The arabs were a conquered people and were treated as such by the colonial powers that be. You persistently ignore some substantive facts in your assessment of the raw deal the arabs got. The least of which appears to be a rather large blindspot to any and all culpability they might have earned thru their own actions. Insistence on demanding adherence to completely obselete resolutions that CLEARLY didn't work when drafted and for sure wouldn't work now considering how the conflict has evolved over 3 or 4 generations. A just settlement requires both sides to compromise and cooperate. In this instance in particular it requires a large measure of trust the like of which is virtually non-existent between the parties. It also requires political sea change on both sides. Israel must temper its neo-zionist, religious nutter, and eretz israel factions while the palestinians must temper its "liberate historic palestine" and Islamist factions while forging a united workable "national" government with appropriate supporting institutions which so far they have failed repeatedly at.
UNGA 181 didn't violate the UN Charter, as the Charter specifically states that all rights stated in previous agreements regarding the Mandates are valid. This means that the Palestine Mandate's stipulation allowing Jewish settlement in Palestine in order to create a Jewish homeland, was still valid. UNGA 181 falls in like with these rights.
Funny. There are no Palestinian's listed as giving them the rights. It seems that a bunch of Europeans agreed that this was how things were going to be. And what they decide becomes legal. It is indeed funny how the validity of Israel rests on the legal interpretation of one of the most woeful imperialist regimes in history.
rights for the non-Jews of Palestine are mentioned in the Mandate, but so are the right of the Jews to settle and make a homeland. these rights are respected by the UN Charter.
Who's Mandate? Who decided the rights of Palestinian's? Not Palestinian's, surely. Sounds like the US deciding the rights of Native American's. We all know how that turned out. All those assurances that we weren't going to expand. The incidental expansions due to "viscious and unprovoked attacks by native savages". It sounds so familiar, no? The UN is nothing but a stamp for whims of the major powers in the world. Thy only act decisively when it is in the interest of those powers, and were there is conflict, there is general paralysis or silence. The UN is a joke, unless you also believe that the UN is truly an independent arbiter of international justice.
Its very simple: The Allies conquered Palestine. It was theirs to rule and decide its fate. The League of Nations decided that the Jews had a right to settle in Palestine, and a Jewish homeland would be built in Palestine. This right was protected by the UN Charter.
The Mandate stated with utter clarity that Jews would be allowed into the country of Palestine " it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" You can only be correct if the Arab civil rights had not been prejudiced by the British/UN refusal to place the dispute before the ICJ to test the legality of the proposed recommendation to Britain. And that is absolutely clearly NOT the case; their civil rights would have been rent asunder, in losing 57% of their territory to those who owned 6% (or figures close to those). That is crystal clear to all who are not in denial. Your attempted rebuttal therefore failed totally in the face of what was international law at the time. Rejected. I will get back to "who were the bad guys soon".
There is evidence on that issue of Israeli sincerity. I will address it soon. I am searching for the reference. - - - Updated - - - Since when does violation of laws render those laws null? The armistice lines were not borders. End of the matter. - - - Updated - - - And the rest? - - - Updated - - - Says who?
I am also aware that "the 3 Nos" came after Israel claimed to have offered the Arab leaders withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines. As you know, that was yet another lie.
Rubbish!! Read the Coventant of the League of nations for the real FACTS. You persistently ignore some substantive facts in your assessment of the raw deal the arabs got. The Arabs might have been guilty of poor tactics and unsound strategy judgements, but they never broke the law to the extent that the Allies did, the British did, and the UN did. You seem to be studiously avoiding my point that there is a mountain of evidence (including the 9 that I presented above), that the first step in the chain of conflict was the violation of Palestinian civil rights, which was utterly in conflict with the Mandate - i.e. against international law. Why that avoidance by you?
Correct. And your point regarding the creation of a Jewish State in the country of Palestine instead of a homeland is?
What is this land called Israel that the Zionists believe should be recognised by the Arab states natwithstanding all of these illegalities and irregularities. Where does it start and where does it end. Does it creep ever larger ... by the month? Will it keep on creeping? Does it include the Golan heights? East Jerusalem? The Shebaa farms? Where were the boundaries of Israel legally demarcated Please note, the cry is made "The Arabs must recognise it before anything else", including non-farcical negotiations, take place ... i.e. without further ado I put it to you, that that is like signing a blank cheque to further screw the Arabs.
THE CIVIL WAR!!!!!!! Might want to attempt to include in this rather significant and game changing contemporary event into your calculus about legal and illegal, at the time of partition. As such your rebuttal to my contention that the Arabs were not victims but losers remains valid. BTW I am familiar with the idiotic "feel good" civil and religious rights clauses. The hypocrisy of incorporating it into what was a doomed to failure, colonial clustermuck partition agreement with a two year old civil war still raging is so typical of the arrogance and ignorance of the western powers, specifically Britannia.
Yes, comes from a decades old torrent of hatred and violence. I agree that Israel's sincerity is also often questionable. Sincerity and trust are the door openers to compromise and co-operation. Wrong. Laws drafted to apply to regions before their sovereignty has been established are no longer applicable. PERIOD. I am not debating whether an armistice line is considered an international border - clearly they are two different animals. However, when that armistice line is recognized by the greater international community as defacto borders, when even the occupying enemy of the losers territories recognize them as borders, you might as well pack in your argument as it becomes completely and totally irrelevant. Anyone that doesn't think america should give back the land to the indians. Say the victors, say their allies, says the utter rejection of those laws by both parties they were intended to apply to, by the unenforceablity of said laws, by hard facts on the ground. While I can appreciate the academic nature of this line of argument, it is a debate of history, not of contemporary law, and most definitely not the basis of crafting a workable peace agreement. the starting point is the green line, what happened prior is essentially irrelevant.
Irrelevant. You cannot claim a piece of propaganda as justification for the arabs complete and total rejection of any attempts at peace at the time. You should also check the calendar. I believe the Israeli's propaganda about offering came long after the 3 noes. Like most good propaganda tho, it has a kernel of truth since cabinet documents at the time suggested that some Israeli leaders thought that return of territory was inevitable. Alas, once again, the arabs didn't miss the opportunity to miss the opportunity, with misplaced religiously based hubris and hatred. You know what Islam says about the ummah. Once muslim land, always muslim land - ooopsy,.
No I don't ignore history. I also know that the league of nations was a failure and has been defunct for 80 or so years. I do not ignore these facts like you ignore the civil war. The arabs got a raw deal because they were losers, had they won we'd be talking about the raw deal they gave the jews. The Arabs might have been guilty of poor tactics and unsound strategy judgements, but they never broke the law to the extent that the Allies did, the British did, and the UN did. Funny how that works. No I do not avoid. Ther was no first step, since the entire partition plan was a loser before it began. It was an expedient clustermuck of a camel that had absolutely no hope of implementation. You think that the two sides should have immediately laion down their arms, and reached out to their enemies and say - Oh look Britian and the United Nations have given us a wonderful plan the tells us what we must do - lets lay down our arms and enter into this agreement in the spirit of peace and fraternity. WHY DO YOU PERSIST IN IGNORING THE CIVIL WAR.!
Jonsa, et al, Here we go - score this as a double-bullseye. I would have chosen different words and phrases, but essentially - this is the reality in its unvarnished form. "Jonsa" has this correct. (COMMENT) Key Phrases: Starting Point Green Line (Armistice) Much of what is argued today have been overtaken by events. While there is no Armistice Agreement with the Palestinians, thus no Armistice Line with them. And since the Armistice Lines were to remain in force only until a peaceful settlement between the Parties were reached. And since such of the parties (Jordan/Israel and Egypt/Israel) have reached a peaceful settlements. It is the case that The Armistice Lines were dissolved and replaced by permanent international borders; but not the same borders that were outlined in the 1949 Armistice. The international community has (in deed) come to recognize the former Armistice Line as a de facto border, as a practical matter. There is actually nothing that establishes the borders of the State of Palestine. Even, on the issues of Borders, The PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) can only point to the following three International citations that substantiate the claim; but nothing specific. Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945), requires that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for the “[w]ithdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” The International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004 Advisory Opinion, concluded that Israel in breach of international law as an occupying power by building its Wall and settlements inside the oPt. So, what is it that supports this commonly held belief? Most Respectfully, R
So what you are in fact saying is that, after having invaded and occupied parts of their countries, the Arabs were not justified in agreeing to the following regarding the invader: I would be VERY interested to know WHAT you thought they should have done instead?
I think I now understand your viewpoint. You are an advocate of medieval or biblical environment in which "might is right", and to ignore the laws crafted to create a different less bellicose approach. I can understand that since it is the hallmark of Israeli actions over the past 65+ years. I prefer to remain in the present and on the side of the law. So it seems that we have different fundamental ethics on this issue. Cultural differences are extremely difficult to reconcile.
The Arabs were clearly losers. They were equally clearly victims: "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" Can there be any possible doubt that the promise that started this all in 1917 was not kept?
Does that mean, Rocco, that you are a supporter of "facts-on-the-ground" and not the application of pertinent international law? Two issues that need to be seen in conjunction: 1) In 1988 Jordan ceded her rights to Palestine to the Palestinian people. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/01/w...us-peace-plan-jeopardy-internal-tensions.html 2) In October 1994 Jordan defined its borders with Israel as part of a peace treaty. Where were these borders agreed by the international community? When making statements like that, it is informative to provide a verifiable source. Otherwise it remains . unverified, which is somewhat underwhelming. So you view 181 as being irrelevant and void? If so, then of course it is also irrelevant and void as far as Israel is concerned. What does that say for Israel justifying its unilateral declaration of independence on the UN decision? If there are no borders for the State of Palestine, then what are the internationally agreed borders of Israel? Indeed. See the OP. I seem to remember reading a critique by you of D'Amato's piece, but since your posts do not contain linked responses, I cannot find it. Would it be asking too much for a reference link please. Many thanks in advance.
Ya gotta luv "This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide" don't you find it hilarious that the Arab States think the no recognition, no negotiation and no peace is the way to obtain peace? Sued for peace by recognizing Israel as a sovereign entity and entering into negotiations with a view to the peaceful establishment of a palestinian nation. - - - Updated - - - No of course it wasn't kept, by either side. And Losers are not victims, they are losers.
When both sides ignore the totally unenforcable and ridiculously ultrusitic "international laws" and attempt to resolve their differences thru warfare, it does come down to might is right. This is not a concept relegated to the history, its a concept that is regrettably alive and well in the 21st century. And yet you don't see it applies equally to the arabs. The bible (OT) and the quran both preach might is right. Mohammed waged an almost constant war of expansion of the ummah forcing the conquered to convert. Since we both know that Islam is intrinsic to arab culture and politics, it seems a bit odd that you claim victimhood for them and attempt to posit that they don't think might is right themselves. Some of my ethics are obviously at odds with yours. From my perspective it appears that I am more pragmatically cynical than you.
Finally. Israel never had a "right" to exist. It was put there by force, and protected by the legal laws of foreign powers. Imperialism. Land was taken from one and given to the next by use of force. Oddly enough, this is a crime under international law...
