unwise UN visa ban

Not since Resolution 242 it doesn't.

Maybe you want to play semantic games with the ' Zionist go home ' Resolution ?

 

UN Resolution 242 doesn't conflict with the 4th Geneva Conventions.

Israel is to vacate territories occupied since 1967, and the Arabs are to recognize Israel and commit to peaceful relations with her.

you have a very poor understanding of international law.

 

Since any US President has the executive power to reject an entry into America and has had that power all along, signing the bill created by Congress is noted as only advisory, not required. In other words, what has changed other than someone quite questionable coming to the US is rejected and will likely always be rejected before or after the signing.

You can't seriously think that someone involved in taking hostages in Iran is going to be welcome?

"The bill that Mr Obama signed into law on Friday passed both houses of Congress handily following uproar over Mr Aboutalebi's links to the students who seized the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held the American diplomats hostage."

This is like expecting the US sending a person involved in any violent kidnapping action against UK diplomats to the UK as our representative. Imagine the outrage. This is a no-brainer.

 

No, we've already established quite the opposite. Your gambit terminated in embarrassed inertia, I recall.

 

[MENTION=6141]moon[/MENTION], [MENTION=62867]Ronstar[/MENTION], et al,

Of course, everyone has their own POV and perspective.

(COMMENT)

Neither the Balfour Declaration (1917), the San Remo Conference Agreement (1920) or Convention, or the Mandate for Palestine (1922), actually and /or openly suggest a Jewish "State." The idea of a "Jewish National Home" does not require a "state;" that being just one of several possible methods for the establishment of a national home. Having said that, it is not to say that statehood was not being considered. Clearly, when the Emir Faisal (3d Son of Hussein bin Ali the King of Hejaz, Sharif and Emir of Mecca) and Chaim Weizmann, PhD (President of the Zionist Organization), discussed their racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and the "consummation of their national aspirations (JAN 1919)," each understood the other saw in their future a national leadership role (Faisal as a King - Weizmann as a President), with each coming to pass.

The formal presentation of the idea behind the Partition Plan {[General Assembly Resolution 181(II)] (with Map Annex A to Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947)} was actually one of two UN Special Committee on Palestine Plans presented to the General Assembly; a "majority proposal (partition)" and a "minority proposal (federalization)(A/364 3 September 1947).

• Contrary to the popular belief that Israel had independently chose to "instead to declare their State over UN-mandated Palestine - and thus became international pariahs;" it followed the adopted General Assembly Plan (Partition) and the directed protocols the General Assembly adopted called the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" [Part I - Section B of GA/RES/181(II)].
  
• Contrary to the popular belief that Israel had independently chose to "instead to declare their State over UN-mandated Palestine - and thus became international pariahs;" the Jewish Agency had fully coordinated with the UN Palestine Commission [the Successor Government to the UK Mandatory (direct responsibility for implementing the measures recommended by the General Assembly)] before it announced independence.

You will also note that it is in Part II - Boundaries, Section B - The Jewish State, is in big, capitalized letters. If nowhere else, the formal designation that the General Assembly adopted could not be any more plain. While most people use the following as the official language of the establishment directive, there is no question that there was a direct intent:

It should be noted that even the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) has come to recognize the legitimacy of General Assembly Resolution 181(II), and in fact, invoke it in their own Declaration of Independence:

The State of Israel followed and complied with the recommendations of the General Assembly and the implementation requirements set before them. I find it hard, given the facts, that either statements made by our friends [MENTION=6141]moon[/MENTION], [MENTION=62867]Ronstar[/MENTION], should be adjudication of having any substance at all.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

RoccoR, I don't suggest for one moment that the Zionists did not welcome the windfall of UNGAR Resolution 181- which was itself anathema to the indigenous arab population of Palestine and its neighbouring arab countries, a fact you omit to mention. However, they did not respect the territorial limitations of that Resolution and so cannot be said to have abided by it.
Including me in your didactic follow-up is therefore disingenous and your outline of the events of 1947/8 unnecessary.

RoccoR;

No sir, they did not. If they had then the Resolution 181 borders and recommendations would be in place today.

 

[MENTION=6141]moon[/MENTION], [MENTION=62867]Ronstar[/MENTION], et al,

There are varying opinions on the matter, to be sure, but the important question becomes whether the Security Council Resolution (S/RES/242 - 22 November 1967) is even viable as a directive today; or if it has been rendered mute by subsequent events?

(COMMENT)

One has to remember what was known then, and understood then; as compared to - today. What we call the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt) today, wasn't always so.

At the time of the 1967 Occupation of the West Bank:

• The West Bank was sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, having been annexed by Jordan. It was not Palestinian Territory.
  
  
  Special Note:
  

  The mid-1960s also saw the rise of independent Palestinian guerrilla groups (known in Arabic as the fedayeen), the most notable of which was Yasser Arafat’s Fatah movement. In their relentless attempts to outbid Nasser, the Ba’thist Syrian government encouraged guerrilla raids into Israel—not from Syria, but from Lebanon or Jordan. The Israeli reprisals to these militarily senseless raids were predictably harsh, and Jordan was forced to reign in the guerrillas. For this, Jordan was attacked again by the propaganda machines in Cairo, Damascus, and Baghdad.​
  • "April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion."
  • The outbidding and rivalry of radical Arab parties allowed Israel to launch a surprise attack on June 5, 1967, virtually eliminating the Egyptian air force in a single blow.14 At that point, the outcome of the war was decided. In response to the Israeli attack, Jordanian forces launched an offensive into Israel, but were soon driven back as the Israeli forces counterattacked into the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem. After destroying the Egyptian air force, Israel had complete control of the skies, raining down deadly napalm bombs on the defenseless Arab forces. After a spirited defense of Arab East Jerusalem, the outnumbered and outgunned Jordanian army was forced to retreat to preserve the East Bank heartland against the Zionist expansion. When the final UN cease-fire was imposed on June 11, Israel stood in possession of a wide swath of Arab land, including the Egyptian Sinai, Syria’s Golan Heights, and, most significantly, what remained of Arab Palestine—the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.
  • 22 November 1967 Security Council Resolution 242
  • "The partnership with the Palestinians desired by HM King Hussein fell apart in September, 1970. The pervasive and chaotic presence of armed Palestinian fedayeen groups who expected immunity from Jordan’s laws was leading to a state of virtual anarchy throughout the Kingdom. Moderate Palestinian leaders were unable to reign in extremist elements, who ambushed the king’s motorcade twice and perpetrated a series of spectacular hijackings. Forced to respond decisively in order to preserve his country from anarchy, King Hussein ordered the army into action." ... "the Jordanian army put an end to the chaotic actions of these Palestinians guerrillas in Amman."
  • On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.
  • Palestine National Council announces the Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988.
  • Treaty of Peace between The State of Israel and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 26 October 1994, with International Boundaries set in Article 3.

In the case of the West Bank, Israel was militarily engaged with Jordan, in a region with a belligerent and hostile enemy population to both Israel and HM the King of Jordan. And the treaty was subsequently made between the warring parties (Israel and Jordan). Boundaries were set between the warring parties.

(QUESTIONS)

• Is Israel in violation with the Peace Treaty?
  • No!
• Did Israel occupy the State of Palestine?
  • No!

(COMMENT)

I agree, that Resolution 242 is not in conflict with the Geneva Convention. But given that the Resolution, instead of promoting peace, opened the door to the 1973 War (Yom Kipper - initiated by Egypt and Syria), were the Israelis proven right in the end?

The forces currently behind the (near failed) State of Palestine, which is even now considering political self destruction, were allowed to declare independence and achieve self-determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

moon, et al,

That is definitely not correct.

(COMMENT)

Borders changed as a result of an Arab League invasion. In the course of self defense, and while in pursuit of hostile enemy forces that crossed international boundaries and into the newly found State of Israel, zones of control expanded.

The reason the boundaries are not the same as annotated in the Resolution is simply because the Arab League attempted to use force to dissolve the State of Israel (external interference to the right of self determination).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

RoccoR, in post # 55 you laud UNGAR Resolution 181as providing the basis for a jewish homeland alongside a Palestinian state and praise the Zionists for complying with its advices. In post #57 you deny that the Palestinian portion of the UNGAR 181 division was not Palestinian territory. Which of these conflicting assertions do you want to elevate above the other ?
You then go on to suggest that, in my language, the Zionists would have been content with the UNGAR 181 division but for the interferences of the Arab League which forced them to expand outside of their ascribed territory and further into Palestine. It's a matter of historic record, however, that the Zionist encroachments into non-Israeli territory preceded any involvement by the Arab League and that it was the Zionist encroachment which was the cause of Arab League involvement to start with.
So, thank you for your opinion, but opinion is all that it amounts to and it is not supported by what I already know to be true.

In terms of the legal opinion of professional international law practitioners the borders described by UNGAR Resolution 181 are indeed the only legal borders between Israel and Palestine. It would be far more productive to determine that than to continue any hackneyed rhetoric concerning who did what to whom and when, a rhetoric which you started by condemning and have now joined yourself.


You're correct in challenging the relevance of UNSC Resolution 242, however. It refers to ' states in the region ' and Zionists , along with their supporters , have always excluded Palestine from the 242 reference. Today, Palestine is a State recognised by the United Nations and the Israelis are obliged to vacate it.

 

Im not seeing it. They only recognize the legitimacy of Palestine and cant bring themselves to give up on their goals of ruling over all of the former British mandate.

 

you have established nothing.

The 4th Geneva Conventions is an international treaty. UNSC resolution 242 has much less weight.

Israel's military occupation of the West Bank is legal, whether you like it or not.

 

Sure, just like the Third Reich's occupation of France.

 

that was before the 4th Geneva Conventions.

so back then, there were no international laws regarding occupied territory.



you don't seem to know very much about international law.

 

[MENTION=39777]dixon76710[/MENTION], et al,

To some degree, there is some substance to your observation.

(OBSERVATION)

Two key observations.

(COMMENT)

There is no question that the Palestinian Leadership has, within it, several factions. These factions over time, have waffled back and forth on key issues; or as the PLO Negotiation Affairs Department Team says: "significant transformation since 1948."

he PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) Key Facts are:

• The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
• A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
• The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

​

So, there are competing factions within the Palestinian camp that have differing ideas on the extent of the claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

You legal reasoning is good, and of course, it is not unreasonable for Americans to feel that way.

What I am talking about is the actual International political situation. Many people in other nations don't sympathize with American feelings. They did, just after 9-11, but then America was caught torturing people, and that destroyed all the former good will towards America. Nobody sympathizes with a country which tortures people. So if America wants to get back into the good graces of foreign nations, we need to bend over backwards to be cooperative and friendly.

 

Unquestionably agree that America lost much in the pre-emptive war on Iraq as we should have. No question that it will take time to heal old wounds to build confidence. Heck the American public is still furious about it as well but it is a little late and all we can do is make sure when our own countries call for pre-emptive words we the public not support it.

For some countries that is what they do. For the US, it goes against everything we say we stand for so we measure America by America and demand better than what we got - and I might add, what we accepted with the president who left office. Right now Obama has to show he is not Bush where going it alone and pre-emptive is the subject.

 

Arguing legalities is important for the further development of international law. However, arguing legalities over the decades has not solved the problems, and solving the problems is of major importance.

It might also be noted that no public proposal over the last half-century has solved the problems either.

So what could be done that would actually solve the problems? Since none of the past proposals, the current box, has worked, a solution would have to be something outside the box.

 

Of course there is. I wouldnt have posted it if there wasnt.

 

The international community needs to force Israel and the Palestinians to accept a reasonable peace accord.

That means 95% of the West Bank goes to Palestine, 5% goes to Israel with land swaps. Palestine gets the Arab areas of Jerusalem if the affected people accept this in a referendum. Palestine gets the Muslim Quarter of the Old City, if the people accept this in a referendum.

Israel allows back 100,000 first generation refugees, and Israel + Palestine sign a document accepting shared responsibilty for all the pain and suffering of both peoples since 1918.

Palestine accepts a dimilizarized state, with no heavy weaponry. NATO troops guard the eastern border and Israel gets to set up early warning radar and defense systems.

 

Israel occupied Jordanian territory. Territory they had illegally siezed by military force, expelling the Jews.

 

And Israel illegally seized territory of the future state of Arab Palestine, expelling hundreds of thousands of Arabs.

 

FROM Jordan and most of the Arabs displaced were present only because of Jordans illegal occupation and annexation of Palestine.

 

moon, et al,

Let's take this one at a time. (I apologize for my tardiness. I was out with the family.)

(COMMENT)

In Post #55, the UN General Assembly Resolution 181(II) was the basis for the implementation and establishment for the Jewish State in 1948. It was in early 1948 that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) rejected the participation in the implementation process.

In Post #57, the 1967 War, the Hashemite Kingdom had already annexed the West Bank under the Unification of the Two Banks policy. While the A/RES/181(II) envisioned an Arab and Jewish State, the Arab invasion of 1948 changed that outcome. The 1949 Armistice reflected the new paradigm. Jordan annexed, and remained in place until Israel changed that condition in 1967.

There is not conflict between my posts.

(COMMENT)

I understand completely. Once the ground truth is presented, HoAPs cannot accept the fact that their own actions contributed to their loss of control to territory originally earmarked for them. I've seen and heard the virtual victim theme of the Palestinian for all of my adult life.

Neither side has absolute clean hands, but in the Arab-Israeli Conflict, the HoAP has been the primary belligerent.

(COMMENT)

If A/RES/181(II) were the current definitive border arrangement, and had it been accepted by the HoAP in 1947, then the region would be a much different place today. But it wasn't accepted by the HoAP. The borders defined by A/RES/181(II) only lasted as long as it took the Arab League to cross their borders and enter the former Mandate Territory; less than 24 hours. We call this an "external interference." It is today defined by:

I don't understand your comment: "It would be far more productive to determine that than to continue any hackneyed rhetoric concerning who did what to whom and when, a rhetoric which you started by condemning and have now joined yourself."

(COMMENT)

Well. we agree on something!

√ Point of Order: S/RES/242 (1967) contains 291 words.

• It does not use the phrase: "states in the region"
• It does not use the word: "Zionists"
• It does not use the words: "support or supporters"

• Note: Not all Jewish People are Zionist.

There are four critical element to S/RES/242:

"Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"​

Key concepts:

"should include the application"

• "Withdrawal"
• "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency"
• "respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State"
• "recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force"

​

• Clearly, there is a "prima facie" case on the issue of the Settlements. That is not to say there is not a valid justification for the lack of strict compliance. It requires litigation. However, occupation is an entirely different matter. There are multiple threats from multiple directions from which Israel faces.
• The HoAP never terminated belligerent action. It still poses a threat.
• The HoAP have not "acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of" Israel.
• The HoAP have not ""recognized boundaries" of Israel "free from threats or acts of force."

The State of Israel has no obligation to vacate the "occupation" from a territory dominated by HoAPs that pose a definitive threat against its sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence.

• Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
• Article 13: There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

I will note again that we are losing scientific knowledge because Jews and Arabs are fighting rather than doing research. There are many good minds among both the Jews and Arabs.

I think the Palestinians would find it acceptable to have their standard of living increased to an American level. That would cost the world much less than the continuing spin-offs in the rest of the world from the situation. It would cost much less, for example, to increase the standard of living of the Palestinians to an American level than the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which would not have happened if the Palestinian-Jewish problem did not exist. Who knows what future costs might come out of this continuing conflict.

 

From Bin Ladens 1998 Fatwa

9/11 was all about Iraq.