Total number of comments: 1700 (since 2010-02-26 10:49:56)
An old Jewish guy in Oz. Tired of the fallacies surrounding the I/P issue. We were given the territory for a homeland state, with more than enough room for every Jewish person on the planet. Even today. Since declaration, Israel illegally acquired more and more land outside of it's actual Sovereign boundaries. All I ask is that Israel adhere to the law, under which it can easily protect itself, grow and prosper. I've received too many threats for opposing Israel's policies towards the Palestinians, broken windows, graffiti'd walls, hate mail, hate snail mail. I'd prefer to remain anonymous, if that's OK. Who I am is irrelevant. It's the information that counts. :-)
Website: http://talknic.wordpress.com
fuster
"The worm did a better job than the Israeli Air Force could have managed."
Did it?
A) link to symantec.com
and
link to symantec.com
What actual damage did it do? Do you know?
B) If it did do any actual damage, to what? As far as we ACTUALLY know a normal uranium refinement process, which as far as we ACTUALLY know is for peaceful purposes.
C) The aim was to cause physical damage. It was a physical, against Iran, on what was, as far as we ACTUALLY know, civilian infrastructure, a civilian target.
D) If the Iranians aren't trying to build nukies, and we DON'T ACTUALLY know they are, they have a right to feel affronted.
-----
If they do want to build nukies, THEY STILL ARE BUILDING NUKIES!
And if they STILL ARE BUILDING NUKIES, they're gonna be a whole lot more vigilant and dedicate a whole lot more resources to defend their system.
To which they have the know how of Microsoft, Symantec, McAfee, Seimens, and hundreds of thousands of other sources of research working to protect the infrastructures of the worlds cities. The beastie is now known and protection and eradication already available.
It will take a completely different hack for another attack under much more watchful eyes
Furthermore knowing that target and intent, they're able to implement preventative safe guards at the target, counter measures stepping all the way to possible sources of infection for any new hack.
----
A military attack by the Israeli Air Force. Would fare no better. In fact worse. Israel would require permission to use the air space of not too friendly countries, on the way to the target and back.
ICBMs. Perhaps. But either the Israeli Air Force or ICBMs would be rather like striking an axe through a very large hornets nest.
Richard Witty February 15, 2011 at 5:16 pm
" If you read, I stated that the nakba continues today, in the form of settlement expansion and lack of freedom and sovereignty for Palestinians."
And if YOU read carefully, I said ALL Palestinians. Unless they have taken up citizenship in a country other that that of return, (wherein they are no longer Palestinians, no longer qualify as refugees anything due them would be reparation for Israeli intransigence, LOSS of property and or inheritance)
"When a peace treaty is signedand ratified, the nakba officially ends"
COMPLETELY irrelevant to Israel's illegal activities. It is Israel's ILLEGAL activities created/ing the Nakba.
Mooser
"Judaism is a religion. To associate with a state will do nothing but profane the religion, and impede the state."
Ever read the declaration care fully.
RW
<em"For many Palestinians, the nakba continues, and unbroken stream. "
The Nakba IS STILL HAPPENING for ALL Palestinians!!! FFS!!!!
"That can stop with negotiation, with a two-state solution"
It can stop with Israel adhering to the law!! Negotiations = Israel not having to adhere to the law. Negotiations = the Palestinians forgoing their full, legitimate and legal rights. They are the same rights should be afforded everyone. They're rights formulated BECAUSE of events like the Holocaust.
The Holocaust, albeit an affront to humanity, was decades ago! It's ghastliness was a large part in producing the very rights Israel refuses to acknowledge for Palestinians.
The Palestinians had NO THING to do with the Holocaust when it happened. Husseini did not represent them or anyone else when he met Hitler he'd bee booted out of position and the country and NO Palestinians served in the Balkans.
link to wp.me
The Palestinians of today were ALL CHILDREN. The Nakba is still happening to them. All of them.
Zionism and the notion of a Greater Israel began BEFORE the Holocaust. The Holocaust was NOT Zionism's reason for seeking a Jewish safe haven, a Jewish state or even a homeland in Palestine as Palestinians, per the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
Zionism's aim was already in motion, already had financial institutions, was already arming terrorist activities, lobbying, corrupting, creating facts on the ground, mis-interpreting, adding words to mandates and declarations, lying, BEFORE the Holocaust. It continues today.
hophmi February 14, 2011 at 5:45 pm
" The US colonial project is over, was successful, and goes unchallenged"
It's over because it WAS challenged. It was challenged by the Indians, Mexico. It was over by the time the US LEGALLY annexed parts of Mexico.
Philip Weiss February 14, 2011 at 12:52 pm
" This is why I always ask my American Jewish freinds, do you believe you need a Jewish state to retreat to in case the weather turns, as Herzl once put it? Why dont you live there now then?"
You might also point out to them that: in his lifetime, Herzl could have lived anywhere in Palestine. Oddly, he didn't ever live there. Now he's buried outside of Israel's actual sovereign territory, in Palestine.
Richard Witty
"Are you joking Phil, “facts”?"
So refute them. Like this....How many times have you heard the notion that Israel has no borders with Palestine? The fact is, Israel’s borders were declared, recognized by the International Community and confirmed BY THE ISRAEL GOVERNMENT in statements to the UNSC BEFORE Israel was accepted into the UN and BEFORE Israel made any claims to territories beyond the actual extent of it’s sovereignty.
link to avalon.law.yale.edu
link to unispal.un.org
link to mfa.gov.il
On May 15th 1948 the extent of Israel’s Sovereign territories were clearly defined in the Israeli Government’s official announcement of the Declaration for the Establishment of the state of Israel.
On May 22, 1948 the Israeli Government confirmed it’s frontiers in correspondence to the UNSC
By May 11th 1949 Israel had already been recognized by the majority of the International Community of Nations according to the Israeli Government statements of May 15th & May 22nd 1948 “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,” .
On 11 May 1949 Israel was accepted into the UN as a UN Member State as recognized, “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,”
On June 15, 1949 the Israeli Government again confirmed it’s frontiers in correspondence to the UNSC
On the 31st Aug 1949 Israel made it’s first official claim to territories beyond the extent of it’s sovereign frontiers AFTER IT’S BOUNDARIES WERE RECOGNIZED
Consecutive Israeli Governments have been LYING to it’s own citizens for 62 years, LYING to the media, LYING to anyone willing to believe them and stupid enough not to check everything they say
May 15, 1948 Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States,
“MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” Also available as PDF from the Truman Library
May 22, 1948 The reply of the Provisional Government of Israel (S/766) to the questions addressed to the “Jewish authorities in Palestine” was transmitted by the acting representative of Israel at the United Nations on May 22.
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.”
June 15, 1949 Israel-s position on its frontiers VOLUMES 1-2: 1947-1974
“As for the frontier between the State of Israel and the area west of the Jordan which is not included in Israel…”
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. “
—–
These territories, acquired by war, have never been legally annexed to Israel. As Stephen M. Schwebel – ex Judge of International Court of Justice explains, a state cannot ‘acquire’ territory by war. It can however attempt, failing the peaceful solution of a UNSC Chapter VI resolution, ‘restore’ it’s own sovereign territory by war, under Chapter VII. Israel has never had to restore any territory.
hophmi February 15, 2011 at 8:07 am
"Israel did not declare war on either one of these groups. That’s BS."
A preemptive war is started by the preemptor. Plan Dalet was a preemptive war.
"It’s called defending yourself"
Hasn't worked (it's illegal to have or use WMDs BTW) , why have 'em?
eee February 14, 2011 at 12:48 pm
“Should evangelical Christians not be allowed in the US armed forces?”
Lemme see... The ILLEGAL settlers should not even be in "territories occupied", it is the job of the IDF to actually send 'em packing back to Israel lest they or their families become collateral in an area where the occupied have a right to armed resistance against their occupier. (the GC's are there to protect ALL civilians)
These ILLEGAL settlers in the IDF are gonna to send their families packing? Right?
eee February 14, 2011 at 12:48 pm
"Should evangelical Christians not be allowed in the US armed forces?"
Are they ILLEGAL settlers?
"If a person wants to serve his country, why should anyone care about his religious or political views?"
...or criminal tendencies and intentions
"Arabs that want to serve in the IDF do so also and there are many Arab officers"
Arab Jews or non-Jewish Arabs....BTW what's 'many'? 1? 2? 3?
eee February 14, 2011 at 12:42 pm
" Israel cannot force a solution on the Palestinians. But neither can the Palestinians or anyone else force a solution upon the Jews."
We got our solution. Our very own Homeland State of Israel, declared on all our behalves May 14th 1948 "within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" according to the Israeli Government on May 15th 1948.
"What is required is an historical compromise"
What is required is that Israel adhere to the Law and it's own obligations according to it's own statements and stop expecting the Palestinians to accept anything less than their full, legal and legitimate rights under the Laws Israel obliged itself to.
eee February 14, 2011 at 11:21 am
"The situation in Israel/Palestine is like the situation in Belgium, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Sudan, Indonesia/East Timor. And the remedy will be like in those cases, the creation of multiple countries"
That was done when Israel declared..the problem now is, that Israel fails to recognize it's borders. The one's it recognized May 22nd 1948 and June 15th 1949 in statements to the UNSC. link to wp.me
Richard Witty February 13, 2011 at 10:11 pm
" As some of the settlements are on land that was originally owned by the Jewish Agency before 1948.."
That'd be 'real estate' not 'territory'.
Was the Jewish agency a citizen of Palestine? If not, it had no right to determine the fate of the territory in Palestine.
<em"... its hard to say that they are illegal"
Only if you're ignorant of the difference between real estate and territory.
"If the pronouncement declared opposition to settlement expansion, the US would likely abstain"
Tough, the resolution only calls for reaffirmation of what has already been condemned.
Peace treaties are bilateral and only apply to the signing parties. They are not law. The Law stands until repealed, peace or no peace and effect all nations at all times.
As long as Egypt adheres to the law, it could tell Israel to stick it's Peace Treaty, open the Gaza border, launch initiatives for Israel to end occupation not only of Gaza, but of ALL the Palestinian territories Israel has illegally acquired and never legally annexed since May 15th 1948. link to wp.me
Furthermore, having failed to reach a peaceful solution for 62 years under Chapter VI, Egypt could demand of the UNSC an International Coalition expel Israel from all Palestinian territories it has illegally acquired by war and never legally annexed since May 15th 1948 ... See UNSC Resolution 660 on the invasion of Kuwait for an example.
Perhaps Israel is fearful of what lies beneath the shiny Hasbara surface it promotes...
RW
"If you want to change the nature of conflict"
You'd get the hell outta Palestine and stop stealing. Hasn't been tried yet
"“only if” Israel didn’t exist (it is more than implied, including by Phil), that Palestinians would be free. "
You do have evidence implicating Phil in what you've implied? Yes?
fuster
"Hamas Charter good enough?"
No
Article Thirty-One: “As to those who have not borne arms against you on account of religion, nor turned you out of your dwellings, Allah forbiddeth you not to deal kindly with them, and to behave justly towards them; for Allah loveth those who act justly.” (The Tried – verse 8)."
Do you read the fine print in your housing loan or just the bits that make you feel good
fuster February 11, 2011 at 3:35 pm
No one marching FOR war on Iraq was far more impressive...
Could be 300,000,000 includes a lot of children and a lot of folk who have not yet heard there is a petition.
You'll be volunteering to inform some or just shoot your fat mouth off?
According to the Peace Treaty, it was on the basis of UNSC Res 242.
Thus far Egypt has kept to the Resolution. Israel has not.
A) Israel has illegally annexed territory illegally acquired by war
B) There are still territories occupied in the 'recent conflict' Israel has not yet withdrawn from..
C) Israel has not had respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity of Lebanon or Syria
D) Israel has failed to achieve a just settlement of the refugee problem
Treaties are only between the countries who sign 'em. They are not law. Laws apply to all, whether there are hostilities or not and they remain in force until they are repealed. Likewise the UN Charter.
Egypt might break the treaty with Israel, but as long as Egypt adheres to the notions in UNSC Res 242 and the UN Charter, it will have broken no law.
Why have Peace Treaty with a country that has failed to implement it's side of the bargain, continued to break International Law and ignored the UN Charter?
Noa and Mari are both partially, if not completely within PALESTINIAN territories. Israel's border ends at Ashdod. In fact, Ashdod straddles the actual border. link to wp.me
To the north we have a similar situation with a section of the Tamar field link to wp.me
Avi February 8, 2011 at 11:23 am
......wherever they wanted you to go
Your comment is an UNDER estimation of Israeli generosity when it comes to concessions.
In order to understand Israeli policies towards the 'p'alestinians, wearing both shoes on the wrong feet is a prerequisite.
Richard Witty February 9, 2011 at 7:00 am
" I am saying that I believe that Israel should voluntarily offer more than the land area of the 67 borders.
WHAT '67 borders? It's a fallacy. No BORDERS have been altered since the day Israel was declared. Israel has not legally annexed any territory to the extent of it's sovereignty.
The ONLY Israeli borders are "within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" link to wp.me
irishmoses February 13, 2011 at 11:23 am
" .. the international community of nations approved Israel’s request to be a nation under borders set forth under UNR 181. While it certainly was an unfair decision, under international law it was valid."
Indeed. UNGA Res 181 was a non binding suggestion. Neither legal or illegal.
The responsibility for not observing the right to self determination was with the states that afforded recognition and in doing so carried the motion to ignore the right to self determination. They are responsible for calling Israel into line according to their recognitions and the exact date and times of their recognitions.
To which, some countries registered persistent objection, i.e., non-recognition on legal basis from the outset, as did the Arab States or unless their recognition was officially withdrawn, as did Iran.
OR
As did Britain who registered a persistent objection by not recognizing as Israeli the territories Israel had acquired by war by the time British recognition was afforded. The British waited until they had a very clear picture of Israel’s understanding of the actual legal status of it’s Sovereign territories before it granted recognition. 27 April 1950. This was after Israel’s statements to the UNSC May 22nd 1948 and 15th June 1949, confirming the extent of Israeli Sovereignty and after Israel's acceptance into the UN and after Israel’s first ill fated claim to territory outside it’s borders, on 31st August 1949
The British considered those territories controlled by war outside of Israel, as occupied.
Not all states were as meticulous in the wording of their recognitions as the British, however they all recognized Israel on the basis of the statement released by the Israeli Government announcing the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″
NOW
The voice of the majority of the International Community is expressed through the UN/UNSC. They have consistently attempted to have Israel adhere to the law. The only thing preventing a just solution now that Israel does exist, is the precious US veto vote in the UNSC.
Meanwhile Israel, ensconced as a UN Member, will keep every legal argument, every UN or UNSC resolution in discussion for as long as it possibly can, knowing that until a resolution is passed and/or as long as it is legally disputed in the UN/UNSC or ICJ, it can continue, unabated. The ball is in the air
"The deduction is that Palestine’s borders are the remainder left after 57%. "
Indeed .. by default what Israel declared as it's own also told us what is not Israeli.
"The UN GA should recognize a Palestine state on that basis on 43% of the land, overdue after 63 year.."
It is not the remit of the UN/UNGA/UNSC to recognize states. We can see this in the process under which states become UN Members.
1st a state is declared. It is recognized as such by the majority of the International Community of States/Nations. (This is NOT the UN, some entities giving recognition are not UN Members)
Once a state exists, it can then apply to the UN for Membership. The UNSC can then recommend the existing state to the UN for admittance to the UN..... or not..
pjdude February 12, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Agree to disagree without being disagreeable?
pjdude February 12, 2011 at 1:38 pm
"Israel did use force to gain the illegal( UNR 181) borders"
Israel didn't exist when the borders were recommended by the General assembly.
You, I and BALFOUR :
“The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant [of the League of Nations] and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine than in that of the ‘independent nation‘ of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country though the American Commission is going through the form of asking what they are.”
----
UNGA Re 181 was non-binding, neither legal or illegal. It could be accepted by either/and/or/neither of the parties. It was an attempt to stop hostilities. It didn't. It didn't because Israel, after accepting and being recognized under UNGA Res 181, ignored it (yet cited it in order to be accepted into the UN), ignored it's own undertakings under it and it's own Declaration and has ignored every UNSC resolution on the matter since becoming a UN Member State
UNSC Res 181 unfairly allocated Israel more than an equal share of the territory. Israel still wanted more. Israel has illegally taken more and if recent revelations via WikiLeaks are to be believed, will not be satisfied with anything the Palestinians offer.
Although Israel is a rogue state in every sense, it is never the less a recognized Independent Sovereign State. As such, those responsible for it's recognition are duty bound to force it if necessary, to adhere to it's obligations.
I can only speak as one Jew amongst the world's Jewish population on whose behalf Israel was declared. I would like to see Israel voluntarily adhere to it's self imposed obligations under which there would be, RoR, equality for Jews and non-Jews, be they Palestinian Israeli's, Muslim, Christian whatever.
For 62 years Israel has bluffed and lied it's way into an intractable 'facts on the ground' situation. Failing voluntary adherence to it's obligations the only option is alas, military action. A situation with ghastly repercussions.
Even if Israel did adhere to it's obligations the repercussions are very likely to result in civil war. The consequences of which are equally ghastly
pjdude February 11, 2011 at 7:55 pm
"The states in question made certain agreements in treaty about what constitutes a state, what is a legal creation of a state, and what is a legal acquisition of territory. To accept that simply because they ignore the agreements they have made and to accept something in clear violation of standing agreements as legal simply because a majority of states( some who may or may not have been threatened to do so) is to say there is no law."
Not so. It was actually within keeping with the law.
Prior to "one minute after six o'clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time." the legal status of hostilities within Palestine was a civil war. There was no Israel, no Israeli's. They were all Palestinians.
There was no acquisition of territory by war by any legal entity until AFTER "one minute after six o'clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time."
pjdude February 11, 2011 at 7:46 pm
""you have proved my point. the change you mention there is an expression of the right to self determination. the very right Israel’s existence denies the palestinians"
Israel denies it to the Palestinians. Yes. Against Customary International Law and the UN Charter.
In respect to Israel, on recognition of a convention by the majority of the International Community of Nations/States, the convention passes into Customary International Law.
It's the same for a Declaration of Independence under Customary International Law. When the majority of the International Community of Nations have recognized a Declaration of Independence, statehood becomes irrevocable.
As an Independent Nation, it is then up to the people, by referendum or vote, to change the status (of whatever) . This IS self determination by the people of an Independent Sovereign Nation.
pjdude February 10, 2011 at 7:01 pm
"So because they supported ISrael the custemary law that the majority had signed on to is irrelevant???"
Not at all. Israel was Declared under an UNGA Resolution, within the recommended frontiers in the Resolution. No more, no less. That's what the majority recognized.
The legal status of hostilities in Palestine before the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel, was civil war between factions within a non-sovereign entity under occupation.
With Jewish forces outside of the territories being declared, even as they were being declared, at "one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time" the civil war became a war waged by the 'nascent' State of Israel, on Palestine.
The majority have since repeatedly reminded Israel, amongst a lot of other things it is obliged to, that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. To that end, no territory that Israel has acquired by war or illegal annexation, is legally recognized as Israeli.
pjdude
I don't understand your lower casing of 'p'alestine, 'p'alstinians... ? link to wp.me
Djinn February 9, 2011 at 1:36 am
" that would apply to the USA, New Zealand, Australia and a host of other nations as well"
It would have. However, based on those past injustices, it has been illegal to acquire territory by war since at least 1845. See the US annexation of Texas ... by a referendum of the citizens of Texas.
Psychopathic god February 9, 2011 at 11:12 pm
" the earliest zionists, back in the first decade of 1900s, did buy up a good bit of land, from Arabs and Turks of Ottoman empire. Much of the dealing was done in secret and by trick, but there was an exchange transaction, for some of the land"
Under the Mandate, anyone immigrating to Palestine was required to take up Palestinian citizenship. If they were a citizen and owned 'real estate' in the 'territory' of Palestine, it gave them no more right to say what became of the 'territory' of Palestine than someone renting 'real estate' or even a landless bum living under a bridge. 'territory' belongs to all citizens of an entity, which is why when annexation is proposed, there must be a referendum of all the citizens within the entity. (see annexation of Texas by the US).
Institutions such as the Colonial Trust et al cannot become citizens nor can companies owned by non citizens. They quite simply, had no right to say what became of the 'territory' of Palestine even though they owned 'real estate'.
What was purchased was a minuscule amount of 'real estate' compared to the amount of 'territory' declared as the Jewish Peoples Homeland State of Israel, for which Israel paid not one penny. The amount of 'real estate' bought, is simply insignificant when compared to the territory Israel declared plus that which it has illegally acquired since declaration
"As well, Jews lived among the Palestinian Arabs and those Jews owned land as well"
They owned 'real estate' and only if they were actually citizens of Palestine did they have any right say what became of the 'territory'.
"Two problems: 1. Great Britain did not have that right, and
2. Great Britain and France had divided the same land and given it to others, with the Sykes Picot Agreement.
Great Britain twice gave away land it did not have rights to give."
There are mis-conceptions in respect to the British. From the moment of their recognition of Israel, the British have considered territory controlled by Israel outside of Israel's declared Sovereign extent as occupied
The Mandate given the British was to foster independence for the people in the territories, per the LoN Charter and later the UN Charter Chapter XI.
Under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine the Brits had a right to pass responsibility of tutelage for territory East of the River Jordan to another Power, Article 25(?), which they did. Under the tutelage of France, Jordan became an Independent State on behalf of the people in the territory.
How does this reconcile with 'giving' land away in Jordan?
In respect to what remained of Palestine, the same applied under the Mandate. Due to the Zionist Federations determination to have a separate Jewish State, the turmoil they generated in the area and the inability to reach a consensus amongst the population towards becoming a Palestinian state, a partition plan was suggested (non-binding) BY THE UN, in the hope that it would bring peace to the area. The apportionment was grossly unfair, favouring the Zionist Federation
In order that either of the parties be able to declare independent sovereignty, they had to be independent of any other control. The Mandate had to end. The Brits were not in control at "one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time", on the day in which "..the British Mandate over a Palestine expired".
Because there were Jewish forces in control of territories apportioned to the Palestinians (proposed Arab State) at the time the British Mandate expired, the Palestinians could not legally declare effective Independence or Independent Sovereignty, even if they had wanted to. ( they were not obliged to BTW). There has never in the entire 2,000 year + history of Palestine, been an opportunity for them to declare Independence
pjdude February 10, 2011 at 7:06 pm
a decleration of indepence is not irrovackable. for that to be true it would mean that a right to self determiantion is immpossible if the people in the territory later decide to change their mind"
Under Customary International Law since at least 1845, a change of mind or annexation of territories in which citizens of an entity live ( to another entity), must be decided by a referendum. See the annexation of Texas by the US.
pjdude February 10, 2011 at 7:10 pm
" Talknic your coming across as an apoligist for ISrael to me"
Gawks.
"the fact remains that what they declared theirs was not land they were residents of ....."
Quite.. and the only instance post 1845 where //the ridiculous notion of declaring an Independent Sovereignty over a chunk of land on behalf of a people, regardless of where they live, regardless of their citizenship, regardless of their family lineage, ethnicity, race or heritage. (to be Jewish is the only requirement)// has been acceptable by the majority of the International Community.
Whether we agree or not, it is the consensus of the majority. (International democracy at work). Israel legally exists as recognized "within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947"
A line was drawn in the sand BY the Zionist Federation via the Jewish People's Council, delineating the boundaries of the Jewish Homeland State of Israel and making commitments to adhere to the UN Charter and International Law. Israel's boundaries were confirmed BY the ISRAELI Government
Based on the words of the Israeli Government at the time of recognition, my homeland state, Israel, should be held accountable to it's own undertakings, A) By the all Jewish People, on whose behalf it was declared B) By the Israeli Government C) By the International Community
Anything beyond Israel's delineation of itself, is simply not Israeli.
---
As a bottom line and based on Israel's own words and undertakings, my stance is that:
Israel should adopt a constitution and hold the first legal election in it's 62 year history, according to it's Declaration.
Because it is impossible to write a constitution for a democratic Jewish State in keeping with the Declaration (it has gone around in a circle of irreconcilable concepts), Israel should simultaneously withdraw from all territories outside of it's SELF IMPOSED legal Sovereign extent. Israeli settlers who consent to becoming Palestinians be left to that fate.
Pay reparations to the entity of Palestine for years of having to host refugees.
Pay reparations to the Arab states for hosting refugees for 62 years, fighting numerous wars on behalf of the Palestinians and their LEGAL rights. To say the Arab States have done nothing for the Palestinians is drivel.
Recognize RoR for the few thousand Palestine refugees, who are all over 62 years of age and who qualify under the UNHCR statute and subsequent conventions, which do not allow for lineal descendants, to return to within the actual extent of Israeli Sovereignty. Pay reparations for those who return, for 62 years of hardship. Pay reparations AND compensation for those who do qualify and choose not to return.
Pay lineal descendants reparations for lost inheritances.
The notion that RoR be tied to a peace deal between Israel and Palestine is completely bizarre to say the least. Those granted RoR would not be in Palestine, would not be Palestinians. They'd be Israeli citizens FFS!!! ('scuse my language, but the stupidity of the Israeli demand simply is mind boggling)
Last but not least, apologize. A) to the Palestinians B) to Israeli citizens who have been un-wittingly caught up in the stinking situation through the lies been told them by consecutive Israeli Governments for 62 years C) to the International Community.
The above is of course an ideal based in Law, the UN Charter, numerous UNSC resolutions and statements by the Israeli Government in 1948, showing that they were fully aware of Israel's legal territorial status and obligations.
It would necessitate a huge peace keeping force for at least a decade, which should also be paid for by Israel, whose 'facts on the ground' have made the mess.
It would send Israel bankrupt and likely result in an Israeli civil war, predominantly fought outside of Israel. Such a scenario would have horrific consequences for Israeli and Palestinians alike.
I don't expect my bottom line to become a reality. Israel's ghastly, blind, greedy, religiously driven 'facts on the ground' have created a nasty, festering, gangrenous sore, for which there is no easy cure.
To that end and in keeping with the notions of self determination, it is not my remit, I'll go with what the Palestinians decide. They have been incredibly patient, forgiving and incredibly generous in their concessions.
-----
In answer to anyone who says I blame it all on Israel, damn right I do. It was not Palestine imposed on Israel. It was not Palestine preventing Israeli Independence. It was not the Palestinians preventing Jewish folk from settling anywhere in Palestine. It has not been Palestinians slowly wiping the Israelis off the map
A bit more on UNGA Res 181
"..un plan was never implemented"
Israel implemented it's part.....It is STILL enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the state of Israel. Confirmed by the Israeli Government on May the 15th 1948 to come into effect "at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time"
It was further confirmed May 22nd 1948 and June 15th 1949 in Israeli Government statements to the UNSC and again by it's demands of 31st August 1949.
What remained of Palestine after Israel became independent of Palestine, is still Palestine. It's status, including Jerusalem, which the UN did not implement as a corpus separatum, has never legally changed in over 2,000 years.
Hi Phil..
".. where does that leave partition today?"
With the exception that it describes the borders accepted as the Jewish People's Homeland State (detailed GoogleEarth overlay) and the fact that it is enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel, it's only relevant as an historical document.
The line was drawn in the sand by the Jewish People's Council, May 14th 1948. Israel was declared and recognized "within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947," to come into effect "at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time".
By default, territory bounded by and not within the extent of the Independent Sovereign States of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Israel, is Palestine
Quite simple really. Any complication arises on Israel's refusal to recognize it's own legal boundaries as defined by the Government of the State of Israel.
Avi
The Partition Plan is considered to be illegal under the UN Charter, (the basis of the Arab States objections - see Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine)
However --- UNSC Res 181 was A) not law, B) non-binding C) was only a recommendation, based in law. So it can't really be illegal or legal.
Had it been binding, which it couldn't, (Independence is by it's nature unilateral, one can't demand an entity declare independence), it would have been illegal.
One could say it was an unfair notion, contrary to the UN Charter
On the other hand, acceptance by the majority of the International Community of States makes a Declaration of Independent Sovereignty irrevocable. It IS binding on both the declaring entity and on all other states, once recognized by the majority of the International Community of States.
BTW.... the International Community of States are not the UN. Israel was recognized by entities who were not UN Members. Furthermore, recognition is not an obligation, there are UN Member States who do not recognize each other.
It's not within the UN or UNSC Mandates to recognize states in order that they come into being. The UN/UNSC can only remind, reaffirm, point out the legal basis under which they may become states. UNGA Res 181 was such a resolution, non binding.
Only when they have become Independent States can the UNSC then recommend them to be accepted as UN Members.
Only when they become UN Members States can the UN/UNSC pass resolutions directly relating to their activities. (e.g., there are no UNSC resolutions against Israel link to un.org until it became a UN Member Resolution 72: The Palestine Question (11 Aug)
That the UN has never passed a resolution against Palestine because it is biased, is pure Hasbara bullsh*te . Palestine is not a UN Member state. The football club cannot censure non-members, it can only tell members how they might behave towards non-members (UN Charter Chapter XI)
pjdude
This is the basis of my stance.
Despite of one might think of the ridiculous notion of declaring an Independent Sovereighty over a chunk of land on behalf of a people, regardless of where they live, regardless of their citizenship, regardless of their family lineage, ethnicity, race or heritage. (to be Jewish is the only requirement)
Despite the fact that the people on whose behalf the State was declared, did not elect the body declaring statehood on their behalf, nor was there are referendum asking those who did live in the region
Despite the fact that the Zionist Federation did not even originate in the region and wasn't present in the region until 1936.
Despite the fact that Herzl wasn't from the region, didn't live in the region, even though during his life time he could have lived anywhere in Palestine. (ironically, he is not even buried in Israel)
Despite the fact that they had no Government or Government institutions, had not renounced violence, were being armed and financed from outside the region, were committing acts of terrorism.
Despite the fact that even as Israel was being declared, Jewish forces under Plan Dalet were outside of the extent of the territories being declared, slaughtering, dispossessing and razing non-Jewish homes.
Despite all the above, the Declaration was accepted by the majority of the International community, over riding any legal and/or moral objections.
When the majority ratify a convention it passes into Customary International Law, likewise a Declaration of Sovereign Independence becomes irrevocable when the majority of states recognize it.
On that basis and that basis alone, like it or not, Israel exists as an Independent Sovereign State "within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947", as stated in ISRAELI Government documents.
It is irrefutable that Israel had defined, declared, recognized, acknowledged borders BEFORE it was accepted into the United Nations and BEFORE it first attempted (31st August 1949) to illegally claim any territories outside the extent of it's sovereignty. [[ Had Israel tried to claim territories acquired by war before it was accepted into the UN (May 11, 1949) it would not have been accepted into the UN ]]
Aquire: obtain that which is not within the extent of one's sovereignty
It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war and having not legally annexed any territories, Israel's actual legal boundaries are the same as the day they were declared.
That is the Homeland State of the Jewish People, the legal extent of the 'Land of Israel'. No more, no less.
Whatever preceded Declaration and recognition, including the 'Historic' Homeland of the Jewish People, is now of historical interest only.
The violence that occurred, no matter who caused it or how many died or why, or how one might feel about it, is irrelevant to the legal status of Israel as of "one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time."
Israel and it's citizens, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Arab, Bedouin, whatever, have no legal, moral or religious right to one inch of territory beyond the line in the sand drawn by the Jewish People's Council May 14th 1948.
Israel did not exist until May 14th when it was declared Independent of any other entity, including Palestine. Israel has never been 'in Palestine or a part of Palestine. Israel is Israel. Palestine is Palestine.
Israel occupies Palestine, Israel is obliged at the very least, to the UN Charter, in particular Chapter XI.
irishmoses February 8, 2011 at 1:08 am
If they are linked like this talknic the link itself doesn't cut and paste. Cut and paste is text only.
It will work if the links you cut and paste are the full hypertext mark up --- http:*//*www.*talknic.*wordpress.*com -- (sans the asterisks)
With a link like this talknic you'll need to :
Copy and paste the text.
Then right click on the (original) link, copy the address
Then use the HTML tag to encase the text <a href="http*://*www*.talknic.wordpress.*com"> talknic </a>
Again, sans the asterisks I've had to use to stop it from automatically being converted by the blog bot (an automated script)
irishmoses "How the only legal claim to a portion of Mandate Palestine flows from Balfour through the League of Nations through the UN to UNR 181."
It flows from, but is not legal by, any of the above.
1) The Balfour Declaration was only a statement. It had no actual legal basis and if it was binding, it was only binding on Great Britain.
2) The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine .. Article 7. The state to be formed under the tutelage of Britain, was to be Palestine.
The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine was a Class A mandate which gave the entities under tutelage in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22 Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), provisional recognition as Independent States. The provision was that they were subject to "the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone"
NB: However, the Mandate ended BEFORE the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel came into effect, at "one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time" An entity cannot be independent under occupation.
3) UNGA Res 181 was non binding. Nor could have been in a matter of two entities potentially declaring themselves 'independent'. Independence is unilateral by nature. No UN resolution or law can demand an entity declare independence.
UNGA Res 181 outlined the legal conditions under which either party could declare Sovereign Independence over the territories delineated in the resolution, if they wished.
4) The only legal right Israel has to exist or to any territory, is by the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel and it's subsequent acceptance by the majority of the International Community of Nations.
The majority over ruled any objections and like International Conventions which, when ratified by the majority of states pass into Customary International Law, Israel's sovereignty became irrevocable.
However...
5) The subsequent acceptance by the majority of the International Community of Nations was based on the statement issued to them by the Provisional Israeli Government 15th May 1948.
pjdude
" international law hasn’t recognized unilateral annexations since before WW2. "
In the interest of precision, three points.
1) When the majority of nations have ratified an International Convention, it becomes Customary International Law.
2) Annexation has been Customary International Law since the 1800's. (see the annexation of Texas by the US)
3) There is a 'twist' to legal annexation.
A) It requires a referendum of the citizens of the territory being annexed to first agree to want to be annexed. (see the US annexation of Texas)
B) Annexation upon an agreement is then unilateral if the territories are to become sovereign to an independent annexing party. I.e., independent of the previous or any other entity.
OMG(oodness) "the land of Israel"
How smoothly it rolls off the tongues of the Greater Israel propagandistas
It makes one wanna reach for a puke bucket
The 'land of Israel' is the territory legally within it's sovereignty. The territory legally within it's sovereignty is today the same as when Israel was declared. link to wp.me
hophmi February 8, 2011 at 3:12 pm
"It also does not say “the.”"
Explain what difference 'the' makes...
//“Peace Agreements with the STATES in the conflict was the aim of the resolution.”//
"And how does one arrive at “Peace Agreements?”
By simply agreeing to live in peace according to the law. Which is precisely the situation between the STATES with which Israel has Peace Agreements. The LAW says Israel cannot acquire their territory by war. Israel AGREED first to withdraw as required by law and then withdrew BEFORE peaceful relations resumed, as AGREED in the PEACE AGREEMENTS. One does not negotiate the law, one agrees to abide by it and then makes provision to carry it out.
Tell me, what was negotiated between Israel and Egypt.
hophmi February 8, 2011 at 2:26 pm
"And up is down, and left is right,"
Uh huh. Point out the word 'negotiate' in UNSC Res 242
"Your interpretations are WHACKO. "
Uh huh. Citing the exact wording of a resolution is WHAKO, but inserting words that do not appear in it is sane...
"The only thing that unifies them are that they are all from the school of Arabist apologetics."
Strange, I use no thing from Arabist apologists. This instance is simply a verbatim quote of the whole article, rather than usual dim wit cherry pickings of a Hasbara propagandist.
hophmi February 8, 2011 at 2:20 pm
The CIA fact book is wrong on a number of issues, example link to media.npr.org
National Geographic is not a legal source and the US is not 'the rest of the world'
Try to counter the evidence from the Israeli Government 1948 1949. UNSC Resolutions from 1949 to UNSC Res 1860 2009.
Show a legal annexation document...
Go ahead...
hophmi
"The US recognized Israel in 1948 and again in 1949 as did many other countries. "
In the words of the Israeli Government 1948 "within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947"
The CIA 'Factbook' is wrong on a number of easily shown issues.. check out this gem link to media.npr.org
The US is not the 'rest of the world' and National Geographic is not a legal document
The fact is, you cannot show when Israel legally annexed ANY territories to the extent of it's sovereignty, because it hasn't.
hophmi February 8, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Put up the official recognition...
Hi Avi.
Yes, I know.
It's fun pushing them to the point where they pop and spit the dummy or reveal themselves
Check out the times between posts and hophmi's responses.
He, she or it has professional typing skills & speed, down pat arguments.. a pro.
They're all the same. Stones for honing an argument that can be sent to one's Govt rep or folk who do have a position of effect :-)
hophmi February 8, 2011 at 12:38 pm
"Boo-hoo. Semantics are important, particularly when your side misinterprets them"
Drop the charade. Only dimwit propagandists for Israel's vile behaviour believe a dimwit propagandist for Israel's vile behaviour.
hophmi February 8, 2011 at 12:16 pm
// “The provision you quoted has to do with external relations between states.”//
" Huh? The provision I quoted says “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
What the heck do you think this is referring to? ”
The STATES. Like it says.
" Well, it’s apparently not unambiguous to the people who actually negotiated the resolution. And as I pointed out, the negotiators and drafters clearly did not assume a literal withdrawal."
...to the '67 borders'. Because there is no such thing as the '67 borders. Israel's borders have never actually changed.
// “The acquisition of territory by war violates the letter and spirit of International law.”//
"Yeah, I’m sure it does, though it was pretty much how the entire West was won, if you know what I mean."
Uh huh. I wonder why it was in the resolution for fun perhaps?
The reason there has been a law against the acquisition of territory by war since at least the1800's (See the legal annexation of Texas) is because of the past injustices. Just as there are many conventions.
The irony of your denialist propaganda puke, is that much of the UN Charter, Human Rights Convention, GC's et al, is based on the atrocities visited on our Jewish fellows by the Nazis.
"The actual wording does not include the word “the.” "
How does it alter the meaning? Fact is, it doesn't. Read UNSC Res 1860. Territories occupied and never un-occupied are still occupied.
" As far as your piece on 242: None of what Lord Caradon said conflicts with what I said. "
Get your guide dog some glasses and have it read for you again.
The international community reads 242 as calling for a negotiated settlement"
The International Community are not the States required to do what it says. It does not say 'negotiated settlement' and it does not mention Palestine. Israel's occupation of Palestine is covered by UN Charter Chapter XI.
"The resolution itself calls for the SG to
“designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution”
That means negotiation"
'negotiation' does not appear in the provisions and principles of the resolution.
You keep adding things to suit the justification of Israeli intransigence...
Read the Egypt/Israeli Peace Agreement, especially the references to UNSC Res 242. Peace Agreements with the STATES in the conflict was the aim of the resolution.
hophmi February 8, 2011 at 12:40 pm
" I disagree."
Of course. You must. Otherwise it all falls apart...
"There’s been plenty of disrespect on both sides of 242, starting with the three no’s.
Incorrect. The three no's are IN KEEPING WITH UNSC Res 242
Israel has withdrawn from Sovereign Egyptian territory. There is a Peace Agreement with Egypt. A Peace agreement with Jordan.
Israel has not withdrawn from Syrian Sovereign territory. There is no Peace Agreement. Same Lebanon. Same Palestine.
Understand? Or does it have to be nailed to your thick Hasbara head?
"There’s been plenty of disrespect on both sides of 242"
On one side actually....
hophmi February 8, 2011 at 12:37 pm
// “UNSC Res 242 is not International Law.”//
"It most certainly is. It is Chapter 7 UNSC resolution, and is binding".
International Law stands until it is repealed. It applies to the behaviour of all States until it is repealed, whether there is a conflict or not, the law is still in force.
A UNSC Resolution is based in law but only applies until has been fulfilled. UNSC Res 242 does not refer to anyone but the parties to the conflict.
//“UNSC Res 242 did not call for frontiers/boundaries/borders to be negotiated or altered in any way”//
"No, it discussed a settlement between the parties. I’ll leave you to interpret this in some weird way"
The parties were all States. It was to end hostilities between States. The States all had already declared and acknowledged boundaries by 1948. The Israeli Government acknowledged it's own territorial extent (boundaries) in statements to the International Community of States on May 15th 1948 and again in statements to the UNSC May 22nd 1948 and June 15th 1949
UNSC Res 242 3. Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
It left Israel as the Occupying Power. UNSC Res 1860 (of 2009)
Recalling all of its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003) and 1850 (2008),
Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state"
hophmi February 8, 2011 at 12:29 pm
"Are your dire predictions and garden variety propaganda are supposed to scare me or something?"
A) I don't do propaganda. Every source has provenance and is cited verbatim. Unlike your own inane twaddle.
B) Scare? No educate. Quite impossible I know. Arguing against you however, gives the opportunity to post material OTHER folk might consider. (the enjoyment factor in watching you and your kind spout arrogant twaddle is a plus)
"We have a guy on our side who makes arcane legal arguments about the conflict too. Nobody reads him either.
A) You went, you read B) 'our side' ? I'm only interested in MY homeland state adhering to it's OWN undertakings. You're not. tch tch
"People have been making dire predictions about this for a long time, and propagandists have been making similar arguments for a long time"
A) Propaganda is false. B) I don't do false, they're possibilities, based in the Law verbatim and on the atrocious behaviour of the ghastly people you support.
"The reality is: 1. No one is stepping in to help the Palestinians gain sovereignty over anything."
You've not read the growing list of countries pledging recognition for a Palestinian state? Or the growing list willing to boycott Israel? The shrinking list of allies?
The international community recognizes the Green Line as Israel’s boundary"
Name one and show it's actual recognition.
It's an ARMISTICE LINE. Armistice lines are not borders except where they follow borders. Read Eugene V. Rostow and Lord Caradon AND Stephen M. Schwebel care fully.
Legal annexation requires a referendum of the citizens of the territory being annexed. Has done for at least 150 years under Customary International Law. When did Israel legally annex ANY territory?
PUT UP....
" That’s not going to change, whether Uruguay, Zimbabwe, Argentina, or some other unimportant state.."
Arrogance 101..the sign of a fool. UN Member states are equal.
".. in fact, by recognizing that state based on the 1967 lines, they are only confirming this"
Problem oh arrogant one, the ACTUAL extent of Israeli sovereignty are the same as the day they were declared.
"The Palestinians know that there are two entities that matter: one is the EU and the other is the US. And the EU is a distant second"
Sorry to have to inform you of this, but when it comes to statehood, the UNSC has no say. It can only recommend EXISTING states to the General Assembly for acceptance into the UN. Statehood is recognized by the International Community of States, not the UN. When the majority of the International Community of States recognize an entity as Independent, it becomes irrevocable. Same as when a majority ratify a Convention, it passes into Customary International Law.
There isn’t going to be a civil war in Israel. The vast majority of the settlers are secular people who will leave willingly, and the crazy ones are not enough to take on the IDF"
We're not talking about a few ghastly settlers as in Gaza. Israel only has a right to territories " within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" We're talking about a million or more people who have either wittingly or un-wittingly been living outside of Israel.
"A negotiated solution includes the renunciations of territorial and belligerency claims by the entire Arab world. The Palestinians are a part of that"
The Palestinians have no legal obligation to negotiate ANYTHING.
Israel should count it's blessings that they are willing to forgo their full legal and legitimate rights in order that there be peace. Consecutive Israeli Governments have given NO THING, made NO concessions towards peace with the Palestinians.
The internet has changed the game plan. Israel's bullsh*t is being revealed for what it is. BULLSH*T!
In respect to UNSC Res 242
The Israeli Declaration says Israel “..will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel;” added to which there is the Hasbara notion that Palestine was/isn’t a state.
It seems Israel is operating under the theocratic notion contained in Deuteronomy 20 :15 ... reflected in the wording Israel approved of in UNSC Res 242 which called for an end to hostilities between states, leaving Israel as the Occupying Power over Palestinian territories.
When Palestine becomes a State in Israel's eyes, it will no longer be able to usurp, according to the prophets of Israel.
To date Israel has had "..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" to Egypt and Jordan, (alas not yet to Lebanon and Syria), and absolutely no respect for Palestine what so ever.
hophmi February 8, 2011 at 9:49 am
"I presented sources, including one from your side, showing that the entire point of negotiating the language was the one I made; the negotiators knew a literal withdrawal was not happening and was unrealistic and dangerous."
Only the actual wording of the final draft is the final draft.
A) It was unrealistic to consider ARMISTICE LINES as being borders.
B) UNSC Res 242 was to foster peace between the 'states' involved in the '67 conflict. It is CONFIRMED in the Egypt/Israeli pace Agreement. Read it. Especially the reference to UNSC Res 242.
"It also says:
“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 . . . ”
That part nobody around here mentions because it suggests that calling for a one-state solution/end to Israel violates the letter and spirit of international law"
The acquisition of territory by war violates the letter and spirit of International law.
UNSC Res 242 is a finely crafted document that means exactly what it says. No more, no less.
In order to have it say what you'd like it to say, you have to rely on comments made before and/or after. ONLY the actual words of the resolution are relevant.
The Hasbara relies on people not reading carefully. It relies on A) mis-interpreting the Resolution, B) mis-interpreting and OMITTING what was said by the folk who drafted it link to wp.me
Read it carefully link to wp.me It's beautiful in it's simplicity, that only an idiot or an Israeli propagandist can distort.
hophmi February 7, 2011 at 4:56 pm
ENJOY....
link to wp.me What will happen if the Palestinians Declare Sovereign Independence by the ’67 armistice lines?
link to wp.me Could a peace agreement lead to an Israeli civil war? What are the implications were it to happen?
link to wp.me Negotiations between the State of Israel and the Palestinians. What are they really about?
link to talknic.wordpress.com
hophmi February 7, 2011 at 4:55 pm
" It is NOT false."
It is as false as anything else spouted by the Hasbarbarians link to wp.me
"The language was specifically negotiated by the United States so that UNSC 242 would not mean a literal return to the 1967 borders."
Because there is no such thing as a 1967 border.
"International does include UN resolutions. But the most important ones are the binding ones, and the only binding one relevant today in UNSC 242, which calls for a negotiated solution and a withdrawal from “territories.”."
A) UNSC Res 242 does not contain the word 'negotiate'
B) All UNSC Resolutions are binding. You're confusing having action taken against ' under CChapter VII . READ Chapter VI. It is binding on all UN Members to find a pacific solution.
This has been interpreted to mean minor border adjustments such as the ones proposed, and that is not a partisan analysis."
It is a partisan analysis. The words "minor border adjustments " do not appear in UNSC Res 242. A resolution only means what it says, no more, no less. You cannot add words to it or subtract words from it.
"This is the American and the Israeli position on the issue of withdrawal from territories captured in 1967."
No it ain't... It's the Israeli position. the US position ois ambiguous via abstaining. The US position on Chapter VII is less ambiguous and shows a fear of Zionist repercussions
"Nobody, including the Palestinians, holds the position that the way to peace is to ethnically cleanse 500,000 people...."
Having ones citizens get out of territories they have no right to be in is NOT ethnic cleansing.
... from places that are contiguous with pre-1967 Israel..."
Israel has never legally annexed any territory to it's actual declared and acknowledged boundaries.
".. and can easily be swapped for other land."
Other than illegally acquired Palestinian land, what 'other land' is Israel willing to swap for Palestinian land?
'the' and/or 'all'
Neither make an iota of difference to the meaning. 'No dogs in the park' means 'no dogs in the park'
The debate over these words was in all likelihood to delay the passing of the resolution.
hophmi
"That’s because a literal return to the 1967 borders is not international law"
Indeed it is not. It cannot apply to some fabled borders.
A) What are the actual 1967 borders? B) Whose borders were altered in 1967 C) Can you show the obligatory referendum of the Palestinian citizens in the territory Israel attempted to annex. D) Can you show the legal annexation of territories OCCUPIED by Israel by 1949/50?
In FACT: link to wp.me - Israel's borders have not legally changed since the day they were declared May 14th 1948 and came into effect May 15th 1948. They were further confirmed by the Israeli Government in statements to the UNSC on May 22nd 1948 and again on June 15th 1949.
Israel has not legally annexed ANY territory link to wp.me
Customary International Law (since the 1800's - see the legal annexation of Texas by the USA, especially referendum) binds a sovereign to it's ACTUAL declared and/or acknowledged boundaries, which might include legally annexed territories, if there are any LEGALLY annexed territories.
"UNSC 242 is, and that is not what it calls for"
UNSC Res 242 is not International Law. All Law is in force until it is repealed
UNSC Resolutions are only pertinent to the parties and issues it addresses. Once a UNSC Resolution is fulfilled, it becomes redundant and the treaties arising from it take it's place.
Meanwhile, the laws on which a UNSC Resolution is based, remain in force.
UNSC Res 242 did not call for frontiers/boundaries/borders to be negotiated or altered in any way - link to wp.me - Read it CARE FULLY! It was a resolution to encourage peace between hostile UN Member 'states' in 1967.
The UN/UNSC cannot pass resolutions for or against non-Members, they can only address how UN Members may act towards non-members.
For example: Although Israel voluntarily undertook to adhere to the principles of the UN Charter as of the moment the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel came into effect ("at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time") , there are no UNSC Resolution directly addressing Israel until it became a UN Member State, 11th May 1949.
Then read the peace agreements between Israel/Egypt - link to wp.me - It tells us peace agreements between the hostile 'states' was the purpose of UNSC Res242. It also tells us Israel must withdraw BEFORE peaceful relations are undertaken.
UNSC Res 242 will only be fully complied with when there are peace agreements with Lebanon and Syria and a "just settlement of the refugee problem" created "in the recent conflict" aka '67
UNSC Res 242 left Israel as the occupying power over territories not belonging to any of the Independent States in the region. All the Independent States in the region already had declared and Internationally acknowledged boundaries which, by default, defined what did not belong to those states (incl what did not belong to Israel) Aka PALESTINE. Israel has obligations under the UN Charter Chapt XI
hophmi February 7, 2011 at 4:07 pm
You make me laugh. You’ll believe anything you read on Palestinian propaganda websites.
The Israeli Government did Palestinian propaganda in May 1948. AMAZING!!!
link to avalon.law.yale.edu
link to unispal.un.org
link to mfa.gov.il
"Palestine was invaded? Where do you get this crap? "
All the UNSC resolutions post May 15th 1948 that say "peace in Palestine" not 'peace in Israel' --- Israel was declared independent of Palestine May 15th 1948.
------------------
BTW my website is PRO Israel, as a law abiding nation, living in peace with it's neighbours, instead of living in it's neighbours territories in a state of constant war and generating hatred based on complete fabrications. (all of which I see you have eagerly gulped down)
"the UN Secretary General condemned the invasion as aggression"
At the time the condemnation was made, the UN Secretary General was not Trygve Lie .
Another interesting read link to acjna.org
Nothing has changed in 62 years Were successive Israel Governments human, they would have been committed to a padded cell in an institution for the criminally insane.
The use of white phosphorus as a smoke screen is only valid IF THERE ARE ISRAELI forces in the vicinity of where it lands.
I saw no IDF at the UN school.
I have not seen ANY footage showing IDF forces using the cover provided by White Phosphorus.
Perhaps eee or one of the other similarly myopic posters can point something out? Yes?
When it's used as smoke, it ISN'T being used for illumination. The photos and videos we see are NOT of it's use as illumination A) Y illumination during the day? B) smoke is not illumination it's completely different type of configuration C) For illumination and/or smoke there must surely be IDF in the immediate area.
yonira
"If Hamas would have stopped their rocket fire in the week leading up to Cast Lead, Israel wouldn’t have attacked. Anyone who denies this is blind "
Uh? Jewish forces, under the preemptive Plan Dalet, were outside the extent of Israel's declared sovereignty before it was even declared, after it was declared and up until the present day, dispossessing, slaughtering, razing, illegally acquiring, illegally annexing , illegally settling. Hamas are an ill equipped response. The results of which pale into insignificance against Israel's military might, destruction and blatant dis-regard for Palestinian civilians.
"I can admit this and at the same time lay partial blame on the beginning of Caste Lead on Hamas’ reluctance to stop firing rockets into Israel."
Why? Israel is the Occupying Power. Folk have a right to use arms against the occupier. There is no article stopping belligerents from crossing borders, or firing over borders to attack their opponent's military once a war is in progress. In fact, had they the means, they have as much right to INVADE and take Israeli territory for strategic purposes as long as hostilities continue. They could even LEGALLY, according to your criteria, use white phosphorous in densely populated civilian areas where they had no forces ( in order to provide them cover of course)
The preemptive war against the Palestinians, begun under Plan Dalet, has been in effect for 62 years. There are no ceasefire/armistice/peace agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. The ceasefires/armistice/peace agreements with Israel have all been between states that all existed BEFORE Israeli statehood.
If Israel doesn't want Jewish civilians to end up as collateral, it should abide by the GC's which are there to protect all civilians. A) Keep them out of territories illegally acquired by 1950 B) keep them out of "territories occupied" C) None of which (A or B) have ever been legally annexed to Israel.
If Israeli citizens actually in Israel are in harms way, they should be evacuated from the war zone. Go on a holiday back home to New Jersey or where ever.
When the State of Israel finally comes to it's senses and withdraws to it's own territory for the first time in it's history, a prerequisite for peace full relations, they can return (unless of course Israel decides it'd like to sell the land again and appropriates it by some bizarre legislation... such a nice money spinner)
eee
Feel sorry for IDF grunts...sure do.
Look at what they're fighting for...
Indisputable FACT: Israeli forces have been OUTSIDE of Israel from the moment it was ".... proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,"
It has never legally annexed ANY territory it claims OUTSIDE of it's declared and recognized boundaries...
'defending' to keep territories illegally acquire d by war over 62 years, risking IDF forces to do it, justified by BULLSH*T, is BULLSH*T!
Demanding MORE territory in order to have defensible borders to keep illegal settlers safe in illegally acquired territories is also BULLSH*T!
No matter how much of a neighbours territory Israel illegally claims, it will always have a neighbour, who is gonna be p*ssed off and they have a right to armed resistance.
The Jewish homeland State of Israel was DECLARED on May 14th 1948, no more, no less. The 'historic' homeland is just that HISTORIC. Whatever occurred or was promised BEFORE declaration is of historical interest only.
Whatever happens OUTSIDE of Israel from the moment Israel declared, is subject to Customary International Law and the UN Charter. Israel is obliged under the UN Charter Chapter XI. It was from the moment it was declared.
Israel VOLUNTARILY occupies. Israel voluntarily acquires territory by war, Israel voluntarily illegally annexes and it voluntarily illegally settles. Israel has a duty to it's citizens to keep them OUT of "territories occupied" because unfortunately collateral occurs on both sides in a war.
Instead, it asks Israeli soldiers to protect people involved in an illegal activity and you support it and then have the audacity to say "What is appalling to me is your zero concern with the life of Israeli soldiers"
Bizarre!!
Hi Jim.
The maps at maps-world.cn are.... ummm..... how can I put this politely..... sh*te!
I've followed the boundaries in detail accepted by the Jewish People's Council on behalf of the world's Jewish population.
The Google Earth Overlay accompanied by the text of UNGA Res 181 (still enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel)
It is indeed a good olde British double standard.
A) Israel was recognized BEFORE it had a capitol and today it's claimed capitol is not even in Israel.
B) Israel was recognized BEFORE it had a democratically elected Government. (Israel has never had a democratically elected Government according to the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel. I.e., according to the constitution. There ain't one.)
C) Israel was recognized without renouncing violence, it's forces were/are still OUTSIDE of Israel, slaughtering and razing.
D) Israel was recognized while it was still in control of territories OUTSIDE of the extent of it's declared and confirmed sovereignty
E) Israel is still recognized even though it has not rectified ANY of the above and in fact has increased it's illegal claims.
("raise that double standard high high high high" Robyn Archer)
"The irony here is striking considering Israel has no internationally recognized capital and no internationally recognized borders."
Not so. Israel confirmed it's borders May 15th 1948 to the international community and again on May 22nd 1948 and Jun 15th 1948 TO THE UNSC link to wp.me
May 15, 1948 Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States,
“MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” Also available as PDF from the Truman Library
May 22, 1948 The reply of the Provisional Government of Israel (S/766) to the questions addressed to the “Jewish authorities in Palestine” was transmitted by the acting representative of Israel at the United Nations on May 22.
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.”
June 15, 1949 Israel-s position on its frontiers VOLUMES 1-2: 1947-1974
“As for the frontier between the State of Israel and the area west of the Jordan which is not included in Israel…”
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. "
It is inadmissible to 'acquire' territory by war. Any war. link to wp.me
Annexation without a referendum of the citizens of a territory being annexed is illegal. link to wp.me
David, there's an 'in' in indistinguishable! Indistinguishable from the standard Hasbara..
In Dershowitz, the crux of the problem must be first overlooked, then justified and there his Hasbarrow over floweth.
Unfortunately, fabrications or not, there is not one word of dear Dershowitz’s deranged drivel that has ANY relevance to the legal status of the situation or the Palestinians of today.
They were all tiny babies. None of their parents ever voted for Husseini or fought in his forces in the Balkans and at the time he was mufti of NOWHERE. Certainly not Palestine
It's ALL completely irrelevant.
hophmi
Pre-State Jewish militias/terrorists (funded and armed from overseas BTW) were running rampant on the day Israel was declared. Very civil.
Furthermore, they were, under the preemptive Plan Dalet, running rampant OUTSIDE of the territories being accepted.
-------
"The US is not going to vote for UNSC resolution recognizing a Palestinian state.; that’s a moot point"
Indeed it is a moot point, because the UNSC has no role in recognizing states. It's role is to reccommend EXISTING states for admission into the UN.
UN itself does not recognize states until AFTER they have become states.
The International Community of Nations to which the declaring entity is appealing to be allowed to join, includes states who are not UN Member States, "WE APPEAL to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel into the comity of nations."
States recognize states. It's a part of the notion of Customary International Law and procedure required by law, when [something] is adopted by a majority.
E.g., When the majority of States ratify a convention, it becomes a part of the body of Customary International Law, which is binding on ALL recognized states. Prior to it becoming customary International law, it never the less, still exists, binding on those who have ratified it.
Likewise with the recognition of Statehood. When the majority of the International Community of Nations have recognized a declaring entity, they become a part of the International Community of Nations. As such, subject to ALL Customary International Law and Convention.
If they aren't recognized by the majority as a state, they never the less exist as valid entities, with all the rights obliged to be afforded them by all UN Members States under the UN Charter Chapter XI.
"When there is a Palestinian state, Israel’s right of self-defense to respond to Palestinian terrorism, should it take place, will be strengthened, not weakened"
Israel’s status and right of self-defense will not alter. It already has very right to protect everything and everyone within the extent of it's Sovereignty from any armed aggression in accordance with the UN Charter, the Laws of War , GC's.
On the other hand, for the first time in 2,000 years, the Palestinians will have EVERY right to tell Israel and anyone else who transgresses, to F&CK OFF!!
"Now, the international community cannot chalk up good reasons why Palestine shouldn’t be a viable state. It has a functioning judiciary, functioning elections (two historically), functioning policy force, functioning economic infrastructure."
Viability is not a pre-requisite. The excuses you've mentioned are far more than Israel had at declaration. Far more than East Timor had at declaration.
A functioning judiciary is not a prerequisite for declaring statehood. There was none prior to Israel becoming a State
Nor are elections. There were none prior to Israel becoming a State.
Nor is an administrative Government a prerequisite for statehood. There was none prior to Israel becoming a State.
Nor is a constitution. There was none prior to Israel becoming a State (still isn't)
There were no State financial institutions.
No State Law
None of the above can exist until the State first exists.
Oh ... and Jewish forces were VIOLENT pre-Israeli statehood.
---
One might carefully read the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel. It is a very good example of the process. A process which BTW Israel has never concluded.
First comes a state and form of Government. Only when there IS a state can there be a State Judiciary or a State Government or State financial institutions. A Provisional Government then administers the State until those institutions ar implemented and an elected Government is put in place to administer the state.
The State of Israel was recognized de jure, the Provisional Government was recognized as de facto. The elected Government was then recognized de jure. States exist independent of the administrative Governments which can change (regimes)
---------------
Of course the instruments of statehood can be planned for prior to declaration, however, all that is required for an effective Declaration of Independent Sovereign Statehood, is that the entity have full control over the territories they are declaring.
A Declaration of Independence cannot come into effect until such time as an entity does have full control of the territories being declared. E.g., (Israel) "The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time."
A lot of twaddle has been written about the previous Palestinian Declaration. The simple fact is, they have never had full control over the territories being declared. Nor can they until Israel WITHDRAWS.
Therein lies the problem. The Palestinians actually have a right to declare Independent Sovereignty over ALL the territories bounded by the actual frontiers delineated by the boundaries of the States surrounding it.
Israel has nowhere to go except Israel. Hundreds of thousands of Israeli's are living either wittingly or unwittingly OUTSIDE of Israel for 62 years, in territories Israel has never legally annexed.
Israel is terrified of there being an Independent Palestinian state because of Israel's STUPID, shortsighted, GREEDY, fanatical, ILLEGAL 'facts on the ground'. It's terrified of the cost and terrified of the Israeli civil war which will take place when the tens of hundreds of thousands of ILLEGAL settlers need to be forcibly removed. An Israeli civil war which will undoubtedly take place OUTSIDE of Israel's actual sovereign extent. As such the Regional Powers and/or the UNSC have a duty to intervene.
piotr
" If I recall, Human Rights Watch is active in a number of ME countries and di fund raising in Saudi Arabia"
HRW sought funds in Saudi Arabia. However it's charter does not allow funding by Governments.
link to hrw.org
"Some foundations that support Human Rights Watch are partially funded by governments; we accept no government funds from these foundations, only privately sourced revenues"
Chunky ... link to irmep.org
Chaos4700
Like myself I guess, because you know it will be flooded with one sided justifications for destroying the Palestinians. If there's only one side of the issue being told, as it has been for decades, people will have nothing else on which to form an opinion
In the past five years or so, thanks to the internet, there has been a slow but sure groundswell justifiably contradicting the Hasbara.
eee
"Arab money is “dirty” in Israel not because of the ethnicity of the Arabs but because they are not perceived to have Israel’s interests at heart."
I see. Israel illegally acquires territory allotted for the Arab State after being given COMPLETELY GRATIS approximately half of the territory of the primarily Arab entity of Palestine.
Israel then illegally acquires and illegally annexes and illegally settles in Palestinian territory. While from the moment it was declared, Israel has controlled territory allotted to the Arab State thereby preventing them from Declaring Independent Statehood, should they wish.
This has gone on for 62 years, justified with blatant lies, stupid and illogical arguments sold to Israeli citizens in order that they help create illegal 'facts on the ground' in complete disregard of the UN Charter, International Law, the GC's AND the Israeli Declaration.
When all Israel has done is take more and more and more, claiming to be making concessions, but slaughtered anyone who stands in the way.
The thriving green house industry Israel so kindly bestowed upon the people of Gaza. Israel took Palestinian land, Palestinian water, which Israel illegally sold or gave to to illegal settlers who paid a handful of Palestinians pathetic wages while the millions of dollars of profits each year didn't go to the Palestinian economy but into the Israeli economy via illegal settlers who then demanded to be paid to get the hell outta where they didn't have ANY RIGHT TO BE in the first place, but not before destroying some 50% of the glass houses BEFORE dis-engagement. link to wp.me
Israel then lied about the Palestinians destroying what Israel had so 'kindly' left them. Israel didn't leave ANYTHING to them, outside benefactors paid the settlers for whatever was left. The Palestinians didn't destroy the glass houses, they have worked incredibly hard to restore them, only to have Israel refuse to allow the produce exported, or what little they have permitted, delayed most of it's passage so that it rots.
The Israeli Government has been making BILLIONS of dollars every year for 62 years, selling land in illegally acquired and illegally annexed territory, to developers and illegal settlers. The occupation is an industry to which Israel has become a financial addict, knowing full well it can not afford to undo it' ghastly illegal 'fact on the ground'
If you actually expect Arabs or anyone for that matter, to have the interests at heart of a greedy deceitful, lying, bunch of thieves, I suggest you go see a shrink..
Fine Israeli Jewish folk, the likes Uri Avnery, only ask that Israel adhere to the Law. Adhere to the UN Charter. Adhere to it's own Declaration. For it's own benefit, because Israel is fast becoming what can only be described as a rogue state.
fibber
:-)
yonira
As long as Israel illegally claims territory illegally acquired by war, illegally annexed, illegally settles, denies RoR, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Palestinian territories CONTINUES.
yonira
Er the San Remo text IS pre-Israel
Whatever pre-Israel hasn't been relevant since May 14th 1948. Whatever pre-Israel, was relegated to being of only historical interest the moment Israel became a state, independent of Palestine, by it's own declaration.
The Jewish People's Council drew a line in the sand May 14th 1948. The Provisional Israeli Government CONFIRMED the extent of Israeli Sovereignty to the WORLD on May 14th 1948. It further confirmed the extent of Israel's sovereignty to the UNSC on May 22nd 1948 and again on 15th May 1949 . (IRREFUTABLE sources previously supplied. Not read?)
Time and time again Israel has over stepped it's OWN self declared extent, waged preemptive wars in order to hold on to illegally acquired territories. Dissed it's OWN declared obligations to the UN Charter and International Law.
You will not find these documents or any reference to them on the Israeli Government web site... WHY NOT? They are two of the most important documents relating to Israel's actual sovereign extent. It is the DUTY of the Israeli Government to truthfully inform it's citizens. It does not. WHY NOT?
Israel's leaders LIE and LIE and LIE again and again. WHY?
Simple maths and Israel's ACTUAL borders show the return of Palestine refugees to Israeli sovereign territory is not a demographic threat to Israeli sovereignty OR Jewish majority. Yet they want you to believe otherwise, using duplicitous twaddle. WHY?
In it's declaration, there was no concern of a demographic threat by the non-Jews Israeli invited to stay. Yet if the part of a minority who fled the violence were to return ( by Aug 1948) they would be a demographic threat.
Which is the lie? Simple maths and logic tell us BOTH were lies.
Almost everything said of the Palestinians by Israel/Israeli's, is a blatant lie WHY?
You perpetuate lies. WHY?
eee
Not all Jews are Zionists.
Not all Israeli Jews are Zionists.
Not all Zionists are Jews.
Not all Zionists agree with the illegal expansionist policies of successive Israeli Governments.
Not all Israeli Jews agree with the illegal expansionist policies of successive Israeli Governments.
eee
"Swayed to what? "
Being honest.
"To leave Israel or accept minority status as Jews in an Arab entity"
Can you show where I've advocated such? Or do you just naturally switch to hysteria?
" What exactly do you want to sway us to?"
Being honest. You've just shown, you can't.
Keep up the good work.
eee
"One day you will understand that Israel is a sovereign state and what matters is what the Israelis decide. That is the essence of Zionism that you so hate."
I understand your need to make false accusations.
If your 'Zionism' is :
non-adherence to one's Declared obligations, dissing the Law, the UN Charter, dispossessing other folk, illegal annexation, illegally acquiring, illegally settling, KILLING to enable it, then trying to justify it with outright lies, mis-quotes, mis-reading , blatant and purposeful ignorance, mis-informing one's own citizens, none of which are traits that reflect the basic tenets of Judaism....
you'd have to be quite sick to support and defend it..
Are you a liar, time-waster, or bigot RoHa?
eee
"There is only one law that applies in Israel and that is Israeli law."
WOW!! Just like any other Independent Sovereign State, inside their borders.
The moment Sovereign States act OUTSIDE the extent of their sovereignty, they are obliged to International Law. At all times UN Members are obliged to the ENTIRE UN Charter. Israel obliged itself to the UN Charter BEFORE it became a member. Read the Declaration.
The argument based on the Palestinians rejection of UNGA res 181 is stupid. The Palestinians didn't even have a say in the matter. The two parties were the Zionist Federation and the Arab States.
Look at what is happening in Sudan at the moment and how self determination SHOULD have taken place in 1948. Same laws apply 1945 til the present.
So what if one party rejected UNGA Res 181 it was non-binding... You can't force entities to declare independence. Furthermore there was no article requiring a co-signature. Nor could there have been. for the same reason, independence.
The parties did not have to sign an agreement in order that one or the other or both or none, achieve Sovereign Independence. Look up the word independence. It's unilateral.
A declaration of Independent Sovereignty meanwhile, IS binding. On the entity declaring and on the International Community. It tells us the extent over which the Sovereign entity is declaring and by default, what is NOT a part of the entity.
UNGA Res 181 is enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel, is it not? Israel exists as an independent Sovereign State does it not? It was recognized by the majority of the International Community of Nations, was it not? (overriding the Arab states legal objections) It is a UN Member State, is it not?
Although UNGA resolutions are not binding, they do remind the parties of and cite, reaffirm, reiterate binding International Law and binding UNSC resolutions.
The Jewish People's Council accepted the Customary Legal conditions governing Independent Sovereignty (binding), outlined in UNGA res 181 . They didn't have to. But they DID .
They drew the line in the sand obliging Israel to International Law, the UN Charter and to the extent of it's boundaries (boundaries define a country's frontiers).
They were declared May 14th 1948 "within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" and the Provisional ISRAELI Government confirmed the extent of it's Sovereignty to the UNSC May 22nd 1948 and June 22nd 1949 -- AFTER becoming a Sovereign State.
BTW Since becoming an Independent Sovereign, Israel's cease fires/Armistice and peace agreements have been between STATES. Regional Powers and High Contracting Powers. The GC's apply. So too the UN Charter Chapter XI
"Israel has the rightful claim to its territory because it won the war. "
It is inadmissible to 'acquire' territory by war. ANY WAR!! link to wp.me What was not declared as 'sovereign' to Israel, cannot be 'acquired' by war. It can ONLY be legally annexed, BY AGREEMENT through a referendum of the CITIZENS of the territory being annexed. (see the US annexation of Texas - Customary International Law way before Israel became a state)
"Had we lost, we would have been dead.."
Twaddle ... The Arab states invaded PALESTINE, after Israel had been declared Independent of Palestine. They attempted to expel Jewish forces already in Palestine, before Israel was declared.
There is no UNSC resolution condemning the Invasion of Palestine. The Arab States, as regional Powers had a right under the UN Charter Chapter XI to attempt to expel Jewish forces who were OUTSIDE of Israel May 15th 1948.
There are no UNSC Resolutions calling for peace in Israel. They say Palestine. The wars have been OUTSIDE of Israel.
As for being dead, you have obviously NOT read the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine OR anything the Arab states had to say from the outset. In 1948 it was in fact almost precisely the same as League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. Jews would have been able to live anywhere in Palestine, in a democracy, with freedom of religion and protection of Holy sites. Another missed opportunity, by the Zionist Federation. link to wp.me Time and time again.
"and the land would have been divided between by Arab countries."
Twaddle Read the Declaration on the invasion of Palestine. It outlines the legal reasons for invading Palestine, not Israel. There was no threat to Israeli Sovereignty. There was no threat to Jews. There was a threat to remove Jewish/Israeli forces ILLEGALLY IN Palestine.
" But it turns out we won and therefore we own the land."
Brainwashing works. You spout ignorant nonsense. When was it legally annexed to Israel? Fact is , Israel has never legally annexed ANY territory. Israel has dug itself a huge 'facts on the ground' HOLE that it can not find it's way out of without
A) a civil war, which would be fought between Israel the state and hundreds of thousands of ILLEGAL Israeli settlers OUTSIDE of Israel. Which under the UN Charter raises the possibility of UNSC action or action by the other Regional Powers or both.
B) Going bankrupt.
yonira
Read the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. It tells us, in the FIRST LINE, that San Remo is no longer relevant.
Then read the San Remo text. IT refutes your argument.
Phil is correct....
the eee's will never be swayed. However, their arguments provide a means of showing other folk, by rational, substantiated debate, just how twisted, convoluted and purposefully ignorant the eee's of the world really are.
eee
Who cares. Irish tax policies are Ireland's business, it is a Sovereign state. It's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the topic.
eee.
The Palestinians are not looking for anyone to 'give' them anything.
They are rightfully claiming what is theirs under the law and asking for recognition of it.
They are also calling for condemnation of Israel's claims to what Israel has no rightfully claim, under the law.
In both instances the Palestinians are correct. In both instances, Israel is outside the law, in breach of the UN Charter Chapter XI.
eee / yonira
Your arguments are stupid and irrelevant.
Whatever preceded the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, became of historical interest only on 14th May 1948, when the Jewish People's Council declared the Jewish homeland State of Israel on behalf of all the world's Jewish population, regardless of their citizenship, religion, race or where they lived.
The 'historic' Jewish homeland in Palestine was also relegated to the dust bin of history on May 14th 1948. Israel was declared independent of Palestine. An independent sovereign state cannot be 'in' another entity.
On May 14th 1948, through Israel's declaration, there were now two entities. One the State of Israel and the other what remained of Palestine.
Israel drew the line in the sand. "within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,"
It was recognized as such. Immediately by the US, USSR, France, Australia, Iran, etc etc , BEFORE Israel lay claim to any further territories. It was recognized AFTER it lay claim to extra territories by the British, who EXCLUDED the extra territories Israel was controlling from their recognition.
Israel CONFIRMED the extent of it's sovereignty on May 22nd 1948 and on 15th June 1949 with the UNSC.
Er Witty
The green line is not, nor was it ever, a border. To demand it as the border is neither rational or just, it would be a continuation of the Nakba. Were the Palestinians to accept it, would show incredible generosity on their part in order to have peace.
Should this come about, I have no doubt Israel would merely gloat like a fat glutton rather than recognize itself, what it has done or the generous spirit of the Palestinians.
NormanF
Irrelevant to the actual legal status of territories. Nor has the Grand Mufti anything to do with Palestinians of today. None voted for him, they were babies at the time he was booted out of office. No Palestinian ever vote for him when he was in the picture.
"Should American publications be employing former Israeli soldiers as their correspondents?"
Promoting the Israeli POV is a National industry. Jewish folk have always been very shrewd in making sure our door squeaks the loudest and getting folk into positions where it they make sure it does.
The few exceptions are not the rule
I expect alas, less and less ...
Eventually the kid gloved veto vote is gonna have to go and 62 years of living under an illusion is gonna come crashing down, physically, morally, spiritually and financially.
I really do fear the worst for so many folk unwittingly caught up in the whole mess.
An Independent Palestinian State is now Israel's greatest nightmare and not because of the Palestinians
When you draw a line in the sand and then ignore it, you've only yourself to blame.
Try Vimeo as an alternative to You Tube
Callousness.... 101 ..
Israeli MP Ben Ari on the Israeli Committee on the Rights of the Child "Even a child, if endangering one's life, should be shot"
There is something horribly wrong in the State of Israel.
I've had the same. Even though the same video is repeated hundreds of tines on You tube, without any valid analysis....
Probably on Giyus guys and the like, bombarding them with squirmy complaints.
eee The green line is only an armistice line. Israel's borders have not legally changed since the day they were declared and confirmed with the UNSC May22nd 1948 and June 15th 1949. Best that Israel stop LYING to it's citizens about not having fixed borders, take ALL it's illegal settlers and get the hell outta Palestine.
eee. Uh huh. If you see the full version, you'll probably have to come up with more excuses. Such a conscientious lil' worker..
The footage at 044:0/49 was cute. The trajectory would have been DIRECTLY at about stomach height.
Oh... BTW ... was that ALL the IDF footage of the slaughter of activists on the Mavi Marmara..you know, the part where the terrorists climbed UP the assault ropes to the helicopters..
I'm sure you must have a handy excuse.
Indeed, eee. Although it wouldn't be but for the brutal Israeli occupation of the Palestinian people today.
62 years on and Israel is carrying out it's vile threats .... link to wp.me then screeching like a rabbit if anyone opposes or points out it's VOLUNTARY obligations.
Say....... you must be very proud.
eee
Arrogance 101.
"What the people of Gaza yearn for..."
What you are not able to grasp, is that Palestinians yearn for is for YOU and your criminal friends to F%^& OFF!
In 1993 the ILLEGAL settler's economy improved .. free land, free water cheap Palestinian labor and millions of shekels going into ISRAELI pockets. More of your stinking style of twaddle here link to wp.me
jon s
UNSC Res 1860
Next ignorant question...?
Soldiers are captured and may be held for the duration of hostilities.
YOU have no evidence he is being kept in inhumane conditions.
So not only are you ignorant, you make false accusations.... bravo...keep up the good work..