And I still wonder why then the handshake which never actually occurred was more important than the UN Ceasefire which you stated the PLO were actually following. Hmmm. And this draws a question to which I imagine you will wriggle away on as you always do when faced with difficult truth, was whatever ceasefire you are going to invent next supposed to be a license for the PLO to do whatever they wished to attack Israel as long as they didn't fire a shot along the border but, this was supposed to prevent Israel from taking action to stop such terrorist acts eminatinig from the PLO leadership in Lebanon? "the PLO had assured him that it would observe the cease-fire called for by the Security Council." I can see where your own quotes can be considered trolling Klip.
Easy. Jewish people owned tracts of land and, when the time came to create two states that ownership pattern was used to assign land. The larger area given to Jews was making up for the lack of quality as much of it was swamp and desert. To say the Jews stole land is bogus.
klipkap, et al, Yes, I see the misunderstanding you have. (COMMENT) The Mandatory (UK) was not required to approve the UN General Assembly Resolution 181(II); nor was Mandatory (UK) approval required for implementation. Nor was the solution opposed by the Mandatory. (COMMENT) Again, this is a mistake. The Mandatory (UK) is not an end-power. That is, it is subordinate to the UN and the Security Council. The UN and Security Council establish the powers of the Mandatory; not the other way around. The Mandatory's position on, or acceptance of, did not have any impact on the legal status of the Resolution 181(II). So here is the first series of interrelated questions: In what format and by what documentation did Britain accept the 181 recommendation? It did not. It really was required. (COMMENT) (COMMENT) The Mandate was not the "Supreme Law." The Mandate was created by the Allied Powers and League of Nations. The UN, the successor to the LoN, could alter it at will. It should be noticed that the legality and standing of UN General Assembly Resolution 181(II) is not being challenged on its legal stating by either the Arab Palestinian Side or the UN Membership. It is challenged on fairness to the Arab Palestinians. Please understand the order of events. At mid-night 14/15 May 1948, three important events occur, back-to-back: The UK Mandate Ends The UNPC assumes Mandatory Power/Trusteeship The Jewish Agency Declares Independence pursuant to GA/RES/181(II) At the time of the Declaration of Independence, and the implementation of the Resolution, the UK was not the Mandatory. The position of the UK would not have a being on the legality in any aspect whatsoever. Most Respectfully, R
klipkap, et al, It is extremely difficult to prove that something "did not happen." In this case, the attempt is to imply that because the Mandatory (UK) did not support the Resolution: it somehow invalidated the legality of the Resolution. In this case, it is easier to look at the inverse (that the opposite happened) as seen from the complainant's point-of-view (The Palestinian perspective). (COMMENT) The Resolution 181(II) is a foundational document; more like a UN offer --- for settlement. No, you are right, I cannot show where the UK, as the Mandatory accepted or otherwise approved the Resolution and the Partition Plan. The offer wasn't made to the Mandatory, nor was it contingent on the Mandatory's acceptance or approval. And the acceptance of the the Resolution was not dependent on the UK. The Partition Plan was an arrangement made between the UN and the two parties (representing the Jewish State and the Arab State, respectfully). At the time the Jewish Agency Declared Independence, the UK was not the Mandatory, the UNPC was. At the time of the termination of the British Mandate, the UNPC had assumed ALL Mandatory Power. Most Respectfully, R
I agree with you Rocco. I do not see what the point of real estate detail is at the time, either. Perhaps Drew can inform us on what legal basis real estate can be turned into political sovereignty in violation of the UN Charter. I suspect the answer lies in a sub-thread discussion as that what "181" actually represents - a legal imperative or a recommendation to Britain.
Yes, I can see why you are making the mistake that Britain's approval was not necessary, Rocco. It is because you focus on "181" and its lead up. You need to take a look at the international laws that were in place at the time. But even though you focus on "181", you do not address the fundamental goal of "181" as stated in the prelude. Let us deal with the latter issue first: Quoted from the text of UNGA 181 found here - http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm So all that follows in the "181" text is nothing more than the detail of the recommendation as to what Britain should adopt and what Britain should implement. You might find the following legal analysis useful: http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/israels-borders-under-international-law.pdf - I will quote from it as I go along. . And THAT is the reason that I wanted to know exactly which parts of the recommendation Britain had accepted and which not (if any), and where and how this was documented. Also were there any anomalies or conflicts between the various British statement on the 181 recommendations? With the recommendation nature of "181" properly established, let us return to the question as to WHY this route was necessary. That requirement can be found in the covenant of the League of Nations and in the Mandate for Palestine. These were the laws governing Palestine at the time, and you are incorrect that the UN could change them at will. On the contrary, therein lies part of the grand labyrinth of doubt, illegality and perhaps deceit that "181" represents. The Mandate of Palestine gained its legality and substance from a principle contained in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations to be found here - http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp So a Mandate is a trust for the people inhabiting the mandated territory. In 1922 when the Palestine Mandate came into being, the population was 660 000 Palestinians and 84 000 Jews. It is overwhelmingly clear who the people were on whose behalf the LoN was meant to be safeguarding that sacred trust. As the successor to the LoN, the UN was bound by law to uphold this covenant. Did it? The second legal column governing Palestine in 1947 was the Palestine Mandate itself. What does this have to say regarding Britains responsibilities other than as the guardian of the scared trust? - http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp We hardly need to go further. Britain had legislative authority; not the League of Nations. That is crystal clear. Britain was responsible for establishing a Jewish homeland in the country of Palestine (clear from other articles, especially articles 4 and 7) and for safeguarding the civil rights of the Palestinians. Does your interpretation of 181 respect this? No need for too much head-scratching, I believe. Furthermore, in reinforcement of the Mandate conditions under the UN as successor, I remind you of the UN Charter - Article 1 - "the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples" and article 73 - "the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these (mandated) territories are paramount", and finally of the principle of the rule of wishes of the majority under a democratic institution. So, in conclusion, Rocco, I am afraid that based on these international laws, I have to disagree with your analysis that Britains approval of the 181 recommendations was not necessary.
klipklap, et al, There are several sever weaknesses to this position. (COMMENT) First, you misunderstand the meaning of the passage and a key phrase: "and to all other Members of the United Nations." This passage not only addresses the Mandatory (UK), but ALL UN members. It urges both passage of the resolution and the cooperation of the Mandatory; not that cooperation or adoption by the Mandatory was essential. Remembering that the Mandatory Powers were not going to be in the hands of the UK for much longer. Second, the UK, as the mandatory, already expressed the position that it was abrogating its power in the matter and turning it over to the UN. The intention of the UK was expressed thusly: It was no longer in the hands of the Mandatory, but remanded into the hands of the UN. This lead to the recommendation by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) and the beginning of the gradual and "progressive transfer, from the mandatory Power" to the United Nations Commission on Palestine (UNPC), "of responsibility for all the functions of government, including that of maintaining law and order in the areas from which the forces of the mandatory Power have been withdrawn." Third: At the time the last preparatory steps to independence were completed, the UK had abdicated all its Mandatory Powers to the UNPC ("guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council"). At the time the Jewish Agency Declared Independence, the Mandatory Power was the UNPC and not the UK. (COMMENT) You keep asking about the British as the Mandatory. The very big flaw in Professor Anthony DAmato's (Northwestern University School of Law) analysis is the same one you make in your opening. You assume that the original Mandate and the original Mandatory Power are in play. And again, I point out that it was the UK's intention, "faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles," to abdicate responsibility for a solution and to hand the issue to the UN for a solution. The UN, through the adoption of Resolution 181(II) and the recommendations of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), to relieve the UK of it responsibility as the Mandatory and transfer it to the UNPC. (COMMENT) Remembering that the passage begins with "recommends" and not some commanding phrase. And, remembering that the UK had no intention of taking a position on the matter; for or against. (COMMENT) This is another misconception. The Mandate (specific to Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia) was an invention of the San Remo Convention of 1920 convened by the Allied Powers; not the Covenant of the League of Nations 1919. The Mandate was, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, after the fact. You will note that Paragraph 4 of Article 22, mentions no country, land or territory by name. It is a generalized clause that refers to the unspecified "communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire." The specificity comes with the Allied Powers and Part III, Section VII, Paragraphs 94 through 97, Treaty of Sevres 1920. The Treaty of Sevres was the principle international law, and not Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which has no specificity. (COMMENT) This is not entirely accurate. There are three separate and distinct issues here: one of trusteeship, one of moral obligation (sacred trust) one of successor responsibilities The Mandate (or trusteeship) actually began (Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text) 1 July 1920 (derivative of the San Remo Convention), two years before the actual Mandate for Palestine and Trans-Jordan was written. The territory now known as Palestine (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers) formerly part of the Ottoman empire until occupied, came under Allied military administration, "under the title of Occupied Enemy Territory Administration," was established with headquarters in Jerusalem at the end of 1917. Even as it was enemy territory, the concept of a Mandate to be placed in effect, was discussed early on as the next logical step after "occupation." In 1947, the original Mandate by the UK began its transition under Part I, Section B, Paragraph 13, GA/RES/181(II), with the Provisional Councils and the Joint Economic Board, respectively, acting under the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC), beginning a progressive transfer, from the mandatory Power (UK) to the UNPC, of responsibility for all the functions of government, including that of maintaining law and order in the areas from which the forces of the mandatory Power have been withdrawn. The principle four moral imperatives were the: [*] Establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people; Maintaining civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine; Maintaining the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews; Creation of conditions which would secure the development of self-governing institutions. In terms of successor responsibilities there are two principle areas of concern. The Trustee System, for which in the transition from the LoN to the UN adopted Article 77, UN Charter, to include (applicable to the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine): a. territories now held under mandate; b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration. The Role of the Security Council under Article 83: All functions of the United Nations relating to strategic areas, including the approval of the terms of the trusteeship agreements and of their alteration or amendment shall be exercised by the Security Council. The basic objectives set forth in Article 76 shall be applicable to the people of each strategic area. The Security Council shall, subject to the provisions of the trusteeship agreements and without prejudice to security considerations, avail itself of the assistance of the Trusteeship Council to perform those functions of the United Nations under the trusteeship system relating to political, economic, social, and educational matters in the strategic areas. (COMMENT) The key piece you are missing here is that the League of Nations (LoN) "Confirming the said mandate, defines its terms as follows:" The LoN determines the boundaries of the Mandate and is the source of its authority; and the successor as well. Again, in the case of Palestine, the Mandatory (UK) said: "We shall then ask the United Nations to consider our report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. We do not intend ourselves to recommend any particular solution. (COMMENT) Yes, there would appear to be a conflict here, except that GA/RES/181(II) established the intent of the UN. The citations from the Mandate do not override the intent of the body that created the Mandate. And Again, you forget that the Mandate was terminated when the final step of Independence was consummated. Relative to the Right of Self-Determination, I found this citation for you. It states it better than I could, yet I still find it argumentative. Most Respectfully, R
I explained it earlier and, it was the rationale for the allocation of land in 181 which was the basis for the establishment of Israel which was acknowledged as legal by the fact that the UN voted and approved their nationhood. All other considerations are a waste of time as the country of Israel is legal and is here to stay whether you like it or not. Now say something funny like 'Habib Hug' or something Klip
DrewBedson, klipkap, et al, There is some merit in DrewBedson's observation. Let there be no mistake about that. (COMMENT) There is, not doubt, plenty of evidence to demonstrate that private land ownership was an element of consideration in the allocation and land apportionment that was ultimately reflected in the Partition Plan; of that there can be no doubt. But on the overall scale of things, it was not a major or principle issue. Important, yes --- but there were so many things, at that time, that were important. The UNSCOP Report A/364 of 3 September 1947 clearly demonstrates that point as it addresses water resources and irrigation, population ratios, agriculture, industry, employment, economic development, geographical and topographical features; to state a few. But, these were not the "key factors" that ruled the discussion of those days (as differentiated from the factors that rule the discussion of today). (APOLOGY) I apologize if I inadvertently derailed the discussion. I sometimes get confused if we are discussing considerations that have arisen a half-century (plus) after the fact, or if we are truly discussing the factors in play from half-century (plus) ago. The factors in play today are very politically-military driven, with aggravations that have absolutely nothing to do with the health, wealth, and general welfare of the citizenry on either side in the dispute. Most Respectfully, R
There was no discussion, simply some hubris about a second hand handshake with the offending party stating they were following the actual ceasefire called upon by the Security Council vs a secondary one in which Klip states (without proof as usual) has terms which unshown, state that the UNSC terms are not followed.
Love the walls and ghetto's that the Zionist fascist who collaborated with Hitler built ,is that the Stalinist East German model ,that Israel loves ,oh that's right the Heritage of the Israeli Pseudo -Nation Stalinism and the UN ,those "Socialist founding Fathers ",do you know that history ,the Kibbutz 'Socialism in an orange grove" Stalinist Utopia.
Yeah ,British Imperialism ,US Imperialism and Stalinism ,the Founding fathers of Israel ,the First Nation voted in by the Most Counter-Revolution forces on the Planet ,oh and lets not forget ,Hitler proposed the same thing .
And approved by the majority of the United Nations. Oh well, irrational ranting does lower the blood pressure despite being just that.
Then why have you not been able to refute my claims .... let us take just one .... namely that Israel was responsible for the great majority of border (ceasefire) violations with Syria in 1966/1967 leading to its invasion of Syria in April 1967 and to the triggering of the Syrian-Egyptian mutual defence agreement in May 1967. Show us that you can refute at least ONE of my claims, instead of relying on the waving of empty arms and pretending that that barren gesticulating achieves 'victory'. I know you tried before, like when you tried to prove a blockade that was not a blockade or tried to show that Tiran passage by Israel could be considered to be 'innocent'. I know you tried to show the 2008 tunnel under Israeli territory for which you could find zero verifiable evidence. But each time the facts cut you down. The was no blockade of Eilat. From the mutual defence pact and Israel's invasion of Syria, Tiran passage was anything but innocent. The Nov 2008 tunnel led .... nowhere. Off you go. Many of us are watching for a real result this time
Not so, Gilos, one needs to question the REASON for the aggro. There have been many long periods of relative calm in the ME, so you cannot just say that all Israeli actions are justified by the hatred for what had happened to the Palestinian Arabs. Regarding your rebuttal in the Who did the Invading thread, the main point your four posts was that invasion by itself can be justified. I agree. Ince needs to examine aggressiveness. I agree. But the Justifications given by Israel have all come crashing down on close inspection as has been amply shown in this thread, and you did very little to refute these detailed analyses. The bit that you provided was to claim that nationalisation of the Suez Canal was an act of war. You were asked to provide verifiable evidence for your claim. You didnt. In fact the detail of Ben-Gurions grand strategy as recorded by an IDF scribe at the Sevres meetings in 1956 between Israel Britain and France, perfectly explains Israels aggressive invasions over time against Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, and her stubborn intransigence to ignore World Opinion regarding her settlements on the West Bank. In this thread I showed far better reasons to regard Israel as the aggressor in the various major conflicts that happened in the levant that given by pro-Israeli posters justifying their the Arab attack Israel, so Israel retaliates explanation that falls to pieces on close inspection.
Rather than a Tit for Tat I offer you an hour of Video that would settle the matter in any obdurate's mind... Here go Six Days In June (Six Day War - Israeli victory) - Documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZYBUdzJuqI&list=UUee1-5fXiz-gqT8eWiaTH2g Happy watching
I do not normally respond to wooden poles stuck like green onions in the sand... Do not respond to me for I will not answer your vacuous rhetoric... These are not <actors> in this <documentary> but personalities that aged in the mean time speaking about their experience (something you have not noticed I am sure>...http://v4.netlogstatic.com/v6.00/3864//s/i/smilies/big/clap_anim.gif
