Since a previous thread was at risk of becoming seriously hijacked, I post the diversion here. The antecedents came from here http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=287109&page=60&p=1064503596#post1064503596 and from here http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=287109&page=61&p=1064506300#post1064506300. They refer to an article posted by Ms Arlene Kushner in which (in red) the typical falsehoods peddled by so-called Zionist experts are revealed. Blatant examples of falsehoods are: # The Mandate accorded Jews, and only Jews, political right to self-determination on this land An out-and-out lie. In fact the word self-determination is never mentioned in the text of the Mandate (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp) No rebuttal was offered in the previous thread. # non-Jews were accorded only individual civil rights an absolute lie. They were accorded COMMUNITY rights. Never refuted in the original thread. # (UNGA 181) recommended considerably less than what was to be have been accorded to the Jews under the Mandate utterly false. UNGA 181 recommended a Jewish STATE. No such State or Country for the Jews wqas ever contemplated in the Madate. This view remains unchallenged. # The Mandate land had been accorded to the Jews. A lie; a call not yet refuted. And after two theatrical responses, containing zero debate, another article by Ms Kushner was offered The actual article was posted was posted here - http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=287109&page=61&p=1064505733#post1064505733 I could not find the original referenced text. *** Brevity break To Be Continued ***
And so you confirm with another piece of theatrical histrionics, that you cannot refute even the most basic of my factual and referenced rebuttals. You have, in fact, proved that three times in the last 24 hours, you have had to rely on innuendo instead of historical fact. WHAT A SHAME!! for a self-proclaimed expert on the Middle East (source: https://www.blogger.com/profile/07012416550124139780) Aren't you, therefore, not becoming just a wee bit embarrassed that you cannot rely on real verifiable facts to prove your point? You see, HB, I do know my arse from my pen hand, and I do know real facts from defensive camouflage. But fear not, we still have to test your latest quote from "the best journalist in Israel".
You have now proved on four separate occasions that you are unable to refute my ("red") positions in which I show that Ms Kuschner plays fast-and-loose with the historical facts in order to attempt to make her points. All that you continue to offer are theatrical histrionics and most recently a clear attempt to avoid the issue by deflecting to some random publication with ABSOLUTELY ZERO link to my "red" revelations - claiming "it is too long". Avoidance is no argument. You continue to fail, and with your failures, so does Ms Kuschner's credibility (the progress of which continues below)
So this best journalist in Israel is unaware of a series of basic historical facts, or she prefers to ignore them. Here is the first ignored fact: Let us pause for a while to analyse the significance of this verifiable referenced fact. The second paragraph of the UN Charter, following immediately after the declaration of maintenance of international peace is respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. The people of the West Bank were therefore perfectly in line with the Charter when they voted to unite with Jordan (called "annexation" by the Zionists and their supporters). Jordans formal unification with the West Bank only occurred on 24 April 1950, i.e. after approval by the West Bank people. Secondly, both the US and the UK favoured the original "annexation" by Jordan. Thirdly, on 31 July 1988 the Jordanian leader formally passed control of the West Bank to the people of that territory - see http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/88_july31.html. How come "the best journalist in Israel" knows none of this? I suspect that she knows all of it. So why does she ignore these facts? Because they clearly stand in the way of MYTH propagation. [To be CONTINUED]
Copied from the Bar Kochba Revolt thread - http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=287109&page=62&p=1064507877#post1064507877 so as to lesson the degree of hijacking. Si, mi generalissimo!! So I went and read it. Here are the highlights for me: http://bcrfj.revues.org/6405#tocto1n4: Now THAT is really a fresh perspective. None of this we were here a zillion years ago therefore it rightly belongs to us type of irrelevance. Yee-Hah!!! Just so awesome!!! So those residents of Palestine, who were in the majority, were defined way back in 1924, and so was the country of Palestine (in 1922). This is yet a third reason for them falling under Article 1 / Clause 2 of the UN Charter (the other 2 being the Mandate for Palestine terms, and the League of Nations Covenant). Magnifique!! So, THERE to those who say they didnt exist and had no country. Just for the above alone your reference is knock-out awesome, HBendor. This is detail that I really welcome. I am going to copy this across to the "other" thread, OK?
So all you got left is prove that all Israeli Jews are in fact Muslims thou some Sharia laws and all your troubles are gone What's the point of this thread anyway ? 181 dealt with 2 states not 1 and judging by some historiv alternatives UN committes offrered such as pop transfer it was obvious one state was to be Jewish and another Muslim Arab, the Arabs themselves rejected Jewish indipendance and therefore 181 as stated in the UN Minutes, why did they if no one ever intended it to be Jewish ?
There is nothing to refute for your fantasies are not only ridiculous but it seems obvious now that your presence here is to put another feather in your falling childish cap. These are the basics for an <inferiority complex> that even a professional shrink would find difficult to cure... You know nothing on my country, you are an outsider with an axe to grind... Therefore I consider you a phenomenon, an argumentative empty can that makes a lot of noise.. - - - Updated - - - Your bonnet has just fallen off... LOL
Refute this... maybe it is out of your thinking range, but please apply and try to do your best,,, which so far was based on nothing but the fowl air in your cabeza. Israel's Independence is Not a Result of a Partial Implementation of the Partition Plan Resolution 181 has no legal ramifications—that is, Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document was never consummated. Like the schemes that preceded it, Resolution 181's validity hinged on acceptance by both parties of the General Assembly's recommendation. Cambridge Professor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice and a renowned expert on international law, clarified that from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs. In a monograph relating to one of the most complex aspects of the territorial issue, the status of Jerusalem, Judge, Sir Lauterpacht wrote that any binding force the Partition Plan would have had to arise from the principle pacta sunt servanda [Latin: "Treaties must be honored"], the first principle of international law, that is, from agreement of the parties at variance to the proposed plan. In the case of Israel, Judge, Sir Lauterpacht explains: "... the coming into existence of Israel does not depend legally upon the Resolution. The right of a State to exist flows from its factual existence, especially when that existence is prolonged, shows every sign of continuance and is recognized by the generality of nations. Reviewing Lauterpacht's arguments, Professor Stone, a distinguished authority on the Law of Nations, added that Israel's "legitimacy" or the "legal foundation" for its birth does not reside with the United Nations' Partition Plan, which as a consequence of Arab actions became a dead issue. Professor Stone concluded: "... The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control." I hope you can now read it once more so it could sink!
With that ***CLANG*** empty post you have increased to FIVE, the number of separate occasions that you are unable to refute my ("red") positions in which I show that Ms Kuschner plays fast-and-loose with the historical facts in order to attempt to make her points. Keep going with the non-rebuttals. You might yet break your record of non-debates. I predict that you will soon post another unrelated strawman deflection or a personal attack.
its not too far fetched to assume that the Balfour Declaration, San Remo Conference, and Mandate for Palestine all invisioned a Jewish state in part of Palestine.
I couldn't agree more!!! Well done!! Awww - there you went and spoiled it. Nowhere in UNGA 181 is that proviso stated. Absolutely correct. My, but we are making progress!! I did!!!! See above. Not, do you have the Chutzpah to reciprocate likewise? Here's your chance: 1) Given the above, why did the Zionists invoke UNGA 181 to justify their unilateral declaration of independence on 14 May 1948? 2) What are Israel's legal boundaries?
The "Mandate for Palestine" is Valid to This Day The Mandate survived the demise of the League of Nations. Article 80 of the UN Charter implicitly recognizes the "Mandate for Palestine" of the League of Nations. This Mandate granted Jews the irrevocable right to settle anywhere in Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, a right unaltered in international law and valid to this day. Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank), Gaza and the whole of Jerusalem are legal. The International Court of Justice reaffirmed the meaning and validity of Article 80 in three separate cases: • ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 11, 1950: in the "question concerning the International States of South West Africa."33 • ICJ Advisory Opinion of June 21, 1971: "When the League of Nations was dissolved, the <raison d'etre> [French: "reason for being"] and original object of these obligations remained. Since their fulfillment did not depend on the existence of the League, they could not be brought to an end merely because the supervisory organ had ceased to exist. ... The International Court of Justice has consistently recognized that the Mandate survived the demise of the League [of Nations]."34 • ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 9, 2004: regarding the "legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory."35 In other words, neither the ICJ nor the UN General Assembly can arbitrarily change the status of Jewish settlement as set forth in the "Mandate for Palestine," an international accord that has never been amended. All of western Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, including the West Bank and Gaza, remains open to Jewish settlement under international law. Professor Eugene Rostow concurred with the ICJ's opinion as to the "sacredness" of trusts such as the "Mandate for Palestine": "A trust'—as in Article 80 of the UN Charter—does not end because the trustee dies ... the Jewish right of settlement in the whole of western Palestine—the area west of the Jordan—survived the British withdrawal in 1948.... They are parts of the mandate territory, now legally occupied by Israel with the consent of the Security Council."36 The British Mandate left intact the Jewish right to settle in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Explains Professor Rostow: "This right is protected by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, which provides that unless a trusteeship agreement is agreed upon (which was not done for the Palestine Mandate), nothing in the chapter shall be construed in and of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which members of the United Nations may respectively be parties. Bibliography: Elie. Hertz
I sympathise with your view. I don't blame anyone for believing that, because Zionist apologists repeat that MYTH incessantly. However the truth is otherwise. In his declaration Balfour never mentioned a Jewish State in part of Palestine. So what did he mean by the word "Homeland" which he clearly used instead. If he meant "State" or "Country" surely he would have said exactly that? Where was his statement turned into enforceable International Law? That has the form of the LON Mandate for Palestine. A. The Mandate for Palestine We get our answer to the above question by reading the detail of the Mandate for Palestine, something Zionist apologists never do, or, if they do, they conveniently choose to ignore. You can find the exact text here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp. I have shown this dozens of times to HBendor, but he still quotes "experts" who maintain that the League of Nations granted the Jews their own State in Palestine. But since you have a respect for facts, I would like to offer them to you: 1) In the prelude the 'Mandate' states "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". The granting of sovereignty to the Jews (i.e. their own Jewish State) on part or all of the ancestral grounds of the Palestinians would clearly prejudice their civil rights (see Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations invoked specifically in the Mandate prelude, and subsequently in the UN Charter - article 1.2). Solely on that basis one could stop - no Jewish sovereignty was intended - but there is much more support for no State having been granted to the Jews. 2) The prelude confirms the following: recognition has thereby been given the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country So what is the country? It says it right there. The only Country (or State) contemplated in the Mandate is Palestine. Articles 11 confirms this by refering to Palestine as the country (singular) on various occasions. 3) Article 3 mentions local, not national, autonomy. 4) Articles2 and 4 confirm that a home is being granted, not a Jewish State. 5) Article 2, 4, (especially) 11, 17 and 18 all confirm that a singular country is being contemplated to host the Jewish home. 6) Wherever State is mentioned, it is clearly in the context of the country of Palestine, for instance in article 6 the term State lands is used; a common concept, or, as in Article 18, the word refers to foreign entities as in foreign States. There are no other contexts in the Mandate for this word. 7) Article 5 refers to a singular Palestinian territory, reconfirming 2) above. 8 ) Article 7 contemplates a nationality law (note the singular). A real killer is the following: to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine. What could be clearer? 9) Many other articles add even further weight to the fact that a single country is envisaged. Article 9 creates a (single) judiciary in Palestine. Articles 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23 and 28 all confirm a singular Palestine. But is the Mandate the sole source of international law specifically defining the nature of Palestine? B. The Treaty of Lausanne http://bcrfj.revues.org/6405#tocto1n4 And with that the country referred to in the Mandate had been created. The delay had been caused by the final negotiations with Turkey. C. The British 1922 (Churchill) White Paper Besides international law, the intentions of the British were made clear in this Paper: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1922.asp Given all of the above documented and referenced evidence, I have no other option but to conclude that the Mandate (and therewith International Law) contemplated a One-State Solution My apologies for such a long missive, Jonstar, but the MYTHs can be dense and frequent.
So Mr Herzs own reference clearly shows that both he and Rostow have bent the facts; cherry picked them; ignored the essence of the findings; and provided spin to them that would make a Pakistani leg-spin bowler green with envy. If you dont accept this, you obviously need to go back to read the direct quotes, especially from the UN documentation and from the ICJ opinion. I know it is painful. It is becoming tediously common for the facts to stand in the way of a good MYTH? Another expert bites the dust.
What are you talking about ? 181 clearly talks about 2 states: http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7f0af2bd897689b785256c330061d253 I read "JEWISH STATE" several times here, I think it means Jewish state. Besides, why did the Arabs refused 181 so much and launched war if all it mean a big Islamic state with some rights to Jews ?
Ever wondered why? You post old-hat Myths. They are refuted; with references; verifiable ones; from scholarly sources. You post a strawman in response. It too gets refuted. You post a personal comment. It gets ignored. And after all of that, I am still waiting for a cogent response to the post below:
Awesome, Gilos. You have seen the light. I was discussing the Mandate, and UNGA 181 was in direct conflict with the Mandate for Palestine, which was the international law governing the Palestine (including its future) at the time. You have made a crucial break-through in understanding. Do you now understand why the Arab States voted against it, and why all of those who voted for 181 were in violation of the law at the time. Can you understand why the Arabs get so brassed-off when they are accused of being the bad-guys for voting against it. THEY were obeying the law. Capiche . Finally? Exactly!!!! Yet more proof of its illegality!!! Wh000000tt!! We are REALLY making progress.
Only because I have you to guide me UNGA 181 was not in direct conflict, the mandetor asked for a GA desicion and UNGA 181 was voted on, to the request of the mandetor, that its reccomondations did not fit all the goals that the mandate hoped to achieve does not make it illegal, the mandetor decided to leave and stop being the mandetor. Actually its about the 4th time we reached this point but thank none the less I sure do They were certainly not, the mandate holder asked for a GA solution, if they intended to stay and govern the land further the GA wouldnt have been talking about it. I can but they didnt obey the law, they rejected what the UN GA considered a rightful solution - thou I agree being the UN doesnt mean being right, in the absence of a mandate the Jews pursue of indipendance at the very least cannot be any more illegal than the Arab attacks and in that reality whatever happened to the Arabs sever since is likewise - not illegal. Since a state is also a national home, its not illegal, its evolution, same rational - 50 years later.
I think we should 'agree to disagree'. The Mandate clearly provided for a single State which housed a homeland for the Jews. UNGA 181 provided for a two-state solution. No application was made by the Mandate Holder for UN approval to change the basic rules of the Mandate. Therefore UNGA 181 was in direct violation of the Mandate provisos. The fact that Britain asked the UN for a recommendation has nothing to do with that violation. There was no specific request for approval to change from single-State to two-State. UNGA 181 was therefore NOT such an approval. Now we can logically ask ourselves - why was that approval NOT sought? I believe that the answer is clear - because changing from a "recommendation" to "approval of a change in international law" would have accorded the Arab states a totally transparent right to take the case to the ICJ citing a fundamental violation of the UN Charter, and there would have been no room for a Committee to vote on the far lesser issue of modifying a "recommendation". Where the Arabs dropped the ball was by not insisting that the Mandate be obeyed in terms of its Article 26. Regarding your point that a State is also a National Home, is an unsound application of the transitive property, as in - a Galley ('kitchen') is in a ship; a Toilet (Head) is in a ship; therefore a Galley is a Toilet. This may well be true in certain cases but is not a general rule
I read the same Mandate articles and the League of Nations covenant from which ALL mandates that followed WW1 drew legitimacy from, and I say that to claim the mandate AIM was ONE state is a personal interpretation, the Mandate states it will adhere article 22 of the LON cov : "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory." Jews were certainly considered as a diffrent and indipendant communitty than the Arabs, and tyhe Mandate is here to lead them toward that indipendance, it doesnt hold a singlr state in importance but "Certain communities" that are capable of being indipendant, Beduween will not Jews evidently since the 1936 revolt - can. The Mandate was a phase, a temporary state while assisting the the creation of a real one or ones, throu that process Palestine WAS a state of sort, it had a flag, currency, passports and so on, most of the mandate articles refered to the laws implemented in the Mandate state, none but the rights of the ppl can be understood to carried to whatever solution that might spring DURING the Mandate' DURING the mandate the Arabs objected to the Jewish national home concept including living with it in one state, after the great Arab revolt teh Brits as Mandators decided on the Peel Commission, and althou both Jews and Arabs kind of objected it - it was the Mandetor commission and the Mandator recieved the commission reccomondations, the idea of 2 states raised again (it was before as well) during the Manadate by the Mandetor in a natural course of events without blaming anyone, 181 was a similar development that had both Peel and UNGAR reports to rely on, I'm not saying the Arabs had to accept and by not accepting they are criminals but that was the last civilised attempt to sort it out, after that the winner was the last man standing and thats not illegal either. Britain did not ask for a reccomondation or specific solution, and in any case the reccomondation was for the Arabs and Jews not for the Brits, the Brits notified about ending the Mandate and since the UN was the legal heir of the LON it had to do meet and give a possible solution, nowhere did it say they had some sort of commitment to a single sate - only to the communities that lived there, to their rights and wellfare, that's the ONLY repeating motive in Balfore, LON cov, Mandate articles, proffesional committies and 181, the ppl that deserve a state and not a state that will hold ppl against thier wishes. The Brits reported the Arabs started the orgenized attack on the Jews immidiatly after 181 was voted and said they cannot hope to implement 181 with such refusal, they had no personal opinion wether good or bad they just gave a proffesional fact that implimantation was not possible, they still picked up and left AHEAD of schedule due to war. I heard alot about that apply to ICJ but never saw or read the actual application, did happen at all or is it a Palestinian kind of fact ? if you got something i'd like to read about it.
We will still have to agree to disagree, this time on our interpretation of the Mandate. The wording Mandate only ever contemplates one country - Palestine; never two - and that is crystal clear, as I have shown in Post #15. All the rest is fantasy. The Mandate was the only law at that time. So please address the actual Mandate provisions detailed there instead of going to the Covenant and pretending that all players should each be treated as deserving their own State (and also the Druze and the Samaritans, and the Christians, and the . Ridiculous). But your position is refuted for a second reason - only the majorities were considered in the other Mandates in the ME. That recognition by the League is perfectly reflected in the Palestine Mandate and in all of the other mandates, and therefore directly refutes your contention that all parties within a particular mandate would be granted their own State. And your position is refuted on a third basis also - the Peel commissions recommendations were rejected by the British government (the sole Mandatory power in Palestine - NOT the League of Nations) = a third confirmation that your dream of various independent States within the country of Palestine simply was never intended.
The Mandate country, for as long as the Mandate holds, one currency, one passport, one council made of all ethnics in the Mandate, wether they inteded it to last even after the Mandate will be over is unknown because the Arabs revolted against the current situation in 1936, then the Brits seeked a diffrent solution, so obviously the Arabs themselves refused to what you suggest. I am addressing it, in the first line of the mandate this LON article is mentioned and it not reffering to each and every ethnic in the land, it clearly states just the ones that can be indipendant, the Jews manged to survive the Arab boycott this proved to be compleatly indipendant not to mention hold thier own in wars. Most of the Mandate articles are just Adiministration boring crap, what's the use talking about it? the important issues are the rights of all ethnics in the land. Where did you read "majority" ? it speaks of those that are developed enough to seek indipendance and if they are they will be recognized - exactly as the Israelis did, they stood indipendant and only then got recognized. Sorry but the Brits were the first to accept the Jewish National home even before the mandate so their recognition as an ethnic group in Palestine was already made, the peel commission ideas were initially accepted by the Brit gov so much that a thechnical committee was formed to implement its reccomondations, it failed on Tech issues not on "Intention", the UN met at the request of the mandator and during the Mandate and 181 was voted on during the mandate, seems to me these events were a natural and legal development.
