –LEGAL. Beyond that–ILLEGAL. That’s the point. All UN resolutions and the ICJ “Wall” opinion confirm that.

        [Hostage:] The fact that the Armistice lines serve as the legal boundaries of Israel’s civil and military jurisdiction as been driven home repeatedly by the members of the Security Council, General Assembly, and the ICJ [emphasis added]

        ————————–

        talknic: B) I was asked to show how Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank was legal.

        Not by me. I’ve argued, following Hostage, that BOTH Jordan’s and Israel’s annexation of territory on their respective sides of the Green Line were LEGAL.

        —————–

        talknic: …the UN/UNSC cannot directly censure non-Members and cannot directly censure Members retrospectively for their actions prior to membership.

        1)False. You’ve been asked multiple times to provide evidence to back that up. But you never do. Please quote the UN charter or any legal scholar that supports that theory.

        2) You wrote:

        Were it [Jordanian annexation of the West Bank] illegal, the UNSC would be bound by the UN Charter to condemn it

        You contradict yourself!

        Jordan formally annexed the West Bank on 24 April 1950

        Jordan did not become a full UN member until 1955

        You tell us on one hand that that UNSC would be bound to condemn Jordan if the annexation of the West Bank had been illegal–but on the other hand you tell us that UNSC would be prohibited from condemning Jordan for actions when a non-member.

        Total contradiction.

      • Sibiriak
        May 25, 2016, 9:05 pm

        talknic: Although International Law applies to states the UN/UNSC cannot directly censure non-Members and cannot directly censure Members retrospectively for their actions prior to membership.

        The Green Line was agreed on 30 November 1948 between Jordan and Israel, prior to Israel’s UN Membership on 11th May 1949… [emphasis added]
        ——————-

        As I wrote above, despite repeated requests you’ve never told us where such a prohibition on censure can be found. By all appearances, it is a figment of your imagination. Show us where it can be found, and I will gladly stand corrected.

        But you also overlook the fact that Israel annexed territory AFTER 11 May 1949.

        Historian Ilan Pappe writes:

        …certain regions of the Galilee, the Negev and Wadi Ara (the last region was annexed to Israel in June 1949 as a result of the armistice agreement with Jordan signed in April that year). [emphasis added]

        Ilan Pappe, “ The Forgotten Palestinians: A History of the Palestinians in Israel” (p. 36).

        So, even according to your own self-created theory, nothing prevented the UN from condemning Israel annexation of territory AFTER becoming a UN member. (And it did exactly that when Israel illegally annexed East Jerusalem.)

        No such UN condemnation exists of Israeli annexation of territory within the Green Line– of course. Israeli and Jordanian annexation of territory was seen as perfectly legal because it was sanctioned by the 1949 UN-sponsored armistice agreement.

        Your argument simply does not hold water.

      • talknic
        May 25, 2016, 11:08 pm

        Sibiriak May 25, 2016, 9:05 pm

        “despite repeated requests you’ve never told us where such a prohibition on censure can be found”

        I’ve already shown there are no UN/UNSC resolutions directly censuring a state by name before they have become UN Members. http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/difference-between-occupation/#comment-822707
        It’s ridiculous to think otherwise. A football club cannot tell a non-member to abide by the football club rules and; in retrospect on Membership, not having been bound by the rules prior to Membership, cannot directly censure actions not bound by the rules once becoming a Member

        “But you also overlook the fact that Israel annexed territory AFTER 11 May 1949”

        By what agreement with Palestine? NONE of the Palestinian territories Israel claimed were belonging to any other state

        Historian Ilan Pappe writes:

        …certain regions of the Galilee, the Negev and Wadi Ara (the last region was annexed to Israel in June 1949 as a result of the armistice agreement with Jordan signed in April that year). [emphasis added]

        The Armistice Agreement doesn’t mention any annexation. It says quite clearly that “political advantage”should be gained and that the agreement is “dictated exclusively by military considerations”

        ” nothing prevented the UN from condemning Israel annexation of territory AFTER becoming a UN member. (And it did exactly that when Israel illegally annexed East Jerusalem.)”

        A) Members are not bound by the rules of membership prior to becoming Members
        B) Israel was a UN Member when it illegally annexed East Jerusalem

        “No such UN condemnation exists of Israeli annexation of territory within the Green Line– of course. Israeli and Jordanian annexation of territory was seen as perfectly legal because it was sanctioned by the 1949 UN-sponsored armistice agreement.”

        A) (1) Israel simply didn’t annex territories it had acquired by war before UN Membership , knowing full well non-members cannot be censured. There’s no annexation agreement with the majority representatives of any Palestinian territories post 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time), when Israel’s borders became effective
        (2) Jordan did annex, there was an agreement with the majority representatives of what was officially re-named the West Bank

        B) The Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan AGREED that ;

        1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized;

        2. It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

      • Dan
        May 25, 2016, 11:19 pm

        @Sibiriak

        “nothing prevented the UN from condemning Israel annexation of territory AFTER becoming a UN member”

        Important point – adding my two cents – not only did Israel annex territory within the green line after its UN admission but, as you know, many cities/towns were built in that territory, and hundreds of thousands of citizens moved in. Beersheva, as just one example, went from a village of a couple thousand to a city of several hundred thousand.

        If that territory were considered occupied, then actions within that territory, subsequent to Israel’s UN membership, and contrary to GenIV, would be subject to UN condemnation even to this day, and yet, to my knowledge, there has been none.

      • Sibiriak
        May 26, 2016, 12:03 am

        talnic: [Sibiriak:]“despite repeated requests you’ve never told us where such a prohibition on censure can be found”

        I’ve already shown there are no UN/UNSC resolutions directly censuring a state by name before they have become UN Member…
        —————————

        In other words, you still cannot tell us were such a prohibition can be found. Surely, it must be mentioned SOMEWHERE???

        And out of the thousands of legal scholars that have ever existed on the planet, you cannot cite a SINGLE one who supports your view. NOT ONE.

        Surely, if what you say is true, there must be at least one legal scholar somewhere in the whole world who agrees with you??

        In fact, you are spouting nonsense: there is no prohibition on UN condemnation of non-members.

        A few examples:

        Spain

        “United Nations Security Council Resolution 4, adopted on April 29, 1946, condemned the Franco regime in Spain and formed a sub-committee to decide whether or not his rule was leading to international friction, and if so, what to do about it.”

        Spain became a UN member only in 1955.

        UN General Assembly Res 39 (1) Condemns the Franco regime.

        North Korea

        “[…] Security Council adopted two resolutions, respectively, no. 83 of June 27, 1950 and no. 84 of July 7, 1950, which accused North Korea of aggression and recommended that the Member States intervene with military means in the defence of South Korea”.

        Benedetto Conforti “ The Law and Practice of the United Nations” p.128, emphasis added.

        North Korea became a UN member in 1991.

        UNSC Res. 82 against a non-member North Korea:

        Noting with grave concern the armed attack on the Republic of Korea by forces from North Korea,

        Determines that this action constitutes a breach of the peace; and

        I
        Calls for the immediate cessation of hostilities;

        Calls upon the authorities in North Korea to withdraw forthwith their armed forces to the 38th parallel; [emphasis added]

        Southern Rhodesia

        “United Nations Security Council Resolution 216 was adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 12 November 1965, the day after the British Dependency of Southern Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence from the British Empire as the state of Rhodesia. The vote was ten to none, with one member, France, abstaining. In the resolution’s two operative paragraphs, the Security Council:

        1. Condemned the unilateral declaration of independence “made by a racist minority” in Southern Rhodesia.

        2. Called upon all states to refuse the “illegal racist minority régime” in Southern Rhodesia recognition and to refrain from rendering any assistance to it.

        Resolution 216 was followed on 20 November by United Nations Security Council Resolution 217, in which the Security Council further elaborated on its condemnation of the UDI regime and proposed steps to be taken to address the crisis.”

        Yugoslavia

        “United Nations Security Council resolution 757, adopted on 30 May 1992, after reaffirming resolutions 713 (1991), 721 (1991), 724 (1991), 727 (1992), 740 (1992) 743 (1992), 749 (1992) and 752 (1992), the Council condemned the failure of the authorities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to implement Resolution 752.” (Wikipedia, emphasis added)

        The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia-Montenegro) was not a UN member between 1992 and 2000.

        All links here:
        http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/difference-between-occupation/#comment-822707
        ———————————-

      • Sibiriak
        May 26, 2016, 12:29 am

        While talknic cannot cite a single source to back the nonsensical idea that the UN cannot condemn non-member states, one can easily consult any basic textbook on international law to find the opposite view.

        For example:

        Benedetto Conforti “ The Law and Practice of the United Nations,” 2005 Third Revised Edition, pp.126-129

        There is no mention of a prohibition on censure of non-members. On the contrary, the author outlines quite a number of actions the UN General Assembly and Security Council can take in relation to non-members.

        ————————–

        “[The problem of the relations between the United Nations and non-Member States which was strongly felt particularly in the early years of the post-war period] still deserves some observations. This is because it may occur that a newly formed State goes through a period of time while waiting to be admitted and in the meantime there is the problem of its relations with the United Nations. Such event occurred, for instance, in the case of the Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia-Montenegro) which was admitted to the United Nations (see § 18) in November 2000, but ceased to have formal links with the former Yugoslavia in September 1992.

        […] para. 6 of Article 2 [of the Charter] provides: “The Organization shall ensure that states that are not members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security”.

        What are the kinds of pressure that the United Nations may use with regard to a third State in order to reach the aim set in Article 2, para. 6? As the provision is silent on the matter, the answer must be found in the specific rules of the Charter on the powers of the organs, especially of the General Assembly and of the Security Council, concerning maintenance of the peace.

        Article 2, para. 6, must be linked, first of all, to the use of those kinds of pressure that have no mandatory effect. Both the General Assembly and the Council have the power to make recommendations to the States, that is, resolutions that do not bind the States (see § 89)).

        Worthy of mention from this point of view are the provisions of Article 11, para. 2 (“The General Assembly may discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security… and… may make recommendations with regard to any such questions to the State or States concerned”) and the various provisions of Chapter VI, particularly Article 33, para. 2, Article 36, and Article 37, para. 2, which give the Security Council the power to recommend settlement of disputes likely to endanger the peace.

        All the provisions cited, in indicating the addressees of the recommendations with expressions such as “States concerned” or “parties to a dispute” and thereby avoiding, unlike a number of other provisions, reference to only the Member States, clearly intend to apply also to third States.

        […]Article 2, para. 6, must then be connected to Chapter VII of the Charter, specifically with regard to Articles 39, 4l, and 42 which authorise the Security Council, for purposes of maintenance of the peace, to take enforcement measures against States. Under the procedures governed by these articles, the Council shall “determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression” (Article 39).

        Then, it may order the so-called measures not involving the use of armed force, such as interruption of economic relations by the UN Member States with the country responsible for the threat or aggression (Article 41), or undertake military action, if it believes that the measures not involving the use of armed force are or have proved to be inadequate (Article 42).

        Also the provisions of Articles 39, 41 and 42 are formulated in such a way as to be interpreted in the sense that any country, member or non-Member, may be the object of enforcement measures. .

        […]In authorising the United Nations to take action with regard to countries outside the Organization, it does not seem that Article 2, para. 6, or, rather, the various provisions of the Charter which have been cited here, involve a serious departure from customary international law, particularly from the rule that treaties cannot create obligations for third States.

        A departure of this kind cannot be seen in the power of the Assembly and the Security Council to address recommendations to third parties, since they are acts that, by definition, are not binding on the addressees.

        No issue arises, then, if the Council addresses recommendations to a non-Member State. Nor is the conclusion different with regard to enforcement measures that the Council may adopt against a State on the basis of Chapter VII of the Charter.”

        […] hardly ever in practice have non-Member States (or their supporters in the United Nations) raised the objection of non-membership whenever the Council or the Assembly have made them the object of measures such as those governed by Chapter VII. ”
        ——————————————

        I’ve given examples above of UN condemnation of non-member states. The text just quoted provides the basis in the UN Charter for that power.

        Any country, member or non-Member, may be the object of enforcement measures”, and obviously UN enforcement actions– whether sanctions, military intervention, etc.– are necessarily preceded by UN condemnation. To argue otherwise, as talknic has done, is absurd.

      • Sibiriak
        May 26, 2016, 12:42 am

        talknic: the Armistice Agreement doesn’t mention any annexation.

        How could they? They allowed annexation; they did not require it.

        As Hostage wrote:

        Under international law, an armistice agreement allows the belligerents the same rights and duties as those of an ordinary state. Those rights are not limited to the rules contained in the Hague regulations or the Geneva Conventions.

        Both Israel and Jordan extended their municipal jurisdiction to the new territories.

        Despite complaints from the Arab League, that was perfectly legal under the terms of their agreements. [emphasis added]

        ————————-

        talknic: . There’s no annexation agreement with the majority representatives of any Palestinian territories

        So what? Annexation is simply a state’s extension of civil law over a territory it controls.

        As Hostage pointed out, the armistice agreements allowed Israel and Jordan to do that LEGALLY up to the Green Line.

        On the other hand, when Israel did that in East Jersusalem, on the Palestinian side of the Green Line, it was ILLEGAL. The ICJ made that distinction perfectly clear in the 2004 “Wall” opinion.

        There is no requirement for an “agreement with the majority representatives”.

        Once again, you are making things up. You haven’t cited a single source that mentions such a requirement.

      • Sibiriak
        May 26, 2016, 1:07 am

        talknic: (1) Israel simply didn’t annex territories it had acquired by war before UN Membership , knowing full well non-members cannot be censured.
        ———————

        Israel DID annex territories up to the Green Line (1949 Armistice Line), as Hostage, Ilan Pappe et al. have explained, and there IS NO prohibition on UN censure of non-members.

        You have now entered a state of complete denial of reality.

      • Sibiriak
        May 26, 2016, 1:37 am

        Dan: Important point – adding my two cents –
        —————

        Please, add more! In fact, please take over the argument! I’ve about had it. Of course, you’re quite right about Israeli settlements inside the Green Line. They are legal. Across the Green Line, they are illegal. It’s not that complicated. “Legal”, of course, does not mean right, just, or moral.

      • talknic
        May 26, 2016, 2:02 am

        @ Sibiriak May 25, 2016, 8:22 pm

        talknic: A) That’s not the point being argued. UNSC res 252 and its eight reminders tell us a “state’s extension of civil law (aka sovereignty) over territory” is NOT “the very definition of annexation”

        “No. Res 252 reminds us that any Israeli annexation across the Green Line is ILLEGAL”/em>

        It actually tells us a number of things

        A) it reaffirms that the acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible,

        B) It shows that a “state’s extension of civil law (aka sovereignty) over territory” is NOT “the very definition of annexation” thereby;

        C) Israeli annexation across the Green Line is ILLEGAL

        D) Subsequent reminders of UNSC res 252 tell us GC IV applied, i.e., the West Bank was part of a High Contracting Power by ’67

        ” [Hostage:]The parties concerned entered into international armistice agreements which granted the belligerents civil jurisdiction to apply their municipal laws up to the “Green Lines”. That is the normal definition of annexation.”

        The Armistice Agreements themselves tell us that no “ political advantage” should be gained and that the agreement is “dictated exclusively by military considerations”

        “Up to the Green Line –LEGAL. Beyond that–ILLEGAL.

        UNSC re 252, its eight reminders (ans UNSC res242) were in consideration of the ’67 war and territories occupied in those “recent hostilies”

        “All UN resolutions and the ICJ “Wall” opinion confirm that”

        Where they name Israel, they deal with issues post Israel’s UN Membership. The IGJ “Wall” opinion wasn’t tasked with giving an opinion on any pre Israeli UN Membership issues

        ” [Hostage:] The fact that the Armistice lines serve as the legal boundaries of Israel’s civil and military jurisdiction as been driven home repeatedly by the members of the Security Council, General Assembly, and the ICJ [emphasis added]”

        Provisional and/or pending are not by definition final

        ————————–

        “talknic: B) I was asked to show how Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank was legal.

        Not by me.

        You took up the point

        “I’ve argued, following Hostage, that BOTH Jordan’s and Israel’s annexation of territory on their respective sides of the Green Line were LEGAL”

        Israel has never annexed any territory on its side of the Green Line. “provisional” and “pending” are not by definition final!

        —————–

        talknic: …the UN/UNSC cannot directly censure non-Members and cannot directly censure Members retrospectively for their actions prior to membership.

        ” 1)False. You’ve been asked multiple times to provide evidence to back that up. But you never do. Please quote the UN charter or any legal scholar that supports that theory”

        Provide an instance where they have. States become UN Members regardless of which “authority” might be in control the state and/or of their military. The only instances provided thus far http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/difference-between-occupation/#comment-822707 did not directly censure the States. A state’s authorities can change. Nor are ” forces from North Korea” the State, they’re subject to “the authorities”

        “You tell us on one hand that that UNSC would be bound to condemn Jordan if the annexation of the West Bank had been illegal–but on the other hand you tell us that UNSC would be prohibited from condemning Jordan for actions when a non-member.

        Total contradiction”

        It’s not. I wrote “Were it illegal, the UNSC would be bound by the UN Charter to condemn it
        “it” being the action

        The examples you gave show condemnation of the actions by “forces from North Korea” under the control of “the authorities”. No such condemnation against “the authorities” or Jordan the State, has been issued by the UNSC re the annexation of the West Bank.

        “the Council condemned the failure of the authorities” in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.”

        The authorities are not a UN Member State

        Benedetto Conforti shows how the UN can recommend to non-members and how UN Members might treat non-members

      • Sibiriak
        May 26, 2016, 2:17 am

        “talknic: B) I was asked to show how Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank was legal.

        Not by me.

        You took up the point
        ————————————-

        No, I did not. I wrote ” I’m not arguing that [Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank] wasn’t legal.”

        Please, stop strawmanning.

        If you wish to stage an argument with yourself, have at it.

      • Sibiriak
        May 26, 2016, 2:44 am

        talknic: [Sibiriak quoting:]the Council condemned the failure of the authorities” in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.”

        The authorities are not a UN Member State.
        ————————————————————————

        ??

        Exactly. I was giving examples of the UN condemning non-members .Yugoslavia was a non-member at the time of the UN condemnation.

        Nothing prevented the UN from condemning Israel annexation (or settlement, as Dan pointed out) of territory within the Green line before or after it became a UN member.

        It’s never happened.

        ——————————–

        talknic: The examples you gave show condemnation of the actions by “forces from North Korea” under the control of “the authorities”. No such condemnation against “the authorities” or Jordan the State, has been issued by the UNSC re the annexation of the West Bank

        ???

        Exactly. There was no condemnation of non-member Jordan in any way, shape or form re annexation of the West Bank, and there has been no condemnation of Israel in any way, shape or form re annexing territory up to the Green Line. Both have been viewed as legal actions.

        Put a fork in it.

      • talknic
        May 26, 2016, 8:47 pm

        @ Sibiriak May 26, 2016, 12:42 am

        “Annexation is simply a state’s extension of civil law over a territory it controls”

        Although UNSC res 252 and its eight reminders are relative to the ’67 war, they never the less tell us annexation is NOT simply a state’s extension of civil law over a territory it controls!

        “As Hostage pointed out, the armistice agreements allowed Israel and Jordan to do that LEGALLY up to the Green Line”

        Except there’s nothing in the Armistice Agreements specifically allowing it. In fact the Israel/Jordan Agreement says

        1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized;

        2. It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

        Furthermore if Israel was allowed annexation in the Armistice Agreements, why was it still trying 31st August 1949 https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/C96E0252E7710BCE85256D95006BC157

        “On the other hand, when Israel did that in East Jersusalem, on the Palestinian side of the Green Line, it was ILLEGAL”

        UNSC res 467 “Reaffirming that acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible” !
        It was illegal under the UN charter in 1945 and in 1948/49, however, ‘Israel’ was not a UN Member State and not subject to direct censure by the UN until May 11th 1949.

        “The ICJ made that distinction perfectly clear in the 2004 “Wall” opinion”

        The ICJ said

        As also explained below (see paragraphs 79-84 below), some parts of the complex are being built, or are planned to be built, on the territory of Israel itself; the Court does not (consider that it is called upon to examine the legal consequences arising from the construction of those parts of the wall.

        “There is no requirement for an “agreement with the majority representatives”.”

        ICJ on the ‘Wall’ opinion

        88. The Court also notes that the principle of self-determination of peoples has been enshrined in the United Nations Charter and reaffirmed by the General Assennbly in resolution 2625 (XXV) cited above, pursuant to which “Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to [in that resolution] . . . of their right to self-determination.” Article 1 common to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights reaffirms the right of al1 peoples to self-determination, and lays upon the States parties the obligation to promote the realization of that right and to respect it, in conformity with the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

        The Court would recall that in 1971 it emphasized that current developments in “international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all [such territories]“. The Court went on to state that “These: developments leave little doubt that the ultimate objective of the sacred trust” referred to in Article 22, paragraph 1, of the Covenant of the League of Nations “was the self-determination . . . of the peoples concerned” (Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Ajrica) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, 1. C. J. Reports 1971, p. 31, paras. 52-53). The Court has referred to this principle on a number of occasions in its jurisprudence (ibid. ; see also Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. report. 1975, p. 68, para. 162). The Court indeed made it clear that the right of peoples to self-determination is today a right erga omnes (see East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, 1. C. J. Reports 1995, p. 102, para. 29).

        —-

        115. In this regard, Annex II to the report of the Secretary-General, entitled “Summary Legal Position of the Palestine Liberation Organization”, States that “The construction of the Barrier is an attempt to annex the territory contrary to international law” and that “The de facto annexation of land interferes with the territorial sovereignty and consequently with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination.

      • talknic
        May 26, 2016, 9:00 pm

        @ Sibiriak May 26, 2016, 2:44 am

        “Exactly. I was giving examples of the UN condemning non-members .Yugoslavia was a non-member at the time of the UN condemnation”

        The “State’ was not condemned. The Authorities were. The Authorities are not the state.

        “Nothing prevented the UN from condemning Israel annexation (or settlement, as Dan pointed out) of territory within the Green line before or after it became a UN member.”

        Except it didn’t annex any territory. Contrary to Hostage’s assertion re- the Armistice Agreements allowing annexation, Israel was still trying to convince the UN bodies 31st August 1949 after the last Armistice Agreement was signed https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/C96E0252E7710BCE85256D95006BC157 and Israel’s notions that it could were turned down, citing the Armistice Agreements https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/A6590B9A251FC2AC85256D95006C45EF
        ——————————–

        //talknic: The examples you gave show condemnation of the actions by “forces from North Korea” under the control of “the authorities”. No such condemnation against “the authorities” or Jordan the State, has been issued by the UNSC re the annexation of the West Bank //

        “???

        Exactly. There was no condemnation of non-member Jordan in any way, shape or form re annexation of the West Bank, and there has been no condemnation of Israel in any way, shape or form re annexing territory up to the Green Line. “

        Jordan annexed. Israel didn’t, it was still trying 31st Aug 1949

        “Put a fork in it”

    • talknic
      May 21, 2016, 6:00 am

      @ Mayhem May 21, 2016, 12:29 am

      “I hear this statement keep making a fool of myself over and over and over again

      UN Security Council resolutions under chapter VI which are actually intended to be followed and implemented via negotiated settlements between concerned parties etc”

      Only if that’s what they say.

      For example, UNSC res 242 doesn’t mention negotiated settlements.

      A successful result of UNSC res 242, the Egypt/Israel Peace Treaty, tells us implementation required Israeli withdrawal from all Egyptian territories per having “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Egypt and its right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”

    • eljay
      May 21, 2016, 8:18 am

      || Mayhem: … “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.” … ||

      Zio-supremacism in a nut-shell.

    • Mooser
      May 21, 2016, 11:14 am

      “Professor Eugene Kontorovich makes the case…”

      SQUELCH! Right in the center of the steaming pile.

      And as everybody knows, if it isn’t true, it wouldn’t be on You-Tube! Very high standards, all videos thoroughly researched and fact-checked.

    • oldgeezer
      May 21, 2016, 1:11 pm

      @Mayhem

      I listened to his presentation and about a half dozen others that followed it.

      His presentation is junior grade hasbara. Quickly demolished by Jaffi in a debate.

      There is a long list as to why these settlements are illegal. None of them revolve around the settlements being Jewish. It is so cowardly and dishonest to hide behind Judaism. The illegality arises as they are Israeli and under Israeli law. The same legal issues and violations would be present if the settlements were for Israeli Muslims, Christians, etc.

      You may not be capable of distinquishing between Jewish and Israeli but Kontorovich is and that is blatant dishonesty on his part.

    • Annie Robbins
      May 21, 2016, 3:40 pm

      why would anyone take Kontorovich seriously? he’s a right wing settler. listen to him address the radical israeli group ‘women in green’ at the link.

      Two years ago, Kontorovich emigrated to Israel from the US, and moved to Alon Shvut, an Israeli colony south of Bethlehem. According to his listing at the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, Kontorovich now lives in Neve Daniel, another settlement within the Bethlehem governorate.

      But Kontorovich is not just a settlement resident; a video that has come to light shows him expressing support for a notorious right-wing settler group that sees all of the West Bank as “the exclusive possession” of Jews.

      – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/washington-professors-settlements/#sthash.Yhuey86t.dpuf

Leave a Reply