Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Speaks to the 69th UN General Assembly

- can a lease agreement between two parties (states) be legally cancelled unilaterally by one party if it has no early cancellation clause?

- can universal international law be broken against an enemy state if interest law has no exclusion for an enemy state?

- can a signatory of an armistice agreement break the agreement? Doesn't it signify the termination of armistice?

- can a state officially declared to be an enemy state and treated as such start acting as such? Especially given the non-observation of the armistice agreement and violations of international law by the other party?

 

And french, not that I agree with your conclusions.. they were all wrong, Egypt breaking international law and armistice terms was pure and innocent.....and article 26 is about a dispute, there were no disputes, a clear violation by Egypt of all terms of the agreement

 

Zionists should not bring up the Balfour declaration, san remo conference, or mandate for palestine...as israel is in violation of all three agreements.

 

And nothing has so far been done since the inception of the Mandate to negate this fact... What you have I think, is another fixation that Israel has gone against the paragraph... The Israeli Arabs are the best paid, are the richest, have free Medical and their sons and daughter attend universities... compare that with the 21 other Arab countries where ONE MILLION JEWS were thrown out with the shirt on their backs.

If you want to discuss the Mandate please let me know... I consider this subject one of my specialties.

- - - Updated - - -

Mod edit,,flounder,,,3

The Balfour Declaration is a (DECLARATION) Israel does not have anything to do with that.
The San Remo Conference is a (CONFERENCE) where Israel and the Jews have nothing to do with it also...

[This agreement between post-World War I allied powers (Britain, France, Italy, Japan) was adopted on April 25, 1920 during the San Remo Conference. The Mandate for Palestine was based on this resolution; it incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the Covenant of the League of Nation's Article 22. Britain was charged with establishing a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. Terroritorial boundaries were not decided until four years after.
The Mandate States that the Jews have a connection with that Land absolutely! Go study facts before regurgitating your bile here.]

 

Addendum


Historical facts on the Balfour Declaration (precursor) of the Mandate for Palestine

The British and French governments concluded the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement on May 16, 1916. This undertaking allowed a postwar creation of Arab states on the Arabian Peninsula and divided the rest of the Ottoman domains in the Fertile Crescent between the two powers.

The outbreak of war had effectively prevented any further development of the Zionist settlements in Palestine, and the main efforts of this cause shifted to England, where discussion with Zionists was, seen as having potential value to the pursuit of British war aims. The protracted negotiations with the British foreign office were climaxed on November 2, 1917, by the letter from Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour that became known as the Balfour Declaration. This document declared the British government's "sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations," viewed with favor "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People," and announced an intent to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.

Also in November 1917, the Bolshevik government revealed the contents of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Arab consternation at the content was palliated by British and French reassurances, however, and by the fact that allied military operations were progressing favorably. Feisal’s Arabs took Al Aqaba in July 1917, and Jerusalem fell to Field Marshal Edmund Allenby on December 9, 1917. The British subsequently defeated Turkish forces remaining in Syria and Feisal entered Damascus in triumph on October 1, 1918. The armistice with Turkey was concluded on October 31, 1918.

Feisal, met with Chaim Weizmann, representing WZO, on January 3,1919 and signed an agreement pledging the two parties to mutual cooperation under the Balfour Declaration concept.

An American group known as the King-Crane Commission was appointed in 1919 by President Woodrow Wilson to investigate and report on the problem of disposition of Ottoman territories and the assigning of mandates.

From the Paris Peace Conference and the sub-conference of San Remo emerged the League of Nations Covenant and the mandate allocations making Great Britain the mandatory power for Palestine East & West of the Jordan River) and Mesopotamia = Iraq... and granting France the mandate for Syria and Lebanon. The mandate's terms reaffirmed the Balfour Declaration, called upon the mandatory power to "secure establishment of the Jewish national home," and recognized '.'an appropriate Jewish agency" for advice and cooperation to that end. The WZO was specifically recognized as that agency.

Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine developed early and continued at an erratically rising tempo throughout the mandate period. Meanwhile, in Damascus Feisal had convened the General Syrian Congress in July 1919 and proclaimed Syria sovereign and independent. In March 1920 this congress reaffirmed the independence of both Syria and Mesopotamia/Iraq, and it declared Feisal king of Syria and Abdullah king of Iraq. In April, however, the San Remo conference carved out the mandates, and soon French troops began moving from Beirut into Syria. The French took Damascus on July 25, 1920 and deposed Feisal who fled to Europe and remained there until installed by the British as king of Mesopotamia/Iraq in 1921.

At the time of Feisal's ouster, his brother Abdullah was in what is now Trans-Jordan Jordan today... endeavoring to organize a counter effort against the French. it then became clear to Abdullah and the British that Abdullah was acceptable as ruler to the Bedouin tribes east of the Jordan, including the locally powerful Bani Sakhr. Palestine had not been specifically defined. After the British and French had agreed, under the Sykes Picot guidelines, as to what constituted Lebanon, Syria, and Mesopotamia, what was left over, by elimination, was the Mandate of Palestine. This included, in effect, the territory of pre-June 1967 Jordan and Israel Armistice Line.

In March 1921 Winston Churchill, then colonial secretary, convened a high- level British policy council in Cairo. As a result of its deliberations, Great Britain surreptitiously divided the Palestine mandate along the Jordan River-Al Akaba line.

The eastern portion, or Transjordan, was to have an Arab administration, under British guidance, with Abdullah as Emir. He was recognized as de facto ruler in April 1921. Revisions in the final draft of the mandate were made to give Great Britain much latitude in this area and were approved by the League of Nations Council in July 1922. A British memorandum in September 1922 excluded Transjordan from the zone of the Jewish national home as an Article #25 was conveniently sandwiched between the Articles of the Mandate for Palestine.

 

Israel committed ethnic cleansing of non-Jews during the 1948 War, after the Armistice was signed, and in the 1967 War.

Israel has routinely taken Arab private land in the West Bank and used it exclusively for Jews.

Israel has routinely taken converted Arab private land in the West Bank, converted it into state land, and then used it exclusively for Jews.

Israel imposed martial law upon its non-Jewish population for the first 30 years of its existence.

Israel has a whole host of laws and policies that discriminate and persecute the existing non-Jewish population.

all of this clearly violates the letter of the law of the Mandate for Palestine.

 

Of course.

Of course. Particularly re enemy states, would you like examples?

Of course. Indeed it does.

It depends on the act. Can Israel for example defend its own shipping in international waters? Yes. Can it invade egypt to secure the canal? No. Can it annex territory? No.

 

Um no I wouldnt say pure and innocent, just as Israel was/ is neither pure nor innocent. Just mostly well within its territorial rights and exampled by many other powers including the high contracting powers.

Um no there were indeed disputes, not least leading to the partition itself. And subsequent matters. I will provide examples as requested.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course, we can all agree with this. Even Gilos.

 

What's the point of negotiating and signing a long term lease agreement if it can be broken randomly on any day?

Are violations of international law by any state against its enemy states legal? Can a state ignore binding UN resolutions when dealing with enemies?

 

Do territorial rights trump international law, specifically international law regulating territorial rights?

Do bad examples by other powers justify violations of international law by countries like Egypt, do two wrongs make a right in the eyes of international law champions like you?

Why Egypt didn't resort to article 26 in 1956?

 

Its not broken randomly, usually there are dramatic events preceding it and good reasons for the abrogation of such treaties, especially where they are originally made under suspicious circumstances.

Of course not. Yes they certainly can, in fact they can completely ignore it, veto it or contravene it in any way and they frequently have. In egypts case its enemy would be able to use egyptian territory to supply itself with what it needed to then annex egyptian territory - a situation no one could accept. As has been shown where numerous countries block access to supply routes to their enemies in clear contravention of UN res 95.

 

Of course, as territorial integrity is enshrined in the UN charter itself.

Of course, especially where those other powers are making the laws and make sure they themselves are not subject to the limitations of such laws.

Because it was already being invaded and the ICJ only makes recommendations.

 

You have come up with a bunch of justifications, explanations and excuses of why it "made sense" for Egypt to do what it did. But that was never the issue.

Can we agree that Egypt's actions, both the cancellation of non-cancellable lease and restrictions on the canal passage were illegal in the eyes of international law, UN charter and international community?

 

I've given you no excuses merely logical positions that anyone would and has taken.

Regarding cancellation of the lease then no not at all. an inability to cancel a contract contravenes national sovereignty.

Regarding interference yes though the practice of denying enemy's supply routes is common place before during and after the conflict.

 

Do you think your leased car can be repossessed by the bank in violation of the lease contract and their actions would be legal?

Do you think painstakingly negotiated at the highest level international treaties and contracts are worthless because the parties are not obligated to abide by them?

Can we agree that international law, the UN charter and resolutions are worthless because according to you, they are routinely broken by all countries and their circumstances in fact completely justify their violations?

 

you fail to grasp that nowhere, never, did they promise the jews ALL of Palestine between the River and the Sea, let alone the Sea and Jordan's eastern border.

they promised the Jews a homeland in Palestine, but non-Jews were to remain there and their rights were to be respected fully.

Israel has failed miserably to fully respect the rights of non-Jews in her lands.

 

Few people remember the details.. The rights of the indigenous people were not to be sacrificed the immigrant refugees.

 

Yes it can be repossessed legally, because the sovereign power makes that possible. Between sovereign powers however matters are quite different.

Theyre not worthless, they are subject to cancellation however.

Not according to me, according to facts, however they hold their worth only to the extent that all parties play an equal part in the game.

Let me enlighten you, the British gained the lease in egypt, in later years they witheld access to the canal to their enemies - as anyone would - and later egypt, on whose territory the canal acutally is, did the same and you berate them for it? Thus the position you hold is entirely illogical and wrong.

 

Do you seriously claim that your bank can repossess your car in the middle of the lease without any reason and you won't have a legal recourse? Is this allowed in your country?

How are legally non-binding international treaties or deals that can be unilaterally cancelled at any moment and without any reason not worthless? Would you enter a long term contract knowing that the other party may not honor it?

How is international law violated with impunity by all countries (and you actually agree with the rationale for these violations) not worthless? Isn't unenforceable and unobserved law totally worthless?

 

Define this term please or is it up to anybody and everybody at anytime to simply decide if a legal agreement is to be followed or not. As well, there was only one month between the nationalization of the Suez and the British withdraw, is that and it's agreement considered an entire generation?

Wondering what references you have to support this rubbish and exactly what time limits are placed on a legal agreement that has a legal time limit. Furthermore, I don't recall there being any agreement by anybody but Naser on what was 'appropriate compensation' as this would be the joint agreement between the buyer and the seller, not just the buyer who takes it by force and throws a stipend at the grieved party.

Can you enlighten us with factual proof all as to why your entire argument is not just simple claptrap please.

 

Which term would you like defined?

Its not up to anyone but the sovereign powers.

The original agreement was made long before that.

What references would you like?

 

Um no that not what I said, the bank cannot, the sovereign power can.

Theyre worth alot as long as they last and are of benefit to all sides. Otherwise people wouldnt enter into all the time exactly as they do.

Im not really interested in wether its worthless or not, its not relevant. Why do you think this point is important?

 

Would that be correct to say that banks can't do that because British law will penalize them but countries can get away with exactly the same behavior because international law is worthless?

Wasn't England in its right to occupy the canal which they had legally leased and paid for and the lease was still to be in effect for 20 more years and had no early cancellation clause?

 

Are you saying you would like the ICJ to be able to enforce is rulings?

Um no it's private subjects owned the canal company. Not the canal itself. So there was no reason to occupy. Further occupation means invasion and war - do you really think this matter warranted killing Egyptian people?

 

How was it occupation if the uncancellable treaty, signed at the highest level and registered in League of Nations Treaty Series allowed British troops and auxiliary personnel to maintain presence at the Canal and its surroundings? Did Britain violate the treaty by following it?

If two countries are at war, then they sign an armistice agreement, then one party breaks international law, UN resolutions and charter and violates every article of the armistice agreement, what is the legal status between these countries, peace, hudna, or war?

What do you think happens to soldiers of a country which declares another country an enemy state, cancels a standing armistice agreement with it and carries out illegal and hostile military actions? Do troops get fruit baskets, flowers or bombs?