Commenter Profile

Searching for: referendum (65 results found)

You can also use % as a wildcard: %ondoweis% will match mondoweiss

talknic

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 proclaiming its frontiers in the May 15th 1948 in the Israeli Government plea for international recognition, Israel has illegally acquired by force and occupied more and more territory outside of it's proclaimed and recognized Sovereign territory. None of which has ever been legally ceded to or legally annexed to Israel by any agreement or legal instrument The occupied have a right to violent resistance against armed citizens of the Occupying Power. However, no one has a right or excuse for committing acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. To that end: I condemn all forms of terrorism, murder and any other harmful crime by any individual, group, organization or state and; condemn any government, individual or organization who purposefully encourages the illegally settlement of territories held under occupation thereby purposefully endangering its own citizens by using them to create illegal facts on the ground Today the State of Israel continues to encourage Israeli civilians to create illegal settlements, illegal facts on the ground, breaking law that was adopted by the UN and International Comity in large part because of the treatment of our Jewish fellows under the Nazis. Law adopted to protect all civilians including those of an Occupying Power from the expected violent consequences of occupying another people and their territory Israel demands the swap of non-Israeli territory for non-Israeli territory so it can keep non-Israeli territory in a future settlement. There is no legal basis for the demand nor is there for the disarmament of a future Palestinian state. All states have equal right to self defense. Likewise, there is no legal basis for the demand to be recognized as the Jewish state. Israeli demands have no legal precedence or validity The Palestinians have no legal, moral or ethical obligation to forgo any of their legal rights. Negotiations mean only one thing, the Palestinians forgoing legal rights so Israel can benefit Were Israel to adhere to the law, it can easily protect itself, grow and prosper. It'd have no UN resolutions against it. No need to continuing to corrupt US politicians in order to maintain a UNSC veto vote. No need to lie to and endanger its citizens I've received too many threats for opposing Israel's policies towards the Palestinians, broken windows, graffiti'd walls, hate mail, I'd prefer to remain anonymous, if that's OK. Who I am is irrelevant. Reliable information is essential to informed dialogue towards resolving the I/P issue. Propaganda has no place in struggle for peace

Website: http://talknic.wordpress.com

Showing comments 65 - 1
Page:

  • Anti-Semitism accusations against 'Dyke March' prove pro-Israel lobby will torch LGBT rights for marginalized people
    • @ Talkback July 9, 2017, 8:51 am

      Talknic: “A) The Montevideo Convention was adopted into the UN Charter 1945.”

      Again you fail to prove your this repetitive claim

      It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war/any coercive measure. Reflected in UNSC res 242. Reflected in UNSC res 252 and its nine reminders re the illegal annexation of East Jerusalem.

      " you fail to acknowledge that even Palestine does NOT contest Ashdod to be de jure a part of Israel. "

      The Palestinians via their declaration are prepared to cede the territory to a state that has yet to accept by any agreement. It is therefore de facto, not de jure.

      "Neither do other states that recognizes Israel and who support a two state solution"

      de facto is not de jure. Trade and/or relationships with another country and Israel are not an agreement between Israel and Palestine legalizing borders between Palestine and Israel.

      Talknic: “The 1988 Palestinian Declaration was by a body representing the Palestinian majority!”

      " Israel’s body didn’t represent the majority of the citizens of Palestine within partition borders since most Jews were and had not become citizens of Palestine."

      A) I'm talking about the Palestinian declaration. B) Re Israel, I agree. I've not asserted that the Israeli declaration or subsequent recognition was legitimate even tho Israel was recognized within the recommended borders of UNGA res 181 by the majority of the International Comity of Nations at the time.

      Talknic: “I concur.”

      "But its not the unust FACT that you constantly repeat. And exactly this leaves the impression that you would sanction its creation within partition borders, because this FACT was recognized by the UN. "

      A) The UN doesn't recognize countries. Recognition happens amongst the International Comity of Nations prior to the UN Security Council then recommending already recognized states for Membership. B) No. I base my opinion and argument on the 1988 Palestinian declaration.

      "The same UN which in FACT rejected proposals tp refer the Question of Palestine to the International Court of Justice and in FACT also the question of the power of the its General Assembly to make recommendations which in FACT violate the territorial integrity and the right to self determination as reflected in FACT by its rejection to hold a referendum in Palestine."

      I concur. So did Balfour http://wp.me/PDB7k-Q#jews-can-live-anywhere

      Talknic: “Jews didn’t actually have the right, only a body representative of the majority of the legitimate inhabitants of a territory has that right.”

      "So the “Jewish Agency” didn’t even have the right to secede and declare since they were not representing the majority of citizens within partition borders (because most Jews weren’t citizens of Palestine) and acquire any territory."

      That's right. Never the less the International Comity of Nations recognized Israel based on the Israeli plea for recognition. Today, like it or not,the conflict is with the State of Israel.

      "And your initial statement “[Israel’s] declared and recognized territories were acquired through secession and declaration” is not only nonsense but misleading, because it ommits it’s illegality and how its territory actually came into its posession."

      Israel didn't exist until 00:01 May 15th 1948, prior to which Jewish terrorists controlled territories as assigned to the Jewish state under UNGA res 181 and under Plan DAlet, beyond those borders. What lay beyond Israel's recognized borders have never been recognized by any state as Israeli

      Talknic: “it was on the basis of Zionist/Jewish Agency lies that the International Comity of Nations recognized Israel and UNGA accepted Israel into the UN. I’ve never claimed it was correct or legal.”

      "The Jewish Agency lmade very clear what their position was regarding boundaries and refugees being both subject to negotiations of a final peace agreements and the UN even refered to these declaration and statements in its resolution when it accepted Israel. You may never claimed it was correct or legal, but you also never focus on it."

      The UN referred to the statements being made. That's all it did. So what? Why focus on something that had no effect, even after Israel was admitted to the UN it was still trying in Aug 1949 to no effect to claim, without negotiation with Palestine, territories it occupied post 00:01 May 15th 1948

      "The point of issue is that even the State of Palestine DOES NOT contest that Ashod is a part of Israel. Like all other state who recognize Israel DO NOT. too. But you are living in the delusion that all states who recognize Israel do not “de jure” recognize Ashdod to be in Israel, but that they “de jure” recognize it as occupied Palestinian territory."

      Get back to me when de facto = de jure and there is an agreement between Israel and Palestine.

      Talknic: “You can quote it as many times as you like. The Israeli statements were lies and the subsequent acceptance into the UN has not changed. ”

      You can claim this as many times as you like. But just quote the lies of Israel’s statement regarding to terrtorial and other differences as being subject of “a process of negotiation”."

      Sure.

      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.”

      Israel has ignored International Law and it's proclaimed borders.

      Talknic: “The UN/UNSC doesn’t directly censure non-Member states.”

      "It even censures non state actors who declare non menber states ... ... ... United Nations Security Council resolution 541

      As with the previous example offered elsewhere, the authorities were censured. The authorities are not the State

      "So far according to your nonsense ISIL could legally create a state by illegaly acquiring its territory and according to the right to self determination as long as it makes sure that it represents the majority of its inhabitans by killing or expelling everyone else and by a simple declaration. "

      If you say so. I haven't.

      "And all of this because of the Montevideo Concention. And the newly created state can’t be held censured, especially if it is not a UN member. ROF"

      You've yet to provide an instance where a non-member STATE is directly censured. Your example on Cypres censure the Authorities, not the State. The State exists regardless of what authorities administer it. The State is a member or not, not the authorities.

    • A) The Montevideo Convention was adopted into the UN Charter 1945. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by any coercive measure, making it by default illegal for Member states to recognize territories acquired by war.

      Re Ashdod. de facto recognition is not de jure. No state has ever recognized any territories acquired by the State of Israel by war since the Israeli plea for recognition

      B) No one has been able to show me a UNSC resolution directly censuring and directly naming a non-member state. The examples previously shown me plead with parties to the issue without actually naming the state. Until Membership, "Israel", was not named in any UNSC resolution other than those dealing with its admission to the UN

      C) echinococcus July 7, 2017, 8:38 am

      "You never, ever even tried to respond to a single one of the multiple objections raised to your unceasing repetition of the same irrelevant statements."

      Nonsense, I am answering to your opinion. As to 'repetition of the same irrelevant statements', the fact that the Palestinians have declared their state hasn't changed, nor has the fact that Palestine, as declared, has been recognized by the majority of the International Comity of Nations.

      " your continuous defense of simultaneous A and non-A. This reaches insanity"

      I have based my opinion and argument in accordance with the Palestinian declaration of statehood, same as the ICJ opinion as asked by the Palestinians

      D) The ICJ gave an opinion only, based on specific questions asked by the Palestinians which were in turn based on the Palestinian stance per their declaration of statehood. Were the ICJ asked to make a ruling on the same questions, it would of course assign what the Palestinians have ceded to Israel as Israeli from the Palestinian POV despite the fact that Israel has yet to accept or place any limitations on its expansionism. The ICJ has not yet been asked for or delivered a ruling and Israel has not yet accepted any limitations to its illegal expansionist ideals

      E) Talkback July 8, 2017, 8:34 am

      Talknic: “Declaration can be a decision by the majority of the inhabitants.”

      "Here go again. The same boring repetitions. Yes, it CAN be, what a strawman. So what?

      First of all the right to territorial integrity is enshrined in the UN. "

      The 1988 Palestinian Declaration was by a body representing the Palestinian majority! I'd really be interested in you pointing out where and when the Palestinians rescinded their declaration of statehood and was un-recognized by the those states who have already given recognition to the Palestinian territorial claims.

      "When it comes to the right to self determination only the citizens of Palestine had the right to exercise it within Palestine. Jewish citizens of Palestine were NOT a nation on their own and therefore “Jewish” is not the citizenship of the newly created state. Most of the Jews weren’t even citizens of Palestine, so there wasn’t a majority of Jews within proposed partition borders. And not a single citizen within proposed partition borders was asked by referendum, not even Jews.

      I concur. http://wp.me/PDB7k-Q#jews-can-live-anywhere and why Palestine, even tho it has declared its territories, in effect ceding 78% of its territories to Israel and thereby forgoing the right to persistent objection, http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=persistent+objection might still pursue the notions put forward by echinococcus and massive compensations far beyond what echinococcus puts forward

      "The declaration of Israel even violated Security Council resolution 46 (1d), because the members of the UN were discussing to put Palestine under UN trusteeship. Now why would they do that, if Jews had a “right” to secede no matter how?"

      Jews didn't actually have the right, only a body representative of the majority of the legitimate inhabitants of a territory has that right. The cleansing by Jewish terrorists under Plan Dalet was an attempt to control as much territory as possible by 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) when the Mandate ended, the Israel plea for recognition however was limited to the borders outlined in UNGA res 181. Not that the Zionist state cares, they are inveterate liars. it was on the basis of Zionist/Jewish Agency lies that the International Comity of Nations recognized Israel and UNGA accepted Israel into the UN. I've never claimed it was correct or legal. We are however, now dealing with the State of Israel, a UN Member

      Talknic: “The majority of the world’s states have recognized Israel per it’s plea for recognition.”

      "The same goes for Ashdod being part of Israel allthough being outside partition borders. "

      de facto recognition is not de jure.

      Talknic: “The PLO even further via the Palestinian declaration of statehood.”

      "And again. Via this declaration within 67 lines it implicitly recognized Ashdod, etc. to be part of Israel and not occupied Palestinan territory, allthough it lies beyond partition borders."

      Indeed. But Israel has never accepted the Palestinian position. Until it does, there is no agreement.

      Talknic: ” I’ll go with that as a starting point to final withdrawal of Israel forces from all non-legally acquired territories since its plea for recognition, …”

      "since you emphasize recognition so much, why don’t you recognize that the countries who recognize Israel recognize that Ashdod and other areas beyond partition borders is a part of Israel and that the UN accepted Israel as a UN member by acknowledging its statement that the boundaries will be decided by negotiation? Do I have to quote Israel’s statement for the fourth time?"

      You can quote it as many times as you like. The Israeli statements were lies and the subsequent acceptance into the UN has not changed. It merely acknowledged the Israeli statements were made. It did NOT change any determination by the UNGA resolution

      (I did BTW attempt to answer these previously asked questions many times without success due to what appear to be system glitches )

  • 'Why do I not cry out for the right of return?' -- an exchange between Uri Avnery and Salman Abu Sitta
    • @ talkback April 26, 2017, 12:03 pm

      Uri Avnery's figure came from somewhere. If not from the UNRWA definition, where? A definition by an organization that didn't exist when UNGA res 194 was adopted in 1948 the resolution under which the Palestinians make their claim. UNGA res 194 cannot possibly have been referring to the definition of an organization that didn't exist in 1948. Plus it's definition made under a mandate that DOES NOT reflect Uri's claim or the Ziononsense demographic threat mantra of 6 to 7 millions "to Israel"

      We agree and I've been saying this much from the outset, Palestine refugees have a right to return to where they came from both within Israeli territories and outside of Israel's territories. So what are you arguing about?

      " BUT everybody understands that this includes returning to parts of historic Palestine that Israel considers to be its own, whether recgonized or not. And to use your fatalistic killer argument: ‘That’s the reality, whether you like it or not’."

      'considered' doesn't make something legal, also a reality whether you like it or not. The earth was once considered flat. Israel itself has yet to agree to limitations on any borders beyond those it declared in 1948 in its plea for recognition.

      All territories Israel now claims beyond its declared and recognized borders were acquired by war. The acquisition of territories by war was prohibited under International Law before Israel was declared. International Law is applicable to all states, UN Member States and non-members. So how did the territories Israel acquired by war become Israeli for them to be considered Israeli?

      Israel sh*ts itself at the thought of Palestinian independence and UN Membership. Palestine would then be in reach of launching proceedings at all four the UN, UNSC, ICJ and ICC for crimes committed by anyone, any body, any state and/or any state or non-state actor, at any time, pre-Israel's declaration and post. Even against Uri Avnery himself

      Also brought within reach is the possibility of a tribunals; to assess the legality of Israel's 'considered' territories; to assess compensation due under International law, far more than Israel can afford.

      Israel has been led up a blind alley by Zionist aims. The only legal out for Israel is a plea bargain with Palestine who has no obligation what so ever to forgo any of its legal rights at any stage to anyone. Instead, Israel continues its illegal activities ignoring all but Deuteronomy 20:15 et al

      "Avnery’s argument is based on this understanding"

      We agree his understanding is nonsense.

      "And everybody also understands that if the conflict is resolved by two state solution bthen it is ased on 67 lines, not on 48 lines. Which means that Avnery is theoretically right, allthough only a tiny fragment actually wishes to return"

      IF IF IF. "whether you like it or not" , the issue is not yet resolved. A) NOW the only territorial limitation Israel has ever agreed to is in its plea for recognition; there is no demographic threat to Israel within the territorial limitations Israel announced in its plea for recognition. NOW Israel wants more. NOW Israel hasn't itself accepted or recognized or agreed to any limitation to its borders with Palestine. NOW there is no agreement. B) Only based on what Israel 'considers' to be Israeli is Uri Avnery theoretically right.

      "Isn’t it obvious to you how the UN members treat Jerusalem by comparison? Was there ever a security council resolution that declared Israel’s incorporation of Ashdod to be “null and void” like in the case with Jerusalem or the Golan Hights? No!. That’s the reality, Talknic, whether you like it or not. "

      It's very obvious to me and I have from the outset given the reasons why it is obvious. The territories were outside of Israel's declared borders and acquired by war and no other legal agreement. However, the UN doesn't censure non members (only states become members), nor do they censure UN Members for crimes committed prior to becoming A) States and/or B) UN Member States.

      The prohibition of acquiring territory by war is a law the UN insists should be observed. The law itself exists separate to the UN and it is an obligation on all states, UN Members or not, recognized or not, censured by the UN or not. Until Israel agrees to the limits to its territories, the only teritories it has accepted and declared and that have been recognized are those of UNGA res 181

      Know who you're dealing with. The Jewish Agency and Zionist movements legal advisors had a half century experience at leaping from loophole to loophole. They were and still are fully aware of the law and its implications. Fully aware of the machinations of the UN. Fully aware that a state cannot be held responsible for the actions of non-state actors prior to a state's existence. Yes the individuals could be prosecuted, but they'd have the protection and legal resources of the state behind their defense. Unless of course they became too costly to the cause. There's only so much honour amongst Zionist thieves

      "The question is not how states are declared, but how states aquire their state territory. Not by pre state actors simply declaring statehood."

      Declaration over territories under their control is in fact how their territories are determined. Israel didn't declare all the territories under its control, only those recommended in UNGA res 181

      "You want to compare a state which became independent, because 98,3% of its population voted for it in a referendum with Israel? ROFL."

      Self determination is not the particular point in question. how it acquired its territory is. How did South Sudan acquire its territory?

      Talknic: “Israel ignored it ….”

      Yeah, but f*** the right to self determination as long as Israel is recognized, right?"

      You're cherry picking. It was also ignored by the states who recognized Israel. A fact, whether you or I like it or not.

      "No, there’s no such thing as a right to secede. If that was the case than their statehood would be recognized automatically. But they aren’t. See Kosovo. And states have especially not a riight to secede without the consent of its population."

      Secession is by the party who want to split from a larger entity. The population of the territories declared in the Israeli plea for recognition as alloted the Jewish state under UNGA res 181 was predominantly Jewish

      "You are making a case for the violation of the right to self determination. Sounds pretty Zionist to me"

      See above. Recognizing what came about and how it came bout doesn't automatically mean one agrees with what came about or how it came about. Your accusation is a nonsense.

      Talknic: “However there is still no agreement between Israel and Palestine.”

      "So what? "

      So Israel hasn't recognize any territorial limits other than those of UNGA res 181 as declared and recognized 1948. Having it your way = one endless land grab based on simply acquiring territory by war and convincing states to consider it to be Israeli without any legal process having taken place that transfered those territories acquired by war to Israel. It happened by magic. Right?.

      Talknic: “There was no transfer of ownership.”

      "Exactly. Israel doesn’t own any territory, because neither its pre-state actors nor its state actors owned or legally aquired the territory which was owned collectivelly by the citizens of Palestine who didn’t tranfer anything. Neither its mandatory Goverment."

      A) You're cherry picking again. I said there was no transfer of ownership during the civil war. B) The Mandatory Government didn't exist at 00:01 May 15th 1948 C) secession is by those leaving the larger entity D) the majority population in the territories allotted the Jewish state under UNGA res 181 whether we like it or not, were Jewish.

      Talknic: “A state can only be held responsible A) from the time it comes into existence …”

      "Yep Israel can be held responsible for claiming state territory which came only into its posession through war and expulsion either by itself or its pre state actors and by violating the right to self determination of the territory’s population."

      Israel didn't exist when pre-state Jewish terrorists committed their crimes.

      Talknic: “UNSC Res 476 tells us a state can be held responsible and is required to take actions to remedy issues created by the state. Individuals/state actors are not mentioned.”

      Doesn’t need to be mentioned Everybody understands that it’s the states state actors who commit these national crimes. A state is just an “abstraction”, a collective of state actors.

      The state is held to the law even if the state actors who ordered crimes be committed by the state are dead.

      "Theres’ no way to escape your constant repetition of the same claim and your failure to engange my counter arguments"

      A) Facts don't change. Perceptions, presumptions and what is 'considered' do change. B) Our exchange has been entirely an engagement in counter arguments.

      "Israel’s pre state actors and the state (and its pre state actors) were and still are the same criminal enterprise, the same criminal project, the same criminal continuum, the same criminal organisation."

      Yes.

      "The only difference is that this organisation acquired a national status. But this doesn’t absolve it for its pre national crimes"

      It doesn't absolve the pre-state actors. The state didn't exist. Entities that don't exist cannot commit crimes.

      "But no, these crimes are not Israel’s business, right?"

      If you say so. It's not what I wrote.

      "You literally wrote: “RoR to areas outside of Israel simply isn’t Israel’s business.”

      You're cherry picking again, omitting entirely for some weird reason the premise on which I based that statement

      Talknic: “The UN cannot and has never censured non-member states by name for their illegal actions prior to becoming UN Members.”

      "It can by not recognizing it or allowing it to become a member state"

      A) The UN doesn't recognize states. They're recognized by the International Comity of Nations before being recommended as already recognized states for UN Membership by the UNSC. The UN then admits, or not, already recognized states. B) Too late. Right or wrong whether we agree with their decision Israel is already a member. It lied to gain membership. It has not adhere to its legal obligations

      " And Israel’s didn’t need only one request to become a member. But according to you it seems that we have to accept Israel’s recognition like Apartheid South Africa’s. You are a true advocate of … Israel’s business, aren’t you?"

      Accepting the facts doesn't mean one agrees with or condones how they came about. Your accusation is ridiculous.

  • 'This miracle, this gift, this jewel' -- Obama's ambassador to Israel declares he's a Zionist
    • @ echinococcus April 22, 2017, 2:10 am

      ."“Presence”. Look up the words . It’s exactly what you have been advocating since you started writing here"

      Strange. I have been advocating the need for a referendum/plebescite for over 5 years here at MW. I've shown you where. The links are still there for all to read.

      I've even described how the US was instrumental in large part for the notion of a plebiscite passing into Customary International Law. (the right to self determination)

      "Who gives a rat’s ass who they were and what they called or still call themselves? The unauthorized presence of invaders and squatters is the problem. Current. There are millions of these perpetrators on Palestinian soil."

      You flatly refuse to answer a reasonable and reasonably put question. Thanks for the debate. In respect to the unauthorised presence of invaders and squatters, I agree. I have been saying as much since I first posted on MW and a long time prior. Banned from The Guardian for challenging the ZioBots. Same for WikI/Pedia banned for daring to challenge the ZioBot infested re-writing of history

      // Let’s say there was a plebiscite, do you really think the Zionist enterprise would give a stuff? //

      "So, you expect the Zionists to get out by their own will, just because you plead well? "

      How you distilled that from what was written is nothing short of incredible. The Zionist enterprise couldn't give a rat's rrrrs about a plebiscite. They don't give a rat's rrrrs about International Law, the UN Charter or the most basic tenets of Judaism. A plebiscite means nothing to them. You're not dealing with an organization that cares what the Palestinians want.

      Now that’s totally insane. "

      Indeed it is and it's all your own making. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. The Zionist Movement's state will likely kick the shit out of the china shop rather than back down on anything. It's the Zionist Movement at the heart of the matter and it doesn't have a conscience

      "Or are you suggesting that nothing should be done because the only language they will understand is force?"

      They understand a lot more than force. The Zionist Movement have had over a century establishing networks, strategies, legal arguments, grooming people to put in the right places at the right time with the right backing to influence outcomes to suit their thieving objectives.

      I've just painstakingly tried explained why Israel cannot be prosecuted for crimes before its establishment and how they used that fact to Israewl's advantage. They duped the world into recognizing Israel while it was at war. Duped into recognizing Israel while it was at war in territory outside of the borders it announced in its plea for recognition. They were able to get Israel admitted to the UN while it was at war in other folks territories. Its leaders stated it would adhere to International Law. They lied. Force is only one aspect.

      "Finally we have a full exposure of what you have been defending all the time .."

      No dude, what we have is your fantasy. Take a chill pill

    • @ echinococcus April 21, 2017, 10:07 am

      " .. “Inadmissible” means exactly inadmissible. Either it is inadmissible and the presence of even a single Zionist invader anywhere in Palestine cannot be condoned, or you condone it and to you it is admissible,"

      Correct and I've never condoned it. I can explain however why Israel can't be indicted for crimes committed before it existed.

      Answer this: Of the people who terrorized and dispossessed non-Jews prior to the recognition of the State of Israel, who of them can be prosecuted? Who of them can be tried for their crimes against humanity? Who of them can be tried for their acts of terrorism? Who of them can be sued? Who of them can be made to pay compensation? Who of them is going to revert the situation to pre WW2? Who of them will be brought to justice? I'll tell you NONE! NO ONE! They don't exist. They're dead. D - E - A - D ... dead! The Stern Gang, Haganah, et al simply no longer exist

      Justice only belongs in the past once it has been delivered. The past can only tell us, by their statements and actions, who the perpetrators were so we can know in which direction justice might lay and to whom it can be delivered. Clearly legally, morally, ethically, financially and spiritually it is to Palestine.

      If the perpetrators no longer exist one can only look at what does exist and what can be done towards bringing justice about. Whether we like it or not, legal or illegal, the State of Israel exists. But it cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed before it existed. It's a simple fact of law, applicable to all, not just Israel. Evil people exploited it creating the situation as it is today. They're long gone.

      " There is no third way in logic."

      I hate to have to point this out, but YOU are trying to make a third way. 1) The pre-Israeli state Zionist players no longer exist. 2) The State of Israel, illegal or not, exists. 3) your notions

      "Repeat: logic does not allow one thing at the same time as its diametrical contrary. Like
      a) inadmissibility of colonial presence anywhere without explicit permission of the owners and
      non-a) colonial presence without explicit permission of the owners."

      I agree. BTW Do you really think the main players legal teams were not and are not now aware of the laws and conventions? Let's say there was a plebiscite, do you really think the Zionist enterprise would give a stuff? Get real!

      Meanwhile, Palestine has already agreed under the leadership of Arafat, to cede some 78% of their territories to Israel for Peace. Not my doing.

      "So you are not “arguing against it”"

      Nonsense. My entire output on the subject is on the illegitimacy of the the Zionist Federation's colonization of Palestine.

      " apart the fact that religion plays no role here and the invaders are historically non-religious, the only “Jews” of interest here are Palestinians of Jewish ancestry as of the start of Zionist invasion."

      Precisely as I have offered . https://www.google.com.au/search?q=referendum%20%22legitimate%20citizens%20of%20the%20territory%22%20+talknic

      "You are arguing for keeping invaders and offspring thereof in Palestine without permission from the owners."

      No. I am pointing out the situation as it stands. The Palestinians under the leadership of Arafat, declared statehood, ceding 78% of their rightful territories to the State of Israel. You wish it didn't happen, but it did! I didn't do it.

      "the opportunity was that of establishing a colonial government.."

      It wasn't in fact for 2,000 years. It wasn't in fact under the LoN Mandate Article 7. It wasn't in ANY of the missed opportunities I mentioned until Israel declared, thereby missing another opportunity. You're huffing and puffing at straw dude

      "Except for long-time Palestinian Jews, who are the only “Jewish folk” of relevance when talking about Palestine, period."

      Indeed. You're barking up the wrong tree. Take a chill pill :-)

    • @ talkback April 20, 2017, 4:22 pm

      Talknic: “Israel didn’t exist before 00:01 may 15th 1948. You can point the finger at the Zionist movement/Jewish Agency/Jewish terrorist gangs prior to that exact time”.

      "Sure, just don’t point the finger at the Goverment of Israel which gave the territory back when it found out that it was stolen by the people that became the Goverment of Israel. ROFL."

      That's precisely it. The Jewish Agency & Zionist Federation's legal team weren't idiots. Any legal person worth their salt knows a State or person can't be prosecuted for crimes prior to their existence.

      Clever people are not always nice or honest and amongst the legal fraternity there are always those who simply relish the challenge of exploiting legal aspects that enable them or their client to do whatever they wish and get away with it, ethics and/or morality simply aren't of concern

      "Seriously how dd Israel acquire that territory that was not illegaly acquired by it? Receiving of stolen property? Fencing?"

      The way all propaganda and criminal schemes get away things. Thru the rest of the world being way behind the eight ball and in this instance granting recognition, which under law is irrevocable. Another point the Zionist legal advisers would have been quite ware of. Only the citizens of the state can decide, ironically by a plebiscite or referendum, to disband the state or cede territory or rights to another entity. In effect what we have been saying should have been the case with Palestine.

      The law might be in force, but in effect only after it has been discovered to have been broken, if it has been broken. While a decision is being made on the latter, the ball is purposefully kept in the air. A shining example are the so called peace talks or; the time spent arguing over "all" or "the" in UNSC res 242 to keep what was an inevitable resolution being adopted for as long as possible while while consolidating as much as possible of what became illegal facts on the ground. Subsequent UNSC resolutions make it perfectly clear what was meant by UNSC res 242. The argument over "all" and "the" was bullsh*t!

      Know who you're dealing with. The Zionist Federation have always been thinking decades ahead, it's an essential requirement of the enterprise. By 1948 they'd had over half a century of practicing their craft. Slowly putting things in place, making promises they knew they'd never keep, massaging the message, knowing all the while State governments/Presidents/Prime Ministers et al come and go in a relative blink of an eye and; while you wait, there's still plenty to do. It's been 24/365.25 since 1987. Governments sleep. Zionism hasn't.

      Opposition is only a temporary set back and an alternative plan and or person are always readilly groomed and waiting in the wings. Look at how new worms suddenly appearing from out of the wood work when there's a new POTUS

      The declaration of Israeli statehood was planned down to the exact 60 seconds after the Mandate protecting Palestine ended. One minute to declare statehood, while already being in control of territory the Israeli Government readily admitted on May 22nd 1948 was "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine"

      Plan Dalet was a crime a crime for which the State of Israel could not be prosecuted while at the same time preventing the Palestinians from declaring an equivalent even had they wanted to declare independent statehood because they simply weren't in control of all their remaining territories or independent of all others.

    • @ echinococcus April 19, 2017, 10:51 pm

      "Halleluiah. Looks like you start getting it. Or not?"

      Oh FFS. I wrote that particular comment in 2012. Look at the date. It's been the position on the talknic blog since day one (circa 2010 https://talknic.wordpress.com/?s=referendum) and; I've been saying it for at least 30 years.

      "Of course there is no such plebiscite! That’s what I have been pointing out all the time"

      You arrived at MW quite some timer AFTER 2012. I was pointing it out at MW before you arrived.

      // “The acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible” The notion of self determination was Customary International Law some years before Israel ever existed and; no such referendum has ever been conducted in any of the territories Israel has acquired by war”//

      "Well guess what, all the territory of that “Israel” abomination has been acquired by war. Every single f. inch. Not one inch that you can continue to see as “Israel” or whatever the fancy Zionist name"

      Israel didn't exist before 00:01 may 15th 1948. You can point the finger at the Zionist movement/Jewish Agency/Jewish terrorist gangs prior to that exact time. We can also read their official statements at the UN/UNSC and by comparing them to their subsequent statements and actions see that they were vile, scheming, liars. They cannot however be taken to court, sued, made to withdraw, pay compensation. They are for the most part dead!

      Post 00:01 May 15th 1948, you're dealing with a state, that whether we agree with how it came to be , whether we like it or hate it, whether we think it is illegal or not, exists. You can take it and any of its leaders who're still breathing to court and sue or prosecute them for crimes and for compensation. You cannot do the same of dead Zionist liars and murderers.

      "If we leave justice for a moment and talk real world, well a plebiscite is of course a pipe dream but still the only bloodless way out –and as such to be highly recommended"

      Indeed. BTW in the real world Israel exists

      " ... ... There is a reason invasion was described as “inadmissible”"

      The "acquisition of territory" by war is inadmissible. Under the Laws of War, one may invade and occupy territory for strategic military purposes once a war has been started. Wars are started by the party firing the first salvo. It is illegal to start a war without first lodging a Declaration of War with the UNSC. Israel has never declared war. All its wars have been ilegal. As far as I am aware, the Arab States' Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine was the last Declaration of War ever lodged with the UNSC .

      Once hostilities are over, the Occupying Power is required to either legally annex occupied territories via a plebiscite/referendum of the legitimate citizens of the territories to be annexed or as with the Egypt/Israel peace treaty, withdraw.

    • @ echinococcus April 19, 2017, 12:35 am

      "Sure, Talknic.

      Only, you still didn’t produce that plebiscite."

      You're ridiculous. THERE ISN'T ONE! You've said as much yourself. You want me to produce something that doesn't exist? Sure dude, lend me some of you magic powder

      Repeat “The acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible” The notion of self determination was Customary International Law some years before Israel ever existed and; no such referendum has ever been conducted in any of the territories Israel has acquired by war" - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/santorums-pulp-hasbara/#comment-416435

    • @ echinococcus April 17, 2017, 10:15 pm

      // the declaration was delivered by one Yasser Arafat 15th November 1988 //

      "thereby strangling the resistance movement ... etc etc"

      Mahmoud Darwish and Yasser Arafat were Zionist lackies. Interesting theory. I suggest a chill pill

      As to the need for a plebiscite or referendum - January 17, 2012 at 2:56 pm http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/santorums-pulp-hasbara/#comment-416435

      More ... http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=referendum

      Now please ('scuse me folks) kindly f*ck off!

  • Finders Keepers in the Holy Land: So who was there first?
    • Watching the Zionist supporter dig a deeper cat hole

      @ JeffB March 2, 2017, 7:33 pm

      "... this is new. I guess I’ll try responding.

      JeffB: “I do support a belief in the necessity of states to occupy territory though I think this happens far too often.”

      talknic: Start naming those since 1945 when the UN codified International Law regarding the illegality of acquiring territory by any coercive measure

      My point above is that once territory is acquired it isn’t occupied. "

      It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war/force/any coercive measure. It may be restored. However, Israel has never had any territory taken in order to restore it Professor Stephen M. Schwebel – (NB: ‘Professor’ not at the time of his statement a Judge of International Court of Justice) as quoted by

      Mr. HERZOG (Israel):
      99. The state of the law has been correctly summarized by Elihu Lauterpacht, a distinguished authority on international law, as follows:
      “… territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the unlawful use of force. But to omit the word `unlawful’ is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor’s charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territorial change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign. This cannot be regarded as reasonable or correct.”

      restore the lawful sovereign.
      A) It is inadmissible to ‘acquire’ territory by war, aggressive/illegal OR defensive/legal. The reason the phrase does not include an ‘aggressive/illegal’ or ‘defensive/legal’ qualification is because it means ANY war. The inhabitants might not have voted for or even been able to vote for the regime in power at the start of the conflict. The UN Charter stipulates ‘self determination’. Not the determination of a conquering power.

      "Which is one of the reasons I think the UN’s position is nonsensical."

      What a supporter of the illegal actions of the State of Israel thinks isn't very convincing

      " However some occupations I agree with:

      1) USA occupation of the Dominican Republic to stop a civil war and ensure elections in 1965."
      Does the US claim it? Do US citizens illegally settle there?

      "2) Israeli occupation of the Sinai regarding Egypt’s aggression 1967"

      A ) Israel's attack was preemptive. There was no Egyptian aggression, no UNSC condemnation of Egypt's self defensive actions,
      B) As shown by the Egypt/Israel Peace Treaty, under UNSC res 242 /338 Israel was required to withdraw from all Egyptian territories

      "3) South African occupation of parts of Angola to defend against attack 1975"

      Did they claim it for Sth Africa? Did Sth Africans illegally settle in Angola?

      4) Vietnam’s occupation of Cambodia to stop a genocide 1979

      Did they claim it for Vietnam? Did Vietnamese citizen illegally settle in Cambodia?

      "5) USA occupation of Grenada to liberate communist conquered territory 1983"

      Did the US claim Grenada for itself? Did US citizens illegally settle in Grenada?

      "6) NATO occupation of Kosovo to stop a genocide 1999"

      "7) Russian occupation of Crimea to advance self determination, 2014"

      There was a referendum (per the UN notions of self determination) in Russia's favor

      "The UN has mostly been opposed to most of these most shockingly the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia. So they aren’t only wrong in the case of Israel"

      Unlike the others, Israel is illegally claiming non-Israeli territories as its own and it is assisting Israeli citizens to illegally settle in non-Israeli territories

  • Forced existence
    • @ Abe Bird December 22, 2016, 12:14 pm

      Just few facts to show the shallow concept of the article’s writer

      F(act): The US is a de facto 50-nation state which, for a long time, has included the Occupied Mexican Territories. "

      After a referendum amongst its legitimate citizens, the US legally annexed Texas which at the time was not a part of Mexico

      "Q: Why should Israel share her power with their enemy, the Palestinians? Did the US shared power with Nazi Germany?"

      A: Israel is occupying the Palestinians. End the occupation. Withdrawal for peace. Worked with Egypt, Jordan. BTW Germany was occupying an ally to the US, Europe .

      "F: ... Arab Palestinians don’t want peace with Jewish Palestinians but want to exist without theJews .. Israelis.

      "F: Israel treats the Muslims much better than the US treated Japanese in WWII"

      A) irrelevant to the legal staustus of Israel's territial extent and its illegal activities in non Israeli territories held under occupation
      B)The US didn't claim any Japanese territories as its own. Israel is in breach of International Law and the UN Charter by illegally claiming territories held under military occupation

      "F: Israelis ... just know very well that their Arabs opponents are not looking for peace, but want to win by war, terror or political procedures and annihilate the Jewish states. It’s not what Israelis afraid of, but what the Arab Palestinians talk of."

      The Arab Peace initiative guaranteed Israeli integrity over it's legitimate territories and conceded to accept only 22% of their legitimate territories for peace. Israel has yet to answer...

      "F: Israeli society is not violent more than any other European society. As a matter of fact, 65% of violence created by 20% of Arab citizens. Yet the numbers of crimes per capita are lower than half of the OECD states, and sure much lower as crimes in the US...."

      A) Any European societies in countries that have been in military occupation of someone else's territories for over half a century?
      B) Irrelevant to the legal status of Israeli territories and its illegal practices in non-Israeli territories held under occupation.

      "F: ... in real life the 200 million Muslims are those who (try) oppressing the 7 million Jews and not the other wise."

      ... and that's why the Arabs offered Israel a Peace initiative guaranteeing Israel complete autonomy within its own territories, as required by International Law

      "F: The phrase “a land without people for people without a land”, is Not attributed to Israel Zangwill in 1892 but to Rev. Alexander Keith, D.D., appeared in 1843... "

      So what? It's irrelevant to the legal status of Israeli territories and its illegal practices in non-Israeli territories held under military occupation.

      "F: Until 1974 there was no any “Palestinian people” ... They were not considered as separate people but as citizens of the Kingdom of Jordan ... "

      A) Palestinian Nationality Law was adopted in 1925 per Article 7 of the 1922 LoN Mandate for Palestine, wherein Jewish folk could gain Palestinian citizenship
      B) Only the citizens in the territory that became Jordan, when it became Jordan (1946), were automatically Jordanian citizens. The Palestinians in what remained of Palestine at that time were not Jordanian citizens. The West Bank as it was officially renamed, was legally annexed to Jordan at the request of the representatives of the majority of the legitimate citizens of that territory. It was a part of Jordanian sovereignty in 1967 at which time Jordan was a UN Member State and a signatory to Geneva Convention IV as a High Contracting Power.

      "I could go on ..."

      Indeed. However, you've let your team down enough already

  • 'State of Terror,' by Thomas Suárez
    • @ echinococcus October 18, 2016, 12:10 pm

      "For fck’s sake, can’t you read?"

      You're making accusations. I'm merely presenting, as far as I know, factual information that might help shine light on the situation. If you don't like the facts, it's not my problem, I can't change 'em

      "When did you answer the question on difference between compromise (which no one is opposing in principle) and long-term abandonment of rights?"

      A) I haven't advocated compromise (with Israel), in fact I've constantly advocated against it "Get out of all non-Israeli territories"

      (with Israel) If the Zionists insist Israel must exist as a state, then that state should be held to its legal obligations. My argument is with them, not you

      B) I didn't advocate anyone abandoning their rights. I merely stated a fact. By declaring their state within the pre '67 'borders' (1949 Armistice Demarcation Lines) and thru its subsequent recognition, Palestine abandoned the right to Persistent Objection over territories illegally acquired by force thru Jewish terrorism and Israeli forces 1947/48/49.

      As I've said all along, those territories have yet to be legally annexed to Israel via an agreement or treaty reached thru a plebiscite/referendum of the rightful (Palestinian) inhabitants of those territories.

      The point still remains, Palestine has forgone its right to persistent objection, which does not necessarily preclude eventual 'restoration' of those territories, even, according to Schwebel/Herzog/Lauterpacht, by war! . Not that they have the means nor currently allies willing to commit to war on their behalf

      Meanwhile, thru a long list of conflicting statements the Zionist/Jewish Agency et al lost all right to Persistent Objection long before 1947

      "That about legitimate plebiscite vs. fake representatives or self-appointed representatives?"

      I've already covered that issue here on MW and elsewhere. http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=referendum+of+the+legitimate+citizens

      But for argument's sake Ok. Have it your way. Who does represent the Palestinian people? http://transparency.aljazeera.net/en/projects/thepalestinepapers/201218205949656112.html

      "That on the absence of an obligation to avoid any mention of the illegality of the Zionist entity anywhere while you pursue your game of trying to hold the Zionist pirates accountable to their own admissions. A worthwile game, perhaps, but with no obligation to avoid underlining the illegality of its very presence."

      For fck’s sake, can’t you read? Illegal, illegitimate, like it or not, the State of Israel exists. I've never expressed support for Israel as it is and I've certainly never expressed support for the Zionist organization or any of its institutions. I consider it to be a 1897 pyramid scheme, requiring more and more territory to survive http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=pyramid+scheme

      "One thing I know, most of your output is just helping Zionist propaganda while you continue protesting"

      My banning from the Guardian, Wikipedia and numerous pro-Zionist and even some moderate media outlets has not been for helping Zionist propaganda. They hate factual information revealing the deceit perpetuated by the Zionist enterprise

  • Thank you, Chief Rabbi. Now I know: Judaism is to blame for the Nakba
    • @ Sibiriak May 27, 2016, 6:10 pm

      Different argument ;-)

      Never the less

      "1) According the ICJ, the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination only in their own territory, which the ICJ specifically defines in terms of 1949 Armistice “Green Line” border–NOT United Nations res. 181 recommended partition lines

      **The ICJ affirmed that the Construction of the wall was illegal wherever it departed from the 1949 armistice line and went into Palestinian territory."

      Yes. The Palestinians declared their state according to the Green Line. However, Israel hasn't accepted it. Although provisional borders have changed, Israel's recognized border hasn't changed since being proclaimed in its plea for recognition

      In respect to the Armistice agreements and Armistice demarcation lines
      A) The Armistice Agreements were not with Palestine.
      B) The Armistice Demarcation lines were "provisional" borders pending final settlement of the Question of Palestine.
      C) AFTER the Armistice Agreements were signed Israel was still trying on the 31st Aug 1949 to convince the UN to allow it the territories it had acquired by war. Rather strange if the Armistice Agreements already allowed them those territories other than as "provisional". Maybe someone forgot to tell them.

      "**The General Assembly adopted resolution ES-10/13 which:“Demands that Israel stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in departure of the Armistice Line of 1949 and is in contradiction to relevant provisions of international law…"

      Yes, relative to the Armistice conditions.

      Article IV

      2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Lines is to delineate the lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.

      "**Although the ICJ was not specifically asked to address the validity of the “Green Line” border, the ICJ in fact did just that."

      Not the "Green Line" 'border', but the Armistice Lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.

      " [HOSTAGE:] Moreover, the ICJ specifically cited the UN resolutions sponsoring the Armistice Agreements in determining that the Armistice “Green Line” ... as a provisional measure ... Israel admitted the status of the territory is unchallengeable in the absence of a new round of negotiations and mutual consent "

      "provisional" ... "mutual consent"

      ———————

      " The second point you are failing to grasp is that the exercise of self-determination does NOT require a plebiscite or referendum, nor does it require democracy at all"

      It requires " mutual consent". An agreement between representatives recognized by both parties

      "Besides, annexation and self-determination are separate concepts; Israel’s and Jordan’s legal annexation of territory sanctioned by a UN- sponsored, internationally recognized armistice agreement, did NOT require a plebiscite or referendum"

      It required " mutual consent" between representatives recognized by both parties. Israel has never reached an agreement with the Palestinians

      "But the annexation was legal, and the “Green Line” is the legal" provisional " border in the absence of a final agreement and mutual consent"

  • Resolution 242 does not mean what you may think it means
    • @ Shakur420 May 21, 2016, 6:57 am

      "Int’l law is not binding on all states at all times. That’s not how it works"

      Clue "INTERNATIONAL" Law. Applies to all nations

      " Membership in the UN requires domestic ratification of the Charter, making it the “law of the land” in that country. Other laws – there are many treaties and such which comprise int’l law – can be binding or non-binding. They can also have partial jurisdiction.

      So the genocide convention, when the US ratified that, it entered reservations to various parts. Specifically, the US never ratified the jurisdiction portion regarding Americans – meaning the US never agreed to allow genocide law to be applicable to the US. Despicable, but that’s the law."

      A) You're conflating admittance to the UN whereby all member States agree on admission to uphold the Charter in its entirety at all times and the ratification of individual conventions whereby a country might take exception to some parts

      B) Read the US Proxmire Act https://www.google.com.au/search?q=US+Proxmire+Act

      "Other laws – there are many treaties and such which comprise int’l law "

      No they don't. They apply only to those countries named in the treaty/ies. It is only when a majority of countries sign the same treaty, encompassing the same set of legal customs, that the substance of that treaty passes into Customary International Law.

      For example: The US adopted the legal custom of requiring a treaty or agreement in order to annex territory to the US. See the annexation of Texas https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/annexation/index.html by 1st a referendum of the legitimate citizens of Texas who agreed to be annexed, then by a referendum of US representatives agreeing to the annexation.

      The same legal custom of having an agreement/treaty applied to Hawaii, Alaska. Thereby the US was in large part instrumental in that legal custom eventually passing into Customary International Law and subsequently being adopted by the UN in its charter and conventions dealing with Human Rights and Self Determination

      " ... it’s pretty clear that issues of jurisdiction, application and enforcement are specific to the law in question, and the way in which it is legislated"

      Again you're conflating the ratification of conventions, whereby the ratifying country legislates to adopt that specific convention and its reservations into its own legal system and International Law which exists on the International stage, applying to all nations

  • Saying Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state is not anti-Semitic
    • @ hoya saxa

      "Oh, its irrelevant that one of you 50 laws makes no sense?"

      It's irrelevant to the topic "Saying Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state is not anti-Semitic"

      " That LAW that benefits IDF soldiers is in your fake list of laws, buddy"

      Mmmm makes Ziosense. Something that's allegedly fake actually exists

      "There are DOZENS of occupations in the world, and yes some of them are by islamic regimes…"

      Name just a few of the "DOZENS" and of those list the countries claiming and settling occupied territories as their own. Any that Israel cares to court?

      " And I think Russia just took crimea by force..yawn..how many resolutions on that one."

      There was a referendum, per the right to self determination, it appears a majority wished to join Russia. Similar to the right of the majority of the legitimates citizens of what was renamed the West Bank, who had a right to request to be annexed to Jordan rather than live under the laws of occupation. That's why, unlike Israel's illegal annexation of East Jerusalem, there were no UNSC resolutions condemning Russia or Jordan

      "Just because a law IMPACTS palestinians more doesnt make it a racist law. If america passes laws against drug dealers and it happens that MOST impacted are black and mexican, does that make it a racist law?"

      Strange attempt at an analogy. The Palestinians aren't being charged under the law, many would be however enticed to join the military forces of an Occupying Power

      3 Jun 1948 in the KnessetReport to the Provisional Government of Israel by Prime Minister and Minister of Defence Ben-Gurion 3 Jun 1948
      "The entire expanse of the State of Israel allocated to us under the terms of the UN resolution is in our hands, and we have conquered several important districts outside those boundaries".
      and;
      "To the greatest possible extent, we will remain constantly on the offensive, which will not be confined to the borders of the Jewish State".

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

      Occupation can actually be dated from May 22nd 1948.
      None of these areas have ever been legally annexed to Israel.

      " The same way a law against a violent criminal in israel might impact a palestinian more does that make it a racist law?"

      If it impacts on a violent Palestinian criminal more than it impacts on a Jewish Israeli criminal, it most certainly is a racist law.

      "Keep posting the fake 50 laws without referencing ANY of them. How funny."

      How funny, they're all referenced. You gave an example

  • Israeli ambassador flings Nazi label at Israeli leaders, after latest authoritarian step
    • @ GregMozart "(continued. I tried to respond point by point, won’t make such long posts anymore)"

      Then you do. LOL

      "The difference between you and me is I equally criticize Israeli leaders AND Palestinian leaders and blame them for what happened, not just in Israel. You focus only on Israel."

      The Palestinians didn't ask to be colonized. The Palestinians don't occupy or suppress Israelis.

      "There are several paths I can see that will lead closest to Justice, but none are achievable"

      Then stop wasting your time and ours.

      "One path is to make Jordan and Israel totally democratic, and each takes half of the refugees"

      Why?

      "So what is your solution?"

      Hold Israel to its legal obligations under International Law and the UN Charter = no threat to Israel or Jews

      "Jewish immigrants who have been persuaded into emigration to Palestine [most of Israel’s population] do not have the right to take part of the referendum"

      Still nothing about ethnic cleansing pal. Try something else, like being honest

      "And also where is the Justice and International Law, when Arab states rejected the UN partition plan, and sent their armies to attack Israel "

      Ziopuke doesn't wash here buddy. The Israeli Government tells us the Arab states invaded "Palestine" http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook1/Pages/5%20Arab%20League%20declaration%20on%20the%20invasion%20of%20Pales.aspx

      And there are no UNSC resolutions against any Arab state for attempting to expel Israeli forces from territories the Israeli Government itself claimed on May 22nd 1948 were "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine"

      "... You keep blaming Israel, expect Israel to solve everything "

      The Palestinians didn't ask to be colonized dispossessed or occupied

      "Realize for a second whether your *ideology* and the fatcat leaders you support might be partly responsible for what is now the longest-running refugee crisis in modern history"

      Uh? How? It's Israel that has for almost 68 years refused to adhere to the law, not the Arab states who have for some 68 years generously hosted refugees from Israel's 1948 ethnic cleansing program

  • Israel should give back the Golan
    • @ Echinococcus

      "Let’s footnote that once in a while"

      It should be inherent at the top of every MW page

      "Self-“proclaimed” borders on other people’s territory are totally fictitious and inacceptable ... ... ... Perhaps the United Nations recognized some borders, but they are totally illegitimate in the absence of a recognized referendum of the owners of the land etc etc etc "

      I agree. However Israel is now a UN Member State. Accepted into that body and bound by its charter at its own insistence.

      "Again, your extraordinary insistence in providing a ridiculous fig leaf to the Zionist entity is impossible to understand "

      It's Israel's fig leaf, what they agreed to in their own words. No other territories included.

      I take their word in order to show that the Jewish Agency and Zionist Federation and successive Israeli Government's are all ghastly liars. In order to show they've fed everyone a diet of bullsh*t

      They've brainwashed the majority of Jews with their propaganda and attempted to do the same to the rest of the world. Deceived Israeli Jews and purposefully endangered them and their families by encouraging them to illegally settle in non-Israeli territories, in breach of laws adopted in large part because of the vile treatment of our fellow Jews by the Nazis. Illegally sold them 'real estate' in non-Israeli territories. Dissed the basic common sense tenets of Judaism, stripped Israelis of their right to legally elect a Government under a sorely needed constitution, prevented non-Jewish Israeli citizens from living in their rightful territory for 67 years and have been justifying the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinians in order to achieve the Zionist Federation plan to colonize Palestine.

      IOW they are evil

      The Palestinians have stated twice now at the UN in front of the world that they'd accept just 22% of their rightful territory for peace.

      That's the Palestinians' choice. An incredibly generous and an amazingly humane gesture to all those unaware Jewish Israelis who've been duped and who, if they were born in the region, would otherwise find themselves dispossessed, not because of the Palestinians but because of the Zionist Federation and its stupid colonization enterprise

  • Siegman says Palestinians are turning to violence 'to achieve freedom and self-determination'
    • @ a4tech "I disagree with you strongly. The entire American state is a 500 year old ... etc ... "

      Prior to the adoption of International Law, the UN Charter and a variety of conventions that Israel agreed to uphold which prohibited the acquisition of territory by any coercive measure http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897#art11

      "The Hawaiian islands have been illegally occupied"

      The US annexed Hawaii by agreement with the majority representative. Same for Texas via a referendum of the legitimate citizens of Texas and even Alaska by an agreement with the Russian citizens of Alaska after it was bought.

      The US by adopting the legal custom of having an agreement with the majority representative of the legitimate citizens of the territory to be annexed, was instrumental in that legal custom passing into Customary International Law

      " For the POC and indigenous folks and also the historically conscious European Americans, white supremacy and Zionism have little differences in theory or practice, both are as evil and intellectually deficient as each other"

      The US long ago gave up colonizing any new territories by force. Israel continues.

      "If you disagree with me, then too bad because every college in America supports the same view as mine"

      Bullsh*t!

  • It's time for American Jews to recognize they have been duped
    • @ yonah fredman

      "For clarity sake, this is my order of preference for resolution or steps towards improvement of the Palestinian-Zionist conflict:
      1. a negotiated settlement (along the lines of the 2003 Geneva accord)"

      Swapping non-Israeli territory for non-Israeli territory so Israel can keep non-Israeli territory? Get it thru your fat head. Israel has not legally acquired one square inch of territories it wished to swap.

      What say I claim your back yard, them tell you I'll swap it for part of your front yard and part of your house. Seems you'd be &*&^%$ stupid enough to say yes. The Palestinians aren't that stupid

      "2. withdrawing 98% of settlers from the West Bank and leaving Israeli troops there."

      Why not ALL Israeli settlers? After all they're not in Israel. And why leave any Israeli troops there? Palestinians do not want, nor do they deserve to be occupied

      "3. a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank, except for parts of east Jerusalem"

      NONE of it is Israeli! Simply %^&( of out of ALL non-Israeli territories for once! Adhere to the law

      "4. a unilateral withdrawal from the west bank including all of east jerusalem"

      The UNSC demands withdrawal from all territories Occupied in the 1967 war " including Jerusalem". Not E or W Jerusalem or some of Jerusalem, but " Jerusalem" (UNSC res 476 puts it nicely)

      "5. annexation of the west bank and giving full citizenship to its population"

      Legal annexation requires the consent of those to be annexed. It has become Customary International Law, in great part because of the USA who even in the mid 1800's adopted the Legal Custom of seeking the consent/agreement/treaty with those who were to be annexed, see Texas, Alaska ( it did not become a part of the US until long after it was bought), Hawaii. By adopting that Legal Custom the US was instrumental in that Legal Custom eventually passing into Customary International Law.

      NONE of your proposals mention Gaza. Nor do any of your proposals have any legal basis, nor are they fair or in anyway reasonable. For example: They do not mention the return of non-Jewish Israeli citizens to Israel. Strange isn't it that the Palestinians fight for the return of Israelis to Israel. Yet you don't even mention them

      You don't mention any compensation for 67 years of belligerence. No compensation for 67 yrs of dispossession. No compensation for 67 yrs of wanton destruction. No compensation for 67 years of exploiting non-Israeli resources. No compensation to Israelis who have for 67 yrs been duped into thinking they are living in Israeli territory.

      You don't mention the reasons Israel cannot now afford to adhere to the law and must bargain

      "Withdraw today now! i accept that withdrawal today and now is a better alternative. Not going to happen and not very interesting to discuss. Not in the realm of ideas. In the realm of dogma. Which fits right in with your tendency to label me"

      Deservedly! There's actually nothing, not one legal, logical or moral reason, for Israel or any of its illegal settlers or any IDF to remain in ANY non-Israeli territory.

      "I feel that Israel is very static and a static defense will not work in this situation"

      Odd Israel is still pro-actively dispossessing, slaughtering, doing everything within its power to become the Greater Israel of myth

      "If your primary objection to annexation is the will of the indigenous occupied people ... "

      'indigenous' - irrelevant! They only have to be valid citizens of the territory

      " ... then let that be the first step in my proposal. the next prime minister of israel states: the status quo sucks. we cannot negotiate with hamas or feckless fatah, ... "

      Hamas/Fatah also irrelevant. The PLO is the representative of the Palestinian people, regardless of their political choices.

      " ... therefore the path we see is annexation and with this in mind we ask the int’l community to conduct an election: yes or no to annexation and citizenship..."

      It would have to be a referendum by the people. It's called self determination. They have to decide to hold it!

      "it isn’t going to happen in the near future, but yes, i think this offer of honesty: we hate the status quo and wish to improve the situation and we are offering full citizenship to the west bank population, yes, i think this is a dynamic response. and even if the election is lost and the population votes 70% to 30% against annexation putting us back to square one, Israel will show initiative and dynamism rather than its current status quo defensive posture"

      It ain't ever gonna happen while Zionism holds sway

  • Israel's race to economic (and moral) bankruptcy
    • @ benedict "Walls are quite normal. There is a wall separating USA and Mexico"

      Is that wall in territory occupied by the USA or Mexico? Any territory that once belonged to Mexico and is now a part of the USA, was acquired by legal annexation i.e., by a treaty or referendum of the legitimate citizens of the territory to be annexed.

      BTW by adopting that legal custom for acquiring territory, the US was largely instrumental in that legal custom eventually passing into Customary International Law, thereby outlawing the acquisition of territory by conquest. http://pages.citebite.com/y1f0t4q1v4son

      " There is a wall between Spain and morocco"

      Is that wall in territory occupied by Spain or Morocco? Perhaps it's central, between the two, under water. Look at a map, one that isn't as stupid as your statement.

      "The Israel-west bank wall was built in response to the wave of Palestinian suicide bombers coming from the WB during the el aksa intifada. I don’t see any moral problem in that."

      Maybe it's the Ziowall in front of your eyes or running thru your Ziobrain... Most countries build their defensive walls in the OWN territory. See the wall between the USA and Mexico for example. Or the amazing underwater wall between Spain and Morocco

      " In the disputed territories"

      The UNSC uses the word "Occupied Territories", 'disputed' is a weasel word used by stupid Israeli propagandists who come here thinking they can get away with bullsh*t

      " there used to be separate roads for Palestinians as a result of the frequent drive-by shooting of Israeli cars"

      GC IV is to protect all civilians, including those of "Israel, Occupying Power" from the expected violent consequences of occupying another people and their territory. Only a sick, corrupt and insane Government purposefully encourages its citizens to break a law designed to protect them.

      " almost all of these roads where reopened for general traffic"

      So there ARE separate roads... glad you eventually made up your mind

      "There are no different license plates for Arab drivers"

      There are for the occupied Arabs pal.

      Go back to the Hasbara team leaders and tell 'em they've given you a bunch of crap to work with.

  • New West Bank settlement casts light on clandestine role of international support for settlers
    • @ Walid June 8, 2015, 10:26 am

      "Talknic, you often mention the borders between Lebanon and Israel being the actual borders that existed back in the early 1920s between Lebanon and Palestine..."

      No. The only actual borders of any state are those territories proclaimed as sovereign and recognized as such. MAP

      There may be additional territories legally annexed to a state by some agreeable mechanism, treaty or referendum (see the US annexation of Texas, Hawaii, Alaska), which do not require recognition because there is an agreement.

      Like the agreed annexation of the West Bank was legally annexed at the request of the Palestinians Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950). So when the Hasbarristers say the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was only recognized by two states, they're A) talking out of their rrrrrses and B) Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem wasn't recognized by anyone so their ignorant argument fails on all accounts

      Israel has never legally annexed any territories. It's actual borders are as they were proclaimed and recognized. There has never been a "final settlement" (per the Armistice Agreements) between Israel and Palestine.

      Millions of Israelis live in territories that have never been legally acquired by Israel. See the MAP (ibid) Successive Israeli Governments have purposefully created 67 yrs of illegal facts on the ground in non-Israeli territories knowing full well the state was simply incapable of paying the astronomical costs involved in adhering to the laws it 1st broke at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) by having forces in non-Israeli territories.

      "Too bad Israel doesn’t want to have a constitution maybe it has something to with defining borders that goes against Israel’s grain"

      Being a majority Jewish state and a democracy have been obviously irreconcilable from the outset

      Furthermore without a constitution, Israel has never had a legally elected Government, under the promised and legally required constitution. The Zionist Movement's state has spent the last 67 years duping the majority of Israelis of their rights, selling them land in non-Israeli territories, endangering their lives by encouraging them to illegally settle in Occupied Territories.

  • Settlers Supporting Settlers: Towards an explanation of the US/Israel relationship
    • @ catalan

      “There is nothing in the middle, no possibility that things could be seen differently from different angles"

      Your angle is illegal under binding International Law and the UN Charter as emphasized and re-affirmed in hundreds of UNSC Chapt VI resolutions affording Israel hundreds of opportunities to comply with the law, all of which have been ignored. In fact no other country in the UN has been afforded so many missed opportunities

      Now our Jewish homeland state is so far indebted to the International Community and Palestine, it cannot afford to adhere to the law and UN charter. It would be sent bankrupt attempting to pay rightful reparations to those it has dispossessed over the years and as it tried to repatriate into Israel proper hundreds of thousands of illegal Israeli settlers who would suddenly wake up to the fact that for 67 years they have been duped by the Israeli Government into believing they had a legal right to settle in non-Israeli territories.

      The resources from Occupied Territories would no longer be available to illegally exploit, investment in illegal settlements and all their infrastructure would no longer be available.

      Therein lies the real problem and the very reason Zionist/Jewish/Israeli lobby groups spend inordinate amounts of time, effort and money maintaining the US UNSC veto vote. It is all that stands between Israel and it becoming a failed state

      " In this discussion, talknic says that the U.S. annexation of Mexico, something that all liberals opposed and generally was supported by the slave owners of the south, is actually perfectly lawful"

      At the time it was quite legal and as the US adopted that legal custom of having an agreement with the legitimate citizens of those territories to acquire territory, (Texas, Hawaii, Alaska, etc) the US was instrumental in that legal custom eventually passing into Customary International Law.

      "In this alternate reality of pseudo logic, a fake referendum in Texas is and a treaty imposed on Mexico are cited as the very example of morality and lawfulness. Leaves one speechless, doesn’t it? "

      A) Neither Texas, Hawaii, Alaska, etc considered their agreements to be fake. Treaties are agreements! B) The record shows I did not use the word or allude to anything being an example of morality. Your need to put words in to the mouths of others is typical of apologists for Israel's illegal behaviour in non-Israeli territories.

      "Anyway, did black people in Texas vote in this referendum? I am sure they couldn’t wait to be slaves"

      They're no longer slaves. The US also abolished slavery and was by that act also instrumental in having slavery prohibited.

      ----

      @ lysias "Actually, a good case can be made that the annexation of Texas was not legal ... etc ... a two-thirds vote in the Senate was not politically possible. So the alternative route of an Act of Congress, requiring only a majority vote in both Houses of Congress, was chosen instead, and that was very doubtfully constitutional at the time"

      That was AFTER the people of Texas agreed to be annexed. Point being the referendums and agreements were exercises in self determination for those peoples, so again the US was instrumental in the legal custom of an agreement with the people's to be annexed with their territory shaping today's conventions on self determination.

      -----

      @catalan

      " .. the “ugly reality” of the Russian empire. Expansion into Central Asia, Poland. Then while the U.S. was manifesting destiny, and Prussia was coveting France, Denmark, and all else, the Russians stole a nice chunk of Eastern Siberia. Indeed the Russians took advantage of the weakening of China to expand there permanently. Then the Soviet Union engaged in its own empire policies .... ?"

      Bravo!! Now about Israel's illegal acquisition of non-Israeli territories TODAY!

    • @ catalan "Yes, it was hunky dory taking California from Mexico."

      They didn't seem to mind "In 1849 California requested permission to enter the Union as a free state ... "

      "And about Russia stealing Siberia in the 1860’s, .... it is ok because it happened before some convention."

      If you say so, I didn't.

      "I don’t know how to respond to such an absurdity. "

      By digging yourself a deeper hole obviously

      ---

      @ Dan May 13, 2015, 7:27 pm

      //The US legally annexed Texas etc thru a referendum of the legal inhabitants of those territories. //

      "The US also stole the territory that eventually became New Mexico, Arizona and much of Southern California. Did they also have a referendum for those populations?"

      A) "also stole" Hey there buddy I just showed they DIDN'T steal Texas, and you come out with 'also stole'. Cute... Denial your forte is it?

      ".. New Mexico, Arizona and much of Southern California. Did they also have a referendum for those populations?"

      It's easy enough to check. You ARE on the internet you know! Under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 the territory that became the states of California, Nevada, Utah and Arizona were ceded to the US. Know what a treaty is?

    • @ catalan May 13, 2015, 11:05 am

      " You see, once you steal enough land you get to write the laws and make it all perfectly legal"

      Strange. The law hasn't changed since the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States -- http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897

      " If you steal even more (see the U.S. taking over half of Mexico"

      Only a real moron tells people to see something that disproves their ignorant and stupid theories. The US legally annexed Texas etc thru a referendum of the legal inhabitants of those territories. annexation of Texas -- http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/texan05.asp

      Likewise Hawaii and even Alaska well after Alaska was bought from Russia, the still Russian citizens of Alaska agreed to become Americans. By adopting the legal custom of self determination, the US was instrumental in the legal custom eventually passing into Customary International Law and the UN Charter

      " or Russia stealing Siberia from China)" Pre the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

      "then you can get yourself a seat on the security council and be one of the good guys"

      Strange. Israel doesn't have a seat.

      "When big guys like China decide to demarcate a whole sea as theirs, the best policy is to suspend the moralizing and do some dealing."

      Is that THIS China? -- https://www.google.com.au/search?q=china%20netanyahu

      " If Iraq tries to do the same, you go after them"

      You'd rather Iraq be allowed otherwise? WOW!!

      "Nothing ever changes"

      It does actually. Although stupid people are still stupid people

  • Netanyahu flips off Harry Truman
    • @ pabelmont "maybe the USA’s recognition of Israel s/b taken to be recognition of Israel w/i those boundaries, tending (achieving?) to make Isrfael merely a belligerent occupier of the rest (78%-55%=23% is merely occupied territory, along with WB&G"

      Israeli Governments and the Zionist Federation et al have muddied the waters as much bullsh*t as they possibly can. Cleared away, it's actually quite simple and very logical. Palestine's borders are defined by default of the actual legal borders of all its neighbours and they have all been recognized, including Israel! Whether Palestine was/is a state or not and/or whether it was/is independent or not is another matter completely irrelevant to Israel's actual legal, self proclaimed sovereign extent.

      The USA: The US Embassy is not in Jerusalem and the wording the US officially uses is "lines" and/or "pre-67 borders". The pre-67 'borders' are those Israel pleaded to be recognized by 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf ). The pre-67 'borders' are not the Armistice Demarcation 'Lines' since no borders were altered by the Armistice Agreements or since by any other legal mechanism. There has been no official US recognition or recognition by any other country of any further territories as being Israeli.

      Fact: The International borders of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt existed prior to Israel's proclamation. By default, they determined the Mandate border of Palestine prior to 00:01 May 15th 1948 when Israel's sovereign extent was proclaimed as effective (ibid)

      Fact: Israel proclaimed it's territorial extent in order to be recognized and was recognized as such, whatever remained of Palestine was quite simply not and until there is a negotiated settlement is still not Israeli.

      These two absolutely indisputable facts are the basis of hundreds of UN/UNSC resolutions affording Israel the opportunity to either reach a negotiated settlement or;
      withdraw from all non-Israeli territories (see UNSC res 476 http://wp.me/pDB7k-W8 ) or;
      adhere to Chapt XI of the UN Charter. Which is a reflection of the mandate under which the British agreed to administrate Palestine under the LoN Mandate for Palestine.

      Since at least 1933 it has been illegal to acquire territory by war. Any war!. The only way a country can legally acquire territory is by legal annexation, whether it has been conquered or even bought. The US from at least the mid 1850's adopted the legal custom of having an agreement with representatives of the territory to be annexed, then holding a US referendum to determine if people in the US also agreed. See the annexation of Texas (contrary to popular belief it was not a part of Mexico at the time) https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/annexation/index.html

      There was first a referendum of the citizens of Texas (sans US citizens), then a referendum in the US. Same for Hawaii, even Alaska long after it was 'bought', there was an agreement/treaty. In this manner the US was instrumental in that legal custom eventually passing into Customary International Law. The notion of having a referendum or agreement is one of the foundations of self determination.

      The US always says it supports Israel's right to protect itself. The US is obliged to extend that opportunity to all independent states. There's nothing special about that aspect.

      The US abstains from all UNSC Chapt VI resolutions on the I/P issue because it is illegal for UN Member states to vote against resolutions that re-affirm and emphasize the UN Charter and existing International Law. UNSC Chapt VII resolutions are another matter. They depend on the Law and/or Charter and/or relative ratified conventions to have been broken, however the consequences are not predetermined. They do not exist until they are determined by a Chapt VII UNSC resolution. The permanent Members can veto something that is yet to exist.

      The US does not extend the same 'right to protect itself' towards Palestine because Palestine is A) Not a UN Member State and; B) Palestine is under occupation of Israel. It is Israel's "sacred trust" to protect Palestine

      The Hasbara reasons given as to why there were no borders mentioned in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel are really twisted and really really REALLY bizarre! http://wp.me/pDB7k-l5
      A) an excuse that demonstates an admission to deceive and;
      B) in deciding not to mention the borders in the declaration tells us that there were borders purposefully not mentioned!

      "OTOH, Israel and others have often talked about truce-lines in 1948 war needing to be replaced with permanent national boundaries after negotiation"

      The Armistice Agreements (Israel agreed) did not change the legal extent of Israel's sovereignty. Lebanon and Syria's borders were determine BEFORE Israel existed.

      Furthermore the Armistice Agreements were not with Palestine. Palestine has never been a UN Member state. The UN, like any club, cannot censure or negotiate on behalf of non-Members. The UN can only tell its Members how they may or may not act towards non-Members and censure Members if they break the UN Charter or the law or conventions they have ratified.

      An aside [[ WikI/Pedia pages in respect to the I/P issue are infected with third hand 'consensus' maintained opinion. Under Wikipedia's editorial guidelines consensus rules, even if the information is complete bullsh*t! My pointing this out and demanding it be corrected resulted in my banning on No More Mr Nice Guy's complaints AFTER the material was changed accordingly in agreement with No More Mr Nice Guy! Wikipedia seems to allow a few non-Isracentric editors to make it look balanced. It isn't!

      On the talk pages my questions and arguments still remain un-resolved years later. Isracentric editors demand 'talk' in order to gain consensus to change information, but if it doesn't go their way they simply refuse to talk until someone changes the information, then they demand talk again and the process again grinds to a halt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Borders_of_Israel#The_extent_of_Israel.27s_declared_sovereignty_according_to_statements_by_the_Israeli_Government_May_15th_1948.2C_May_22nd_1948.2C_June_15th_1949.2C_Aug_31st_1949. ]]

  • Palestinians can have an embassy in Jerusalem, but God forbid not a capital -- Israeli mayor
    • yonah fredman Some facts for you and your fellow apologists to keep ignoring.

      Israel was proclaimed and recognized as it asked to be recognized, according to UNGA res 181. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      Subsequent UNGA and UNSC resolutions are based on that fact.

      corpus separatum was never instituted. Jerusalem has never been legally separated from what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared independent of Palestine.

      "but based upon resolution 242"

      UNSC res 242 was based on Israel's proclaimed and recognized sovereign extent.

      The Jordan/Israel and Egypt/Israel peace treaties tell us the purpose of UNSC res 242 was peace treaties between states

      The annexation of East Jerusalem was illegal because it was unilateral. There was no agreement, no referendum, no self determination by the legitimate inhabitants of the territory being annexed.

  • State Dep't tries to clean up Kerry's 'Poof'
    • @ JeffB "They annexed Jerusalem since then"

      Illegal annexation doesn't transfer sovereignty.

      "Countries don’t lightly give up annexed territory"

      Not Israel's to give up. (see UNSC res 476)

      "So no they wouldn’t listen"

      Never have, that's why there are so many UNSC resolutions reminding Israel of its legal obligations

      " Anymore than sanctions would get the USA to give Texas back to Mexico"

      Texas was legally annexed via an agreement through a referendum of the valid citizens of Texas. It wasn't even Mexican territory when the Texans agreed to be annexed to the USA.

      By the US adopting the legal custom of an agreement to annex territory, Texas, Hawaii, even Alaska AFTER it was bought from the USSR, the US was instrumental in that legal custom passing into Customary International Law.

      The US cannot legally recognize territories Israel has illegally acquired by war and never legally annexed.

      "The UN doesn’t have enough teeth to get a major territory concession from Israel"

      The US UNSC veto vote is the final and only protection Israel has and it is squandering it by not adhering to the law and by demanding more instead of making peace while it still holds.

      Israel wasn't even able to afford to adhere to the law in 1948 without going bankrupt. 66 years later the bill is astronomical.

  • 'NYT' readers who objected to calling Abbas 'defiant' have a point, public editor rules
    • yonah fredman "The way it looks to me is that Israel has two (long range) alternatives: withdrawal from the West Bank .." =Legal alternative

      "..and annexation of the West Bank (including giving full citizenship to all residents of the West Bank)" = Illegal without a referendum of legitimate Palestinian citizens, including West Bank Palestinians in the diaspora in refugee camps, (sans Israelis).

      "It is valid to consider both these long range alternatives as bad alternatives "
      Adhering to the law is a bad alternative .... hilarious stuff

  • MJ Rosenberg’s conundrum
    • @ Sibiriak "It is a de facto dependent state under blockcade by a foriegn power, Israel"

      Impossible. Gaza cannot stop Israeli incursions by land, sea or air. Doesn't control its borders, not even the buffer zone inside Gaza. Doesn't have final say in who or what can enter or exit by any crossing. It's airspace and territorial waters are controlled by Israel. It is far from a de facto 'independent' state. It's under occupation.

      " ... without the inclusion of Gaza, and that seems to be on no one’s agenda"

      You're mistaken. Israel isn't illegally claiming what it hasn't already illegally acquired by war in the Sth West corner http://wp.me/pDB7k-tM#nonannexed-territories

      So called 'negotiations' are over what Israel is now illegally claiming of the West Bank/Jerusalem. Read UNSC res 1860 and read Abbas at the UN. The 22% is post Israel's proclamation and INCLUDES Gaza, forgoing what Israel has already illegally acquired of the Sth Western territory allotted for the Arab state

      " if the WB is formally annexed to Israel, in whole or part, Gaza will still remain outside as a separate polity (dependent state or half state or whatever you want to call it)."

      Neither Gaza or the West Bank have seceded from Palestine. Neither the West Bank (including Jerusalem http://wp.me/pDB7k-W8) or Gaza have ever been legally separated from what remained of Palestine post Israel's proclamation of and recognition of its borders http://wp.me/pDB7k-tM

      Either the West bank, incl Jerusalem, or Gaza would have to first secede from what remains of Palestine, which will require a referendum of the respective legitimate citizens of Gaza or the West Bank (incl Jerusalem) incl any citizens in the diaspora, incl refugee camps. Not including Israeli citizens illegally in those respective non-Israeli territories.

  • 'NYT' covers Palestinian generational divide over the two-state solution
    • yonah fredman " Israel has not reached the point where she is willing to offer annexation and citizenship to the West Bank Palestinians"

      The Zionist Movement's http://pages.citebite.com/o2k0h7w9w5hix State of Israel doesn't want any Palestinians anywhere, anytime, never has and never will. It's a bile bucket, dripping with hatred for anyone who gets in the way of a Greater Israel. If it was a dog, it would have been shot decades ago for being rabid. If it was a human it would have been in a padded cell for the criminally insane. Its supporters are either insane, brainwashed or ignorant of the facts

      "But I am indeed intrigued by the idea that a vote held on the West Bank with the simple question. “Do you want the West Bank to be annexed by Israel?” might be held and a Yes vote might emerge and that the international community would not be able to object to the annexation in that case."

      It's called self determination

      "It is unlike Crimea that is claimed by Ukraine"

      There was a referendum, the people voted to become a part of Russia. Despite all the bullsh*t flowing from the great US wailgob, the same legal process was adopted by the US to annex Texas, Hawaii, even Alaska

      "the West Bank has been disclaimed by Jordan"

      Was never 'claimed' as Jordanian, it was protected under Jordanian sovereignty as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950). and at the time it was captured by Israel it was a part of a High Contractig Power and UN Member state, that's why the UNSC must and has said GC IV applies.

      " although Gaza technically is one unit with the West Bank and for a vote to occur only in part of Palestine might be construed against the vote"

      The West Bank could secede from Palestine, so could Gaza. The citizens of the territory to be annexed have the right to determine the fate of the territory they live in. For all we know one day Israel might be broken up by the same process, especially if Israelis begin to wake up to the ghastly Zionist rip off they've been subjected to

    • @ yonah fredman "So if a referendum is held on the West Bank, “do you want to be annexed to Israel” and the referendum wins, then everything is hunky-dory?"

      It's called self determination and tho it doesn't guarantee will turn out 100% as desired, it gives the majority of people the opportunity to set their own course. Did you have a point?

  • Disenfranchised: How the NYT spins the status of Palestinian land
    • @ JeffB "The Senate still remains the final interpreter of that treaty under US law. In the end domestically that treaty means whatever the Senate says it means"

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

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

      "It would under your interpretation"

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

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

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

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

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

      " Either the USA is a free and independent country"

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

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

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

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

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

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

      It has been US policy since at least 1845 that annexation by agreement is the legal 'custom' by which territory can be acquired. That's why the US freely signed Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States outlawing the acquisition of territory " by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure" http://pages.citebite.com/y1f0t4q1v4son and adopted it as part of the US Foreign Relations Law

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

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

      "This is a clear cut case which disproves your theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Israel aims to silence growing international criticism with Texas A&M deal in Nazareth
  • 'It's hard to see why Israel won't follow white South Africa's road to extinction,' says 'Forward' writer
    • @ JeffB // We’ve never seen one from Israel… //

      Sure we have. Return of all territories (Golan, West Bank, Gaza, Sinai) in exchange for a full peace. Not taken well: link to en.wikipedia.org "

      The wikilink doesn't support your lies. Only idiots bother to lie on the internet, especially when one can go check. Lying for the so called Jewish state is bizarre. Lying is against the basic tenets of Judaism. You're not Jewish?

      //... asking for their LEGITIMATE and LEGAL RIGHTS under the Laws and UN Charter Israel obliged itself to uphold is nonsense and an insult//

      "Yes it is"

      No reason given. Too hard? You just have to say something no matter how stupid it makes you look? Your minders haven't provided you with one?

      //Israel has never had a war within its sovereign extent//

      "1973"

      Uh huh. On what soil sovereign to Israel? Remember Israel has never legally acquired ANY territory since proclaiming its borders May 15th 1948

      "The latest bombings from Hamas. And if you want to talk never during the early 1950s there were frequent cross border raids"

      None of which were an invasion resulting in a war on Israeli soil

      "South Sudan (2011) after horrible violence etc"

      Secession after a referendum the rest of your list is similar, a gigantic idiot for Israel failure. Seems people who fall for the Israeli propaganda schtick really are quite inept

  • Palestinian negotiators angered as Kerry proposes Israeli demands
    • @JeffB "I’m not sure exactly what you are arguing, you seem a bit unclear."

      You can't AFFORD to understand, your whole stupid fallacy ridden world would fall apart.

      "I agree with you that the armistice agreement shouldn’t be binding since both parties indicated they believed it wasn’t the border"

      Problem ... you're pulling straw out of your rrrrrs. I've never asserted that "the armistice agreement shouldn’t be binding ".

      It is a nonsense argument. Israel signed the Armistice Agreements so they are binding.

      Israel AGREED " The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question"

      "But mainly “’49 Israel” i.e. the armistice lines is just a conventional term for this particular part of Greater Israel."

      Very funny. Israel proclaimed itself and was recognized as it asked to be recognized

      ".. as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, 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.”

      Israel has not since legally acquired any territory

      " I’m not attaching much meaning to it"

      Of course. You can't afford to.

      "You seem to be using non-Israeli territory for all of Greater Israel."

      Greater Israel doesn't exist. The fact that Israel proclaimed and was recognized "within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" relegated the mythical 'Greater Israel' to the rubbish bin

      "and that’s what Palestinians have of Israel’s. "

      You're delusional. Palestine was subdivided, not Israel.

      "A recognition the war is over"

      Occupation is a part of war.

      " Israel does value something they can call peace"

      While illegally settling in non-Israeli territory... AMAZING!!

      " Because Mexico ceded Colorado, and took the money for Texas the United States doesn’t relitigate the issue regularly"

      The US annexed the State of Texas first by a referendum of Texan citizens and then a referendum of US citizens. Same for Hawaii, by agreement, same for Alaska, by agreement. The US adoption of the legal custom was instrumental in the legal custom passing into Customary International Law

      "I don’t know that the Jews struggled for millennia to settle next to their ancestral home"

      Fact is we didn't struggle for millennia. During the most part of the millennia, we could have immigrated to Palestine, acquired citizenship, bought land and settled. We didn't. Herzl could have in his life time. He didn't.

      "The more independent Palestine demands to be, the less they get in terms of territory"

      What a stupid statement.

  • Jerusalem gov't invites you to watch knights battle in the occupied city
    • @ Obsidian "After ‘legally’ dispossessing a few million Native Americans"

      Oooooo. Look at the Israeli apologist suddenly shiving Israel's only ally. Cute stuff. Nothing is too low. Obviously not the kind of friend to turn one's back on.

      The difference Obsidian must ignore to create a poor crippled zionist strawman is the fact that the US ceased a long time ago. The native Indian population are US citizens with full rights anywhere in the USA. Israel continues to dispossess non-Jews, even from non-Israeli territories, to this day.

      The immorality of dispossession was being realized in the US by at least 1835 when a referendum was held amongst the legitimate citizens of Texas. It was annexed to the US on behalf of the legitimate citizens of Texas because they wanted to be annexed to the US. Self determination. Ditto Hawaii, by agreement. Even Alaska was annexed by agreement some years after the US bought it from the USSR

      The US legal custom of annexation by an agreement was instrumental in the eventual passing of the legal process into Customary International Law. Since at least 1933 it has been illegal to acquire territory by force/war, ANY war ... http://pages.citebite.com/y1f0t4q1v4son (ratified by the US 1934)

  • Gaza: Crushed between Israel and Egypt
    • Walid "That was my turn at being sloppy; I should have said “of Palestinian descent”. "

      They were ALL of Palestinian descent, it had been Palestine.

      "The ironic part was about a monarch, Abdullah, from what became Saudi Arabia being parachuted into Palestine to rule over the Palestinians..."

      I think you're misinformed. He'd been there most of his life. There's a discussion clarifying the matter somewhere on Mondoweiss, about a year ago.

      "About the issue of the (Jericho) self-determination for the West Bank and how it tied in with the illegal annexation,"

      There's no UNSC resolution calling it illegal. In fact it complied with A) the UN's notions of self determination by being requested and B) by being as a trustee only, the UN Charter Chapt XI.

      Furthermore it complied with the legal custom of consent or agreement. See the agreements the US had in the annexation of Texas (first a referendum of Texan citizens, then a referendum of US ) . Ditto an agreement with Hawaii, even Alaska long after it was bought from the USSR. The US custom of having an agreement to validate annexation was instrumental in the custom passing into Customary International Law.

      " since another part was looking into a union with Egypt. "

      From Egyptian occupied Gaza?

      "The illegal annexation was recognized only by the UK and Pakistan "

      Recognition does not determine legality. There's no vote on recognition of annexation or recognition of statehood. The UN only votes to accept already existing and recognized independent states (nations). There are numerous countries in the UN that legally exist, yet do not recognize each other. The Law determines legality and Customary International Law requires self determination thru an agreement with the citizens of the territory to be annexed or their representatives.

      "I exaggerated when said that the Arabs did nothing for the Palestinians. I should have mentioned the 1973 oil embargo that had knocked the wind of the West for about a year until the Arabs were easily sweet-talked with promises into ending it"

      I've not examined the 1973 oil embargo issue in detail, but as I recollect only Japan issued a statement re Palestinian self-determination.

      Easily and on what basis?

      January : Israel pulls back to the East side of the Suez
      March 5th: Israel withdraws from the West side of the Suez
      March 17th: End of the embargo against the United States.

  • Mubarak says the road to Washington runs through Tel Aviv
    • @ Ludwig On what date was Jerusalem legally separated from what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared and recognized as it asked to be recognized "within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" ?

      On what date was Jerusalem legally annexed to the State of Israel? Who was the annexation agreement with? When was the referendum among the Palestinian citizens of Jerusalem conducted? You do know that the acquisition of territory by war (any war) has been illegal since at least 1933 http://pages.citebite.com/y1f0t4q1v4son

      Have you ever dared to read UNSC res 252 and ts EIGHT reminders?

  • Do Israelis want a real Palestinian state? The polls say no
    • @ miriam6

      HUGE FAIL in true Hasbara style

      The poll is asking the Israeli public to answer ridiculous questions.

      "If a peace agreement is reached with the Palestinians that includes an Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and an evacuation of settlements, in your opinion, would there or would there not be a need for a referendum to approve the agreement, or should the decision be left in the hands of the government and the Knesset."

      Neither. If a peace agreement is reached, the peace agreement already dictates.

      "This time we also asked if a peace agreement is reached that includes a withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and an evacuation of settlements, is there a need to approve it in a referendum or should the decision be left to the government and the Knesset? "

      Neither. If a peace agreement is reached, the peace agreement already dictates.

      "11. If Israel and the Palestinians reach an understanding and a permanent peace agreement that includes security arrangements for Israel, a demilitarized Palestinian state, international guarantees, and declaration of the end of the conflict by the Palestinians, in return for this peace agreement, would you support or not support each of the following? 11.3 An evacuation of settlements, except for Ariel, Maaleh Adumim, and the settlement blocs"

      Same applies. The understanding and the permanent peace agreement already reached would dictate what was or what was not to be evacuated.

      The poll questions are idiotic and the results show Israelis fail to understand what nonsensical questions they're being asked.

      It is meaningless to ask AFTER an agreement is already reached whether an agreement should or should not be reached or by whom the decision should be made. Elvis has already left the room!!

  • Never mind the coup: U.S. military aid will continue to flow to Egypt
    • A few points worth considering:

      One needs to look at the basic charter governing each country's military and to who or what they owe ultimate allegiance. Spouting off without this knowledge is simply speculation and bullsh*t

      The Egyptian Military owes first allegiance to the state i.e., the people, not the incumbent Government. http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Templates/Articles/tmpArticleNews.aspx?ArtID=68793

      No matter how negatively the some folk try to paint it this latest run of events isn't anything like a military coup. They only show their ignorance or willingness to stoop to sh*t stirring propaganda

      Twice in the last year the Egyptian Military have supported the people's will, albeit clumsily in the first instance, perhaps understandably given the volatility of the circumstances and the entrenchment of the former regime. At conclusion of elections and transition, the military stood aside.

      They've been slightly more affirmative and decisive this time round.

      Folk ought take a closer look at where their military's ultimate allegiances lay. Isn't the US right to bear arms based on the possibility of having the Government turn on the people. Four dead in Ohio ring a bell?

      To whom or what do Israel's and/or the US's military owe ultimate allegiance? One owes it to one's self to know, no matter which country one is a citizen. But how many people bother? https://www.google.com/search?q=the+armed+forces+%22shall+belong+to+the+people%22

      The US/Egypt aid agreement, like the Israeli/Egypt Peace Treaty, is between the State of Egypt and the United States/State of Israel, not the incumbent Government/s. The will of the people via a referendum or via a specific election platform, might lead to the undoing of such state agreements.

      So, where and how does US aid to the State of Egypt flow? Is it the same as the military aid given Israel, which seems to be entirely maintaining the upper hand in the region or is it only to maintain Israeli security as provided for under the Israeli Egypt Peace Treaty. A perspective - http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33003.pdf

  • 'J Street' says Jewish state 'hangs in balance' of failed negotiations
    • @ mondonut
      "there is nothing that you have quoted that makes what the Palestinians claim actually theirs"

      UNSC res 476 sums it up quite nicely. I've quoted it often. http://wp.me/pDB7k-W8 You've not read it yet ... You've been shown it numerous times. Preferring ignorance is a sign of a propagandist. Propagandists are inherently liars.

      "The Palestinians are certainly not obligated to forego any of their rights (such as they are) and they certainly are not obligated to negotiate for the state they ostensibly want. They only have to if they actually want one – a interest they have yet to demonstrate.

      How oxymoronic " the state they ostensibly want" followed by "a interest they have yet to demonstrate" ... Ignoring of course their more than generous offers at the UN in front of the entire world 2011 & again in 2012 which you have probably also been shown. Not bothering to read what you're provided with is a sign of either stupidity 101 or a propagandist. Congratulations, your credentials are impeccable.

      The Palestinians already have a state, recognized by the MAJORITY of the International Comity of Nations. It gives Israel far more territory than it has ever held legal sovereignty over. Israel's response has been to build even more illegal settlements.

      "And Israel has no need to plea bargain their way out of anything, this fantasy you have about the Israel’s supposed weak bargaining position is ridiculous."

      So Israel has legally annexed territory beyond its recognized borders? WOW! When? Who agreed? Who has recognized these additions to Israeli sovereignty? Answer... NO ONE! Israel hasn't even attempted legal annexation of any territory it acquired by war before becoming a UN Member state.

      "the only ones who think Israel’s original borders have any bearing on anything are those who like yourself occupy the fringe"

      No borders were altered in 1949/50. No borders were altered '67. The pre '67 borders are in fact the May 15th 1948 borders as Israel asked to be and was recognized by, before being admitted to the UN.

      On May 22, 1948 (UNSC S/766 ) the Israeli Govt admitted it was in military control of non-Israeli territories "outside the State of Israel"

      Jerusalem Declared Israel-Occupied City- by Israeli Government Proclamation 12 Aug 1948 States have no need to occupy their own territory.

      On the 31st Aug 1949 Israel made an official claim to non-Israeli territories. It was rebuffed http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC25IS37.pdf

      It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. The ONLY method of legally acquiring territory is to legally annex it, which requires the agreement of those whose territory is to be annexed. Customary International Law practiced by the US since at least 1845 on the legal annexation of Texas, by a referendum of the legitimate citizens of Texas. http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/voters.html

      The moment Israel attempts to unilaterally annex the territories acquired by war 1948-1949, the UNSC will be obliged to condemn the action. BTW the US cannot veto existing law, the UN Charter or relevant conventions emphasized, recalled or otherwise referred to in a Chapt VI resolution. At best all it can do is abstain.

  • Kerry and Blair’s $4 Billion Mystery Plan for Palestine: Crony capitalism under the guise of peace?
    • pabelmont "talknik recites, unsourced.." https://www.google.com/search?q=the+state+of+Israel+has+been+proclaimed+as+an+independent+republic+within+frontiers+approved+by+the+General+Assembly+of+the+United+Nations+in+its

      "At any rate, the 1947 proposed boundaries were far smaller than 1950-1966 Israel. "

      The boundaries Israel asked to be recognized by and was recognized by are those of UNGA res 181. Confirmed in the Israeli Government statement to the UNSC May 22nd 1948

      The 1949 Armistice Agreements specifically did not change any territorial boundaries.

      Article V
      1. The line described in Article VI of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Line and is delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolutions of the Security Council of 4 and 16 November 1948.
      2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question. http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/mfadocuments/yearbook1/pages/israel-egypt%20armistice%20agreement.aspx

      Israel's first claim to territories "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine" (ibid) was on the 31st Aug 1949 http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/fd807e46661e3689852570d00069e918/c96e0252e7710bce85256d95006bc157?OpenDocument

      It was rebuffed by the UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION
      FOR PALESTINE, citing the Armistice Agreements. http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC25IS37.pdf

      ".. I don’t know what would be “legal” or “illegal” about annexation..."

      1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States required Israel to have A) a defined territory and; B) codified the illegality of acquiring territory by war. (codified by the citing of pre-existing International Law. Only two states, Brazil and Peru, accepted the doctrine of inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war in principle, tho they did not consider it codifiable)

      "ARTICLE 1 The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory

      ARTICLE 11
      The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure

      Legal annexation embraces the right to self determination. E.g., by 1854 US had adopted the legal custom of annexing via an agreement with the party whose territory was to be annexed, either through a referendum of the legitimate citizens of the territory to be annexed (the Mexican citizens of Texas http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/voters.html ), or by some other agreement mechanism, as with Hawaii & Alaska. Although the US bought Alaska, it was not sovereign to the US until annexation, which was by agreement.

      The US was instrumental in this customary legal method passing into what is known as Customary International Law under which the UNSC condemned Israel's unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem. UNSC res 252 and EIGHT reminders and UNSC Res 497 (Golan)

      Re - the territories acquired by war by Israel by May 11th 1949 and the signing of the 1949 Armistice Agreements. The UN can only tell UN Members how they may or may not act towards non-members, it cannot directly censure non-members. Thus there are no UNSC resolutions directly censuring Israel for acquiring territory by war prior to becoming a UN Member, even though the acquisition of territory by war was inadmissible under the 1933 Montevideo Convention.

      Israel must, but has not yet attempted to, annex any of the territories it acquired by war before becoming a UN Member. If Israel now attempts to annex unilaterally, it will be condemned by the UNSC.

      Contrary to popular belief, it is Israel who MUST negotiate an agreement with the Palestinians in order to circumvent the legal consequences of 65 years of illegal activities. The Palestinians meanwhile are under no legal obligation to forgo any of their rights, even in negotiations. Their incredibly generous offer of 2011 and 2012 were ignored by Israel.

  • Memo to the world: Israel is never leaving the West Bank
    • Mike_Konrad "Judea and Samaria are the heart of historical Israel"

      Historical. As of 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) the Jewish people's homeland state, Israel, is encompassed only ".. as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, " http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad169.asp

      "The two-state solution is dead and I say good riddance."

      Uh huh. So without ethnic cleansing of non-Jews, Israel as one state, will cease to be a Jewish majority.

      "What Israel has to consider, now, is whether it wants to enfranchise the Arabs in Judea and Samaria, or pay them to leave.

      Er no. The fat lady hasn't yet sung. Even in a one state solution, Israel must legally annex the non-Israeli territories by a referendum of or agreement with the legitimate citizens of the territory (sans illegal settlers) . Now Israel is obliged to adhere to the law per UNSC resolutions.

      "Israel has a right to survive as a homeland for the Jewish people"

      This yours ? "The two-state solution is dead and I say good riddance." without ethnic cleansing of non-Jews, Israel as one state, will cease to be a Jewish majority.

      "It should offer equal rights to the Palestinians in the contested areas:

      "contested areas" = weasel words that do not appear in any of the UNSC resolutions on the matter. They're "occupied"

      "the world should NOT force a right of return for Palestinians outside Israel and Judea and Samaria"

      Why not? Israel illegally claims over 50% of what remained of post May 15th 1948 Palestine http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk Israel has never legally annexed ANY territory

  • Church of Scotland backs away from boycott call in the face of pressure
    • Correction:

      Statehood is irrevocable except through the exercise of self determination via a referendum of the state’s legitimate citizens and by which territory may be legally annexed to the state and/or be ceded wholly or in part by the state to another power.

    • "the exercise of self determination by the people of those territories done legally through referenda is the correct constitutional procedure and which properly rejects a “states right to exist” "

      Hostage nailed the 'right to exist' as well as it can be nailed.

      'rejection' of the 'right' tho, is after the fact

      It ought be something along the lines of :

      Statehood is irrevocable except thru the exercise of self determination by a referendum of the state's legitimate citizens by which territory may be legally annexed to the state and/or be ceded wholly or in part by the state to another power.

  • Questioning Israel's 'international legitimacy,' Siegman says two-state solution would require Kerry to reject 'robbery' beyond '67 lines
    • @ ryan-o "I was under the (apparently false) impression that Jordan’s annexation of the WB wasn’t internationally recognized"

      Acquiring territory by an existing state is deemed legal (or not) by the law. Not on the recognition of states.

      The US in annexing Hawaii, Texas, even Alaska by a treaty or agreement or a referendum of the legitimate citizens of those territories, was instrumental in that legal process passing into Customary International Law. It is inherently tied to the notions of self determination

      The majority of states via the UNSC deemed the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem without agreement with its legitimate citizens (sans illegal Israeli settlers, Jewish or Arab) or their representatives, to be illegal under the law. UNSC res 252 and EIGHT or so reminders. UNSC res 476 encapsulates it nicely http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/b86613e7d92097880525672e007227a7/6de6da8a650b4c3b852560df00663826?OpenDocument

      There is no such resolution against the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank on the request (agreement) of Palestinian representatives, as a trustee by demand of the other Arab States. Both aspects comply with the notion of self determination and the UN Charter Chapt XI.

      " Future settlement not necessarily an allusion to an independent West Bank state."

      The West Bank is only a part of the territories that were allotted for the Arab State. None of which have ever been legally annexed to Israel. http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

      "It would be interesting to get both a Palestinian and Jordanian perspective on this"

      Jordan relinquished all control in 1974

      "..they still have a large Palestinian population"

      All citizens of Jordan are Jordanian. In 1946 only the folk who lived in the area that became Jordan had an automatic right to Jordanian citizenship. Those who lived outside of the area in 1946 did not.

      Annexation to Jordan as trustee gave the West Bank a cohesive rule of civil law and governance under a sovereign power, instead of living under the rule of military occupation. Citizenship was automatically extended to West Bank residents whilst it was under the trusteeship of Jordan.

      From what I can gather and I might be wrong, Palestine refugees in Jordan, sans the West Bank, from areas other than the West Bank were treated as refugees and offered refuge. Jordanian citizenship was not automatic. They had to apply. Same as refugees can in Australia today.

  • Zionists thrill that Obama will recognize ancient Jewish connection to 'homeland' (undoing his Cairo error)
  • The limits of liberal Zionism: 'NYT' columnist Roger Cohen misrepresents the Nakba and the right of return
    • JeffB "I see. So the stealing and the keeping are OK as long as some time in the future there is a treaty?"

      Er, no, you don't see, because you're too busy trying making silly Hasbara style excuses. If people agree to be annexed to a state, it's not stealing.

      Territory is acquired legally by annexation, wherein there is a referendum of the legitimate citizens of the territory or they can elect a representative body who will agree to annexation on their behalf.

      There was a referendum of the Mexican citizens of Texas. A referendum of the Russian citizens of Alaska. Hawaii, same. All were annexed because the citizens of the territories agreed to be annexed to the US. It's called SELF DETERMINATION and because the US adopted that legal process, the US was instrumental in that legal process for acquiring territory eventually passing into Customary International Law.

      In the case of the British annexation of the Falkland Islands, there were no citizens there and the penguins didn't seem to object.

      A treaty doesn't make sense. If the US had a treaty with Texas and Texas became a part of the US, the treaty would be between the US and the US.

      It's like the stupid Israeli notion that the Palestinians must have a peace agreement with Israel before there is any consideration of RoR. If there was an peace agreement between Israel and Palestine, those allowed to return to Israel would become ISRAELI citizens. If Palestine for example broke the peace agreement, it wouldn't be those ISRAELI citizens breaking the agreement.

  • Exile and the Prophetic: Is Israel too big to fail?
    • like a business plan, the kind of thing that you would put together to get the bankers to loan you money

      One of the first things instituted by the Zionist Federation was the Jewish Colonial Trust http://www.banking-history.co.uk/jewishcolonial.html

      They helped fund the colonization of Palestine, assisted in buying 'real estate'. A tiny amount compared to the 'territory' Israel was eventually granted, completely gratis. Palestine lost 56% of it's territory. (The US paid for Alaska ... then held a referendum of the Russian citizens of Alaska to see if they wanted the 'territory' to be annexed to the US)

      Herzl could have in his life time, immigrated, become a Palestinian citizen, bought land and settled anywhere in Palestine. Neither he or his family ever lived there.

      No slaving in a kibbutz making the desert bloom for Dr Theodor. Unlike poor Peres with just two pairs of pants

  • Israel's annexation moment has arrived
    • Israel can only legally annex territory by a referendum of or by an agreement with the legitimate citizens of the territory to be annexed. (sans illegal settlers)

      The US helped shape the Laws surrounding the legal acquisition of territory when it held a referendum of Mexican citizens of Texas (sans US citizens in Texas) to see if they wanted to be annexed to the US, then a referendum of US citizens to see if they wanted to annex Texas and it's citizens. Likewise a referendum of the Russian citizens of Alaska. Same Hawaii. By adopting this procedure for annexation, the US was instrumental in that method eventually passing into Customary International Law.

      If Israel attempts to unilaterally annex non-Israeli territory without an agreement or referendum, we will see a repeat of UNSC reolutions against the annexation of East Jerusalem, beginning with a Chapt VI resolution reminding the parties of the Law (all Law is binding BTW) and how they must act according to the law. It is the wording of Chapt VI resolutions outlining the requirements under the Law and/or UN Charter that are voted on.

      UNSC Members cannot veto the law or vote to allow a law or UN Charter to be broken. They can only vote for a Chapt VI resolution outlining legal requirements or, as the US has in the past, abstain from voting. (BTW the majority of UN / UNSC resolutions against Israel are reminders of its obligations and previous resolutions. UNSC res 252 has some EIGHT reminders. Israel calls it bias. Is the Gas Co biased when it reminds folk to pay their bills per the contract they agreed to? Of course it isn't. The Hasbara fails again)

      A Chapt VII resolution against Israel for ignoring a Chapt VI resolution and the law/Charter is another matter. Actions which might be taken against a state for having ignored the laws contained in a Chapt VI resolution are not predetermined or set in concrete. UNSC Members states can vote against or as the US has done so many times, veto the resolution in its entirety.

      AIPAC et al desperately lobby the US senate because ALL of Israel's illegal eggs are in the lone US veto basket. Change US opinion and Israel will drown in the bog it has made for itself over the last 64 years.

  • The light doesn't get much greener than this: Obama admin gives Israel the go ahead to escalate in Gaza
    • Antidote "It is strictly beyond me how people can draw such conclusions based on the US record wrt International Law before and after 48."

      Before '45: The US annexed parts of Mexico by a referendum of the legal MEXICAN citizens of the territory to be annexed (sans US citizens in the territory). After the Mexican citizens agreement to be annexed, a referendum was then held of US citizens, deciding to annex Mexican territories into the US. Same Hawaii, same Alaska. In adopting this process of self determination by referendum, the US was instrumental in the process being passed into Customary International Law and it being reflected in various conventions, the UN Charter and UNSC resolutions.

      UNSC res 252 and some eight reminders condemn Israel's unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem because no such referendum was held. Whereas the bilateral (legal) Jordanian annexation of what was officially renamed the West Bank, at the request of a Palestinian delegation, could not be condemned by the UNSC.

      '48 : The US officially recognized Israel May 15th 1948 as requested. As "an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947". Confirmed also by the Israeli Govt May 22nd 1948. Only Armistice Demarcation lines and Cease Fire lines have changed, internationally recognized borders have not.

      "Could you name one or more examples that would demonstrate that the US did not violate their own set precedents before 48?"

      Pointless exercise. The above US precedents are at odds with the US stance re Israel NOW, which puts the US between a rock and a hard place NOW. It cannot legally veto a Chapt VI resolution requiring the laws already in place be upheld. It can only abstain as all law is binding and UNSC members cannot veto existing law.

      The only thing protecting Israel from the rightful consequences of not adhering to the law in respect to non-self-governing territory it controls beyond its recognized borders and the illegal annexation of those territories, acquired by war, is the US veto vote on actions to enforce the law.

      While Israel has the protection of the precious US veto vote, Israel has two options. 1) Keep breaking the law or; 2) it MUST negotiate a deal with the Palestinians (self determination) in order to circumvent the consequences of its illegal actions. Faced with the consequences of the law and UN Charter, which all fall in favour of the Palestinians, Israel would be sent bankrupt for decades as it attempted to compensate the Palestinians for 64 years of dispossession, territorial theft, destruction of property. It would be required to relocate hundreds of thousands of Israelis now living in territory Israel acquired by war by 1949 and in '67 and never legally annexed to Israel. (or they could become Palestinian citizens)

      If civil war broke out between the State of Israel and Israeli citizens in occupied territories outside of Israel, the Regional Powers would have the right and DUTY under the UN Charter Chapt XI and Chapt VII to intervene as they did in "Palestine" in 1948 after having tabled their intentions to the UNSC.

      Palestinian leadership is well aware of the volatility of the legal situation for Israel, thus the bid for acceptance into UN institutions giving them access to legal process. Furthermore, Abbas has twice now in front of the world at the UN generously and humanely offered to forgo the territories slated for the Arab State which were illegally acquired by Israel by 1949. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/full-transcript-of-abbas-speech-at-un-general-assembly-1.386385 (2011) and again 2012.

  • Israeli Ministry of Tourism map annexes over 60% of the West Bank
    • The Jewish people didn't survive centuries in the diaspora by abandoning the basic tenets of Judaism. Now we have a state that has. Remind me again why it's referred to as the "Jewish" state

      The US has two problems regarding Israel and how much support it can give in respect to it's actual territory and the territory it covets and wishes to annex

      A) It recognized Israel by the UNGA res 181 borders, as requested by the Provisional Israeli Govt May 15th 1948. http://wp.me/pDB7k-KL May 22nd 1948 the Israeli Government acknowledged these borders and the existence of the other separate entity "Palestine", "outside the territory of the State of Israel"

      B) The US itself was instrumental in shaping the notions of legal annexation under Customary International Law when it conducted a referendum of the Mexican citizens of the Mexican territory (ditto Hawaii and Alaska) eventually annexed to the USA

  • Jimmy Carter: Israel has dropped the two-state solution for a 'Greater Israel'
    • mcohen October 23, 2012 at 1:37 am

      "One state solution is the way to go with no right of return"

      Uh huh. If it is a single state, its citizens must surely be allowed to live anywhere within that state. Unless of course it is an apartheid state.

      "Gaza to become a seperate state"

      Uh huh .... that's TWO states ...

      "West bank to become part of israel"

      Will it be legally annexed to Israel? By a referendum of the legal citizens of the West Bank? (sans illegal Israeli settlers)

      "israels supporters live outside israel and will always support israel"

      They're a tiny minority in the world and in the US, which at present holds the only thing preventing Israel facing the consequences of its 64 years of illegal 'facts on the ground' activity, the US veto vote in the UNSC, without which Israel would be sent bankrupt for decades.

      "Palestinians in the west bank will vote to become citizens of israel in the next 5 years as gas imports take off and money flows into the west bank"

      "imports" COST. Perhaps you mean exports. Palestinians aren't Israelis, they will never benefit from Israeli gas exports.

      "Why should palestinians bother with a seperate state when they can live well together with jews in one secular stste"

      Like Israel's current second class Arab and Bedouin populations? As for secular state, search for this "THE STATE OF ISRAEL" " as envisaged by the prophets of Israel;"

  • American Jewish relationship with Israel is debated at New School
    • " Israel’s existence inside the 67 borders is a principle of int’l law"

      It isn't "a principle of int’l law" Customary International Law demands legal annexation via a referendum of the actual legal citizens of the territories to be annexed (sans the annexing parties citizens) see the US annexation of Texas. The US was instrumental in annexation via a referendum eventually passing into Customary International Law. So the US can only abstain from voting on Chapt VI resolutions and can only veto Chapt VII resolutions against Israel.

      That's why there are numerous UNSC resolutions against Israel's illegal annexation of East Jerusalem. It's also why Israel must negotiate to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, because Israel has never legally annexed ANY territory. The alternative is to face the consequences of the Law under which Israel would be sent bankrupt for decades. So Israel MUST protect the precious and only veto vote in the UNSC

  • Beinart says the rightwing lobby panicked Obama on Jerusalem (Yes, why?)
    • The re-insertion doesn't acknowledge Israeli Sovereignty over any part Jerusalem, nor can it until the territories Israel has acquired by war and by creating illegal facts on the ground have actually been legally annexed to Israel. This will require either an agreement with the PA or a referendum of the actual legal and legitimate citizens of those territories (sans Israeli citizens).

      So the statement leaves open the possibility that Israel and Palestinians will have their capitals in Jerusalem. Only thus might the city remain 'undivided' (corpus separatum + capitals).

      The US stance has always been ambiguous because the US legally recognized Israel thus "as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947 .......... The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time. " So too the other states affording Israel recognition.

      Israel was not established by the 1948/49 war, but by declaration and subsequent recognition and Israel was a UN Member State before ever claiming any extra territories, after the 1949 armistice agreements were signed.

      The pundits miss the glaring obvious

      The US keeps the issue on the table via the veto vote in the UNSC, protecting Israel from the consequences of facing the law because: Faced with the consequences of the laws Israel agreed to uphold, it would be thrown into complete turmoil as it tried to re-locate a million or so Israeli citizens who've been living outside of Israel for 64 years and facing bankruptcy as it tried to compensate the Palestinians.

      If civil war breaks out between the State of Israel and Israeli citizens in territories legally outside the State of Israel, the other Regional Powers will have the right and a duty under the UN Charter, to intervene as they did in 1948. Obviously no one wants a repeat performance.

      Negotiations are Israel's only way out of the ghastly sh*te hole it has dug for everyone. However as Israel has refused every reasonable and generous offer put to it, it's rather obvious that it wants ALL the territory and will do ANYTHING to get it.

      Not having gotten it's way in the past Israel has ignored the sovereign integrity of the neighbouring states, the law, the UN Charter and kicked the sh*te out of the hen house, just as it said it would 31 August 1949

      Until there is an independent Palestinian State Deuteronomy 20:15 rules, at any cost.

  • One apartheid state, with liberty and justice for Jews only
    • proudzionist777 July 27, 2012 at 3:18 am

      "So where is the Palestinian leadership?"

      UNICEF for one ... drip ... drip

      "With annexation imminent, the Pal leaders should be on the phone with the Quartet clamoring for an immediate peace summit ( if only to forestall the annexation).

      Am I wrong? ... Did I miss something?"

      Yes. Quite a lot. The act of annexation is A) admittance that the territory you're annexing is not your own and; B) LEGAL annexation under Customary International Law, which the US was instrumental in eventually being adopted by the International Community when it first held a referendum amongst the legitimate MEXICAN citizens of Texas (sans US citizens) asking them, if they WANTED to be a part of the USA, then held a referendum of US citizens asking if they wanted Texas to be a part of the US.

      The attempted annexation of East Jerusalem missed one important step. A referendum amongst the actual citizens of the territory Israel was annexing, sans Israeli citizens. That's why it was condemned by the UNSC Resolution 252 and SEVEN reminders. UNSC Res 476 encapsulates it rather nicely.. Ever read it?

      It's Israel who must negotiate. An agreement can circumvent the consequences of the law, from which Israel is protected by only one veto vote in the UNSC. All those illegal facts on the ground in one basket. Faced with the law and UN Charter, Israel would be bankrupt for decades, not to mention having to re-locate hundreds of thousands of very angry Israeli citizens who've been duped for 64 years into thinking they were living in Israel.

  • US to differentiate between 'personally displaced' Palestinian refugees and their descendants
    • ritzl "a referendum to clarify the illegality of the occupation"

      Illegality is determined by Law, the UN Charter, Conventions, Armistice & Peace agreements.

      The occupation is by agreement between Israel and the various Arab States, giving Israel military control of the non-self-governing territories through Armistice Agreements or in the case of Israel/Egypt & Jordan, Peace Agreements.

      The 'actions' of the Occupying Power are in breach of the responsibilities of " Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government..." (CHAPTER XI: DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES
      Article 73). Which is why there are so many UNSC Resolutions against Israel.

      As to the circular arguments put forward by Israel, of course.... As long as a legal matter is in dispute, it's not resolved. E.g., While the argument over 'the' or 'all' in UNSC res 242 raged on, there was no resolution for Israel or anyone else to be held to.

      After UNSC res 242 was adopted, then came the bizarre arguments over what it meant, even though it took countless hours to ensure it only said exactly what it meant.

      Logic tells us "territories occupied" and never unoccupied, are still occupied territories. It's reflected in UNSC Res 252 and its SIX reminders. Perhaps best encapsulated in its entirety in UNSC Res 476. The Israel/Egypt/Jordan Peace agreements show us the purpose of UNSC Res 242 (and 338).

      Put through the Ziofier, UNSC Res 242 comes out as 'the Palestinians must negotiate borders with Israel'. Yet UNSC Res 242 doesn't mention Palestine, Palestinians or contain the word 'negotiate'. It had nothing to do with Palestinian Statehood. It was a resolution to end hostilities between already existing states, all of which had existing borders determined BEFORE Israel was declared.

    • Fredblogs May 25, 2012 at 12:26 pm

      “Territory can’t be taken by force”

      Who are you quoting? What was actually said is still there. "acquired"

      "Also China"

      Indeed, fine company Israel keeps.

      "the U.S., Spain"

      They've 'acquired' which territories by war, post 1945?

      "the countries that took chunks of German territory after WWII"

      Under treaties and agreements and; East and West Germany were occupied, not "acquired" by the Occupying Powers.

      "and every other country in the world, which all took territory by force"

      Since 1945... AMAZING!! Got any more straw. Perhaps you should get some reading glasses for your guide dog.

      Rpt ... // legal annexation is only via a referendum of the legitimate citizens of the territory to be annexed, sans the citizens of the Occupying Power. The legal annexation of Texas by the US, via a referendum of the MEXICAN citizens of Texas 1845, was a precursor to legal annexation becoming Customary International Law (thru being adopted by a majority of States) before the UN Charter of 1945 //

      You come bearing gifts of straw, combined with poor reading skills.

      But let's say your decrepit strawmen stood up. A) How many wrongs make a right? B) If the countries you mentioned had not, as you have alleged "taken territory by force", Israel would then turn around and return all the territory it has illegally 'acquired' by war, never legally annexed and illegally settled, post 1948 (which is post 1945).

      Please clarify....thx

    • Seems our Hasbaristas are ignorant of the chronological sequence of events which show their Ziocaine addled strawmen to be nothing but disembodied Ziochaff, poor lil' darls.

      Let's start with their UNRWA nonsense because it's so easily shown to be the same olde same olde BULLSH*TE pushed by Israel.

      The UNRWA definition does not cover final status. It only provides, as its name suggests, relief and works whilst people are refugees. It's on the UNRWA site. I'm sure they and Professor Ruth Lapidoth would have found it had they actually cared for facts or really wanted to understand or shine light on the actual situation, instead of spreading their bullsh*te far and wide.

      To the chronology of official events, statements and claims; (for our straw bringing friends, chronology means one should look at the dates to see what comes before and after)

      The official Palestinian claim is based on UNGA res 194, adopted 11 December 1948, a year before any UNRWA definition could possibly have been written and before UNRWA came into existence on the 8 December 1949.

      RoR under UNGA res 194 is based on this definition, which does not include lineal descendants. It also included Jewish folk on the same basis. However any person who takes up citizenship in a country other than that of return, is no longer a refugee. There are no longer any Jewish refugees from Arab States, who were not dispossessed by the Palestinians, nor did the Palestinians vote for the leaders of those regimes. In fact, the Palestinians of today were at best small children in 1948. Unless of course one uses Ziomaths.

      Nor were Jews expelled from Palestine by the Palestine refugees of 1948. Unless of course one uses Ziologic. They're refugees because instead of fighting, they fled, as was the right of all civilians and; as civilians have the Right to Return.

      Furthermore, UNGA res 194 was adopted before the 31st Aug 1949, when Israel made its first official claim to territories it held under occupation via the 1948/49 war. ( Israeli Govt Statements on occupation here May 22nd 1948 and here Aug 12th 1948)

      Territories "outside the State of Israel" were not recognized as Israeli territory in 1948, 1949 or ever. Territory cannot not be acquired by force, only by legal annexation or agreement.

      There has never been an agreement with Palestine and; legal annexation is only via a referendum of the legitimate citizens of the territory to be annexed, sans the citizens of the Occupying Power. The legal annexation of Texas by the US, via a referendum of the MEXICAN citizens of Texas 1845, was a precursor to legal annexation becoming Customary International Law (thru being adopted by a majority of States) before the UN Charter of 1945.

      RoR to the actual legally recognized sovereign territory of the State of Israel, applies only to about 25,000 or so Palestine refugees, (my estimate) who are all an absolute minimum age of 64 yrs , beyond the age of rampant procreation.

      RoR to territories illegally acquired by war by Israel in 1948/49 and 1967, none of which has ever been legally annexed to Israel, presents a completely different set of issues which will depend on how generous the Palestinians are in helping Israel get out of the deep dark illegal sh*t hole Israel has dug for itself through 64 years of ignoring International Law, deceiving Israelis, itself and attempting to deceive the rest of the world.

      It also presents a quagmire for the US. Because the US recognized the legal extent of Israeli Sovereignty on the 15th of May 1948 as being "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 US has never recognized any other territory as being Sovereign to Israel. Which is perhaps why the 30,000 US estimate is much the same as my own.

      It also explains why the US supports a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. Were Israel made to face the full effect of the law, the official US recognition of Israel is only "within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947". So the US is left only with the option of vetoing Chapt VII resolutions against Israel.

      Were Israel made to face the law, it would be sent bankrupt for decades and likely erupt into civil war as it attempted to relocate millions of Israelis back to Sovereign Israeli territory. Unfortunately such a civil war would be fought predominantly outside of the State of Israel, as such the other Regional Powers would have a right, as they did in 1948, to intervene.

      Had Israel adhered to the Law, been satisfied with its lot, the situation would not be as it is. It has only itself to blame. It has the generosity of the Palestinians to thank for even considering the so called '67 borders.

  • Akiva Tor: Arab Spring at fault for blocking a future Palestinian state
    • ritzl

      "40-year occupation"

      Even that is a blatant lie. It has in fact been 63 years.

      On May 22nd 1948, the Provisional Israeli Government stated territory "outside the State of Israel" was under the "military control" of Israeli forces. By definition of law 'occupied'. On 12 Aug 1948 an Israeli Government Proclamation says Jerusalem was “occupied”. Jerusalem Declared Israel-Occupied City- by Israeli Government Proclamation 12 Aug 1948. http://wp.me/pDB7k-T0

      Israel has never legally annexed any of these territories. Even the victor in a so called 'defensive' war must annex territories it has acquired. The US was instrumental in making it Customary International Law on annexation in the mid 1800's when it annexed parts of Mexico by a referendum of the MEXICAN citizens of Texas. Customary International Law requires no vote, when a legal process is individually adopted by a majority of states, it is automatically customary.

      At the time Israel occupied these 1948/49 territories , it was not a UN Member State, therefore the UNSC could not censure Israel directly for illegal acquisition. (Israel is not mentioned by name in UNSC resolutions prior to it becoming a UN Member). The crunch will come when Israel, now a UN Member State, attempts to annex these territories. The UNSC must declare it void and having no legal effect as it did Israel's illegal annexation of East Jerusalem, unless Israel can reach an agreement with the Palestinians.

      The Palestinians who only ask for their rights under the laws Israel agreed to uphold. It is in fact Israel who must negotiate an agreement with the Palestinians. Only an agreement can circumvent the law. Under the law, Israel would be required to withdraw from all occupied territories dating back to 1948, pay compensation.

      Little wonder the Israel lobby is so busy nurturing the US Veto vote in the UNSC in order to prevent the law from having its full effect. It would send Israel bankrupt for decades. Huge infrastructure and housing estate contracts would be worthless and billions of loverly Jewish and American dollars spent on supporting the illegal Greater Israel project over the last 64 years will have been wasted.

  • Michael Sfard: 'The Israeli government has declared war against the rule of law'
    • Samuel T

      Uh huh. Texas was legally annexed to the US via a referendum of the Mexican citizens of Texas. Texas is in the USA. The USA was instrumental in legal annexation via a referendum of the actual citizens of the territory to be annexed, becoming a part of Customary International Law.

      Israel has never legally annexed ANY of the Palestinian territory it has illegally acquired by war. Without legal annexation, Israeli civil law has no jurisdiction in territories occupied. This actually applies to some 50% of the Palestinian territories remaining after Israel was recognized and which Israel has illegally acquired by war over the last 64 years. NONE has ever been legally annexed to the State of Israel.

  • Ten reasons why AIPAC is so dangerous
    • The stupidity of MK Uri Ariel is to be expected. "the entire territory will be annexed"... Meaning it ISN'T now Israeli.

      It'll never get past the UNSC. For territory to be legally annexed, there must be a referendum of the legitimate citizens of the territory to be annexed, sans illegal civilians who're citizens of the Occupying Power.

  • Santorum's pulp hasbara
    • lysias

      For Texas to be annexed by the US there was first a referendum of the Mexican citizens of Texas, BEFORE any US Act of Congress.

      1st) The citizens of the territory to be annexed determine whether they want to be annexed. 2nd) The annexing country then passes an act incorporating that territory.

    • Avi_G.

      The US annexed Texas through a referendum amongst the Mexican citizens of Texas. It was one of the annexations that were instrumental in the International Community embracing the notions of self determination and formulating a corner stone of the UN Charter '45, before the partition plan '47, before Israel was Declared '48 and before Israel was admitted to the UN '49, when Israel obliged itself to the Charter in its entirety.

      "The acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible" A sovereign may however, 'restore' their own territory by war. Schwebel/Lauterpacht
      Israel has never had to 'restore' any sovereign Israeli territory by war. It has 'acquired' Palestinian territory by war.

    • Amazing how many US Americans don't know Texas was legally annexed, via a referendum of the Mexican citizens of Texas.

      "The acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible" The notion of self determination was Customary International Law some years before Israel ever existed and; no such referendum has ever been conducted in any of the territories Israel has acquired by war.

Showing comments 65 - 1
Page: