Most of the time, we read, breathe the phrase <International Law>... most of Israel detrators hide behind this even those that suprisingly do not know of its existence. Here is a piece that would clarify the situation and perhaps also save the day. USING "INTERNATIONAL LAW" AS A BUZZ WORD INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDING THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND JERUSALEM ~by Elliott A. Green http://www.dafka.org/news/index.php?pid=4&id=649
Adherence to International law is one of the obligations Israel has as a member of the United Nations. Israel is a serial violator of those same laws it swore to uphold and be bound by when signing the UN Charter. If Israel is so obviously opposed to legality then I'm sure the UN would cheer its departure from the organisation it is so pointlessly a member of.
It is against international law at the base level to make war on another nation yet Israel has, since it's inception been victim of this by various nations and entities including the Palestinians and here you claim that by exercising Article 51 of the UN Charter they are acting unlawfully? Golly, this is a twist that is a Gumby move for certain. Why not instead, attempt to stay on planet earth by saying that if not forced to take actions in defense from the unlawful actions of others, these actions would be deemed unlawful?
Let us check Mr Green, the latest C&P expert, dropped in without commentary, who could "perhaps also save the day": 1) Green: "International law has recognized Jewish rights to sovereignty over the Land of Israel and to settlement throughout the land. In April 1920, at the San Remo Conference (part of the post-World War I peace negotiations), the Principal Allied Powers, acting on behalf of the international community, recognized all the land between the Jordan River and the sea, including Jerusalem, as part of the Jewish National Home, based on the Jewish people's historic rights." So, according to Green, "National home = right to sovereignty" - MYTH ALERT!!! MYTH ALERT!!! MYTH ALERT!!! Green should take some lessons in English. The concepts "home" and "sovereignty are worlds apart - ask my local Spanish land registry office. . Green would seriously benefit from reading the 1922 British White Paper (click for source) so as not to make such schoolboy howlers: OUCHIES!!! The Jews then knew that they were to share a common home in a single country. Modern Jews listened to the Hasbara. And here comes more of that: 2) Green: On the same grounds, the Golan[1] and Transjordan too were within the National Home Note the deliberate and fraudulent switching of the Mandate concepts territories are now apparently found within the Jewish Homeland and not vice versa as the Mandate so clearly states (click for source) and therefore = international law by virtue of having been approved by the League of Nations. 3) Green: Britain had illegally tried to revoke the Jewish National Home, violating the principles of the League's mandate. Illegal!!?? Violating!!?? What is his proof? As usual there is none. Let us provide some: The Mandate for Palestine - http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp You have lied three times, Mr Green. FACTS have caught you out also. You did not "save the day". Proof rejected, HB. Reason: Lies Wait for it, good readers. The factual quotation from the 1922 White Paper will be called scatological (faecal). The word-for-word citation from the Mandate will become Islamo-fascist. The simple and transparent logic used to refute Green will become lies. You had to lie, Mr Green . Because your MYTHS are unravelling.
That is simple. Because it is also against the UN Charter a) to deny a people their right to self-government. And that denial came first. The War followed later. b) It is also against the UN Charter to take action in violation of a UN resolution. And that is exactly what the Zionists did when they unilaterally declared independence without a host of preparatory steps dictated in "181" having been satisfied, let alone the illegality of "181" itself due to the illegal rejction of the Arab demand invoking Clause 26 of the Mandate.
Let me get this straight, a non member of the UN at the time and who is not bound by it's charter is retroactively responsible to adhere to it's charter? Please explain. And as a non member of the UN at the time, how is this fantasy argument of yours applicable to Israel? Make sure you get back to us all once you get your timelines straightened out.
Said Israel, when it signed the UN Charter thus agreeing to uphold and adhere to International Law, the Geneva Conventions on Human Rights and the laws, rules and regulations of the body of the United Nations. The UN has clearly stated that Israel is in serial violation of hundreds of UN Resolutions, all of which are founded in International Law. Even America, your prime benefactor and ally, has categorically stated that Israel's continued settlement activity is a clear breach of the law. Sorry to disappoint you, but Israel does not get to choose which laws it likes, and which it can arrogantly dismiss because it doesn't suit their modus operandi You're not very good at this are you? We get it; you don't like being told by the world that you're acting illegally, hence your increasingly desperate defense which has descended into insult because you have no arguments left. You know what they say about insult, don't you Bendor? It's the last resort of the feeble-minded. I'll leave you with that thought...
Thank you for the spilled <dustbin> above... You do not know what you have written... Rostow knows better about International Law... don't you think?
The UN Charter is primary. It applies to the entire planet as International Law, not just to members. Issues such as the natural right of people to self-government has absolutely nothing to do with their membership (or not) of the UN, nor of a sect wanting them deprive them of such rights. On the contrary, there are UN regulations specifically cater for this non-association. Why would you conclude that ethnic self-government has such a restriction? I am intrigued that you appear to disagree with just SUCH a fundamental right invoked by the Zionists themselves. ----------------------------- Sure thing. The UN Charter is International LAw. Do you want to debate that? In other words it is applicable throughout, not just to member states.
Nope. Rostow is not above the UN Charter. Uhm …. Or did you mean something else with that glaring Strawman? When did you offer anything written by Rosstow in this thread. Your quiver is *CLANG* empty – The Zionist MYTHS are unravelling thanks to folk like SnakeStretcher.
Rostow on Judea and Samaria ~By Eugene V. Rostow Distinguished Fellow United States Institute of Peace Under the norm of International Law, these lands could only be considered “occupied” by Israel, if, in fact they had previously belonged to another sovereign state…. Jordan, as everyone knows, never existed prior to 1946, it gained control over the west bank of the river Jordan and East Jerusalem in 1948, by an act of naked aggression against the newly RECONSTITUTED state of Israel. No country in the world apart from Great Britain (which created Jordan by fiat in the first place), and Pakistan recognized this annexation. This invasion did not give it legal title under International Law. In 1967, following Jordan's second all out invasion of Israel and its consequent loss of control over Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem in that war. The juridical situation returned to what it had been previously since the League of Nations Mandate… Israel is therefore not occupying these areas, as they never belonged to Jordan or any other Arab country historically IN THE FIRST PLACE. The question is : If Judea, Samaria are not " occupied territory," what then are they ? One of the foremost International Legal Scholars, former Under-Secretary of State Eugene Rostow, describes these lands as the " unallocated parts of the British Mandate still governed by the original provisions contained in THE ORIGINAL MANDATE FOR PALESTINE that was sanctioned by the League of Nations in 1922. One of these provisions, Article 6, allowed " close settlement...." of all western Palestine by the Jewish People, as Eastern Palestine was by then wrested away ignominiously from the Mandate by the then British Colonial Secretary Mr. Winston Churchill for the creation of the artificial Palestinian/Arab Emirate named Trans-Jordan now called Jordan. The Jewish settlements in these areas are the physical link of the People of Israel, with the Land of Israel from " Time Immemorial," a link that stretches back to the Bible, the Balfour Declaration, and its International recognition in the preamble of the Mandate for Palestine that was confirmed by the League of Nations in 1922. Quote:-Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish People with Palestine.... etc. No one can dispute Israel's right to return and redeem this part of its MOTHERLAND, be it Judea, Samaria or any other part of the Mandate, for this right is firmly implanted in International Law, Archeology, Historical Association, Security and Political Justice.
