A structured legal analysis of the meaning of UNSC resolution 242

... Answer: When HBendor posted this:

HBendor, once again you post a tired response that you have tried on at least 2 previous occasions and which has been battered by more detailed examinations of the minutes of the debates of the UN Security Council leading up to voting on 242. I repeat – do you NEVER feel embarrassed by serving up stale food again?

Here is where your previous attempt with the exact same ‘cut-and-paste’ was annihilated almost 2 years ago:
http://www.politicalforum.com/middl...ll-israel-really-withdraw-18.html#post2887200 I repeat from that post:

HBendor, you never responded. What you did was to serve up exactly the same c-and-p to which you ended up non-responsive, only 2 months ago. Here is where your cherry picking was again obliterated by details of the actual deliberations of the voting members … http://www.politicalforum.com/middl...ing-unsc-resolution-242-a.html#post1061344416 and here is where your same thrice-repeated thesis that Israel does not have to withdraw at all was blown away by a non-cherry picking of the views of the chief drafter of 242, Lord Caradon: http://www.politicalforum.com/middl...ing-unsc-resolution-242-a.html#post1061358532 As a focussed reader will have noticed, HBendor, the latter two happened at the start of this very thread. I will therefore not repeat the rebuttals, but simply offer the references to them and to quote the rebuttal summary:

You went into wartime radio silence on that question, but now you regurgitate your c-and-p again.

And as to the legal structure, as Shiva posted, you have not responded at all to his analysis, just offered the same old tired deflection.

Well done Shiva, as I wrote before.

 

What part of this do Israelis not understand?

 

You (personally) and rightly so, fail to understand that Israel's wars were not for the purpose of acquiring real estate but rather to LIBERATE the Land of Israel from pseudo Jordanians denude of history and archeology. If Israel as you said was out to acquire land it would have kept the Sinai Peninsula.

If Israel would have conquered Tibet like the Chinese did, or some of the Kuril Islands belonging to Japan that the Russian are sitting on today, or the Malvinas that the Brits are still holding ... I would have shouted from the top of my lungs to return these properties to their rightful owners...

So please do not talk to me about 242 again... The two parties do not see eye to eye and you and the other persistent fella should stop drumming this as there is no reason at all... save your energy for something more palatable.

I shan't retort to the other one looking for his 15 minutes of fame... He has not proven anything... the only thing that he did excel in was his lurid account of the situation in addtion to his putrid condescending way to the debate.

 

Deflection Alert!! Just to make sure we are up to speed, HBender is referring here as "non-proven" and "lurid" to the verbatim minutes as officially recorded in the lead-up to the voting on UNSC Resolution 242. The exact words of the chief drafter of UNSCR 242 are "lurid" according to HB!! The reasons given for their votes by the members of the SC "don't prove anything"!! He finds hard verifiable facts to be only worthy of his disdain, and certainly not of factual rebuttal.

I rest my case.

Israel is exploiting a bad-faith loophole by not negotiating and hanging on to the Occupied Territories under the pretext that if there are no successful negotiations, she does not have to give up anything. And the USA has supported her in this flagrant violation of both the letter AND the spirit of 242.

Don't believe me? .... remember Bibi's admission that he scuppered the Oslo accords; remember Meir's disdainful dismissal of Sadat's offer of negotiations based on 242 in 1971 which led directly to the Yom Kippur war; remember Begin's walk-out; remember the Knesset's refusal to respond to two Arab League offers to negotiate 242 without insisting on refugee return 'par se' ... I repeat, without that insistence? This blatant disregard is not cost free. See 911.

 

file:///C:/Users/owner/Documents/Sinai_files/000_Untitled.jpg

 

Sinai Peninsula 1906



file:///C:/Users/owner/Documents/Sinai_files/000_Untitled.jpg

 

More detailed information can be found here regarding the history of the Straits of Tiran, including the agreement between Saudi Arabia and Egypt (click on the blue) regarding rights to control 'innocent passage' through them, starting on page 136. On page 151 the author of "The Middle Eastern States and the Law of the Sea", Ali A. Hakim, introduces the distinction between 'free passage' and 'innocent passage' under international law.

Here is the key bit resulting from the Corfu Channel case of 1949:

Regarding the June 1967 first-strike attack by Israel on Egypt, regarding the quote by Israel of the closure of the Straits of Tiran by Egypt as the main 'casus belli' for the attack, this ICJ judgement should be interpreted in the light of the following:

# As Shiva has pointed out, Israeli shipping had not been using the Straits for a number of years;
# Egypt had a defence pact with Syria and with Jordan at the time that Nasser announced the closure of the Straits to Israeli shipping;
# in combination with the clear fact that Israel was at war with Syria at the time of the announcement and had previously (December 1966) invaded Jordan (the Samu 'incident').

So anyone reasoning that the closure was a 'casus belli' would have to reason that clear peace existed between Israel and Egypt, and that Israeli passage would be wholly 'innocent'. Nasser's closure was therefore entirely in line with International Law. There could therefore be no possible invocation of a 'casus belli' for a first-strike on this basis. Even the USA knew that at the time.

Secondly, Shiva is perfectly correct in his application of this very same rule of the Law of the Sea to the Gaza coastal waters. Israel was clearly in flagrant violation of this very same law when she prohibited the innocent passage of foreign ships through international waters to the coastal territory of Gaza. Israel is therefore in fact claiming that the law applies to Egypt (which I have just shown that it did not), but does not apply to Israel. Why are we not surprised by this hypocritic view of International Law by Israel?

Thirdly, there is also no "the" used in reference to international waters in 242 - "For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area". If the Zionist apologists are correct (Shiva and I argue that they are not as shown by an analysis of the exact wording of UNSCR 242 combined with the debating records of the UN and with Lord Caradon's interview) that the lack of a "the" in front of the word 'territories' means that Israel did not have to withdraw from ALL territories conquered, then equally the lack of a "the" in front of 'international waters' means that Egypt could also pick and choose which international waters it wanted to give Israel access to; for instance to Suez, but not to the Straits of Tiran, or vice versa.

Egypt does not reason this way because it was clearly not intended. So why should the USA support Israel in its devious refusal to comply with 242 because of the lack of a "the"?

 

Thank you Shiva for a timely revisit to the main reason under International Law as to why Israel's occupation of the West Bank is illegal. It is a reason that is rarely responded to by the Zionists, as we can see in the case of your post. It is in fact a huge embarrassment that needs to be either deflected or have an irrelevant strawman dragged in between.

Article 2 of part IV of the Geneva Conventions is in direct rebuttal of the Zionist claim that the settlements are legal. Israel has reasoned that the Geneva Coventions are not applicable to the Occupied Territories, and in this view she is opposed by all other States. I will no bother to deal with this trivia. The rebuttals of this Israeli position are more than adequately summarised in John Quigley's book - "The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective” (click the blue), page 147 onwards.

So, as Moon has correctly reported on numerous occasions: “The Squats are illegal”.

But not only that, the settlements also serve to emphasise the reality of UNSCR 242. The chief drafter of ‘242’, Lord Caradon (Hugh M Foot). To quote from a CAMERA source:

This non-intention is of course EXACTLY what Israel has been doing for the past 40+ years, but you rarely see the Zionists emphasising this Caradon reflection 10 years after ‘242’. It is also clear from this that neither did Caradon intend that Israel should be allowed to occupy entire regions simply because it did not have to withdraw exactly to the ‘green line’.

And the cherry on the rebuttal-top comes from the 1981 book co-authored by the same Lord Caradon so often quoted by Zionists as not requiring Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank – “U.N. Security Council Resolution 242: A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity”. Ever seen that in a Zionist review? Of course not, because on page 12 Caradon writes “ ”At the same time scores of Israeli settlements have already been established on the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan. The process of colonisation of Arab lands goes rapidly ahead in disregard of objections from nearly every Government in the world, including’ even the American Government. These actions of the Israeli Government are in clear defiance of the Resolution 242.”

So, for a second time, as Moon has correctly reported on numerous occasions: “The Squats are illegal”.

But we will never get HBendor and others like him to acknowledge that Caradon knew that the armistice line was not good for either side and that he wanted to keep to options open to have it adjusted by negotiations, not to give Israel carte blanche to occupy territory that was not hers.

 

The Levy Report: A Chance to Regain Lost Diplomatic Ground


~Evelyn Gordon
JINSA , August 06, 2012

When a blue-ribbon panel of Israeli legal experts issued a report this July declaring that the West Bank isn't "occupied territory," but territory to which Israel has a legitimate claim, and that settlements therefore cannot be considered ipso facto illegal, it raised an outcry both in Israel and overseas. A group of prominent American Jews even wrote Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to urge him against adopting the report, arguing that it would imperil both "the two-state solution, and the prestige of Israel as a democratic member of the international community," because the latter depends on persuading the world that Israel is "committed to a two-state vision." Many Israeli pundits voiced similar concerns.

Since the Levy Report essentially reiterates the official position of all Israeli governments, this concern seems strange. Nevertheless, its opponents are right to see it as a potential game changer. Where they err is in deeming it a negative one. In reality, the report offers Israel a golden opportunity to start regaining the diplomatic ground it has lost over the last two decades.

No honest appraisal could deny that Israel's international standing has deteriorated since it signed the Oslo Accords in 1993. Anti-Israel boycotts, once confined to the Arab world, are now routine agenda items for universities, certain Western churches, and trade unions. Courts in several European countries have considered indicting Israeli officials for war crimes, and European polls routinely deem Israel a prime threat to world peace. References to Israel as an "apartheid state" have become commonplace, and academics and journalists openly question its very right to exist. All this would have been inconceivable 20 years ago....


For the complete article, copy and paste this link into your web browser:
http://www.unitycoalitionforisrael.org/news/?p=8386


VIDEOS
Benny Morris: Jewish refugees from Arab states (1/2)

http://youtu.be/8Piory0ucB4

Benny Morris: Jewish refugees from Arab states (2/2)

http://youtu.be/U0bR7VxSl2g

 

Individuals living in "Palestine" are not Jordanians. Even prior to 1948 every person that had legally moved to "Palestine" whether they were Muslim, Christian, or Jew was a Palestinian. Today Israeli Jews are a subset of the Palestinian People.

But regardless of that fact here it the problem with the above statement. When Israel joined the United Nations it established a treaty obligation with every other member state of the United Nations. The government, on behalf of the People, committed Israel to compliance with the United Nation Charter which includes the absolute requirement to abide by United Nation Security Council resolutions. Israel "gave it's word" which is what a treaty does.

The above statement is basically a statement that some in Israel, predominately the Israeli government, in it's refusal to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 242 is breaking it's word to all of the other member states of the United Nations. Fundamentally this means that the Israeli government is comprised of liars that lack any integrity whatsoever. They gave their word and then broke it.

Personally I don't have much respect for anyone that lacks the personal integrity necessary to keep their promises regardless of whether it is an individual or a government.

I would also point out that every other member state of the United Nations has an obligation to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions including the United States. This is predominately done with economic sanctions and if necessary then ALL member states of the United Nation should impose an economic boycott of Israel. Israel should be left on it's own without any foreign oil, food, products or any other "goods" that are currently being imported. That is the ultimate obligation of ALL member states of the United Nations to force Israel into compliance with UN Security Council 242.

Israel will "die on the vine" based upon it's religious/ethnic discrimination if it doesn't have the intergrity to fulfill it's written obligations to the member states of the United Nations and that is as it should be. Either Israel needs to join with the world's nations or it should be cut off from them completely.

BTW - in a prior post it was noted that because Israel passed laws allowing the acquisition of Palenstinian territory in violation of international law that made it "legal and just" in today's world. Does that mean that the laws passed by the NAZI's which lead to the extermination of millions of Jews were "legal and just" in the 20th Century? Passing laws of oppresion in violation of international laws do not make something either "legal or just" but merely institutionalizes the tyranny of government.

 

These "prominent American Jews" are absolutely correct because the "blue ribbon panel" is ignoring both international law and the mandatory requirement for Israel, based upon it's treaty obligations, to comply with both the UN Charter, UNSC Resolutions and the Geneva Conventions.

 

I received rumours that there would be a cut-and-paste deflection to pretend to show that the Squats were legal. Let's check it out, Sherlock.

Sherlock, stop that!! Show some respect. There is no need to be so rude even when Ms Gordon (A JINSA fellow) repeats a whole host of old stale MYTHS, amonsgt a whole host, that:

SHERLOCK!!

 

Once agian we need to focus on the topic of the thread. It's not about Israel making excuses for violations of the UN Charter or the Geneva Conventions but instead it's about what UNSC Resolution 242 explicitly states as it applies to both Israel, the Palestinians, an all nations in the region.

Whether Israel is willing to comply with the UN Charter and UNSC Resolution reflecting integrity in the international community and it's international relations is really moot. Either Israel should comply because it "gave it's word" or it should be forced to comply based upon the UN Charter. Either way works in the end.

 

I had already went over your arguments in a thread you made about the Levy report.
http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...iscussion-israel-s-rights.html#post1061527344

You're still yet to reply. Here is what I said:

You mean it doesn’t surprise you that a commission appointed by Netanyahu, that is pro-settlements, decided that there is no occupation and that the settlements are legal…?

Argument #1:

This argument is rather illogical. They claim that Jordan was nothing more than an occupying power following the 1948 war, and thus, has no claim to the West Bank. On the other hand, Israel seized the West Bank through an act of war in 1967, and thus it would be consistent to assume that Israel would have no claim to the land either. So if we are to follow this argument, then the West Bank would belong to neither Jordan, nor Israel. Moreover the laws regarding occupation are intended to protect the people under foreign military control, regardless of how this control was attained, and not the rights of the evicted states. The claim that Israel is not an occupier is negated by the provisions of the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907 (Article 42) and by the Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 2). The article provides that “The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party…” There is absolutely no reference to the validity or otherwise of titles to ownership and no distinction between de facto and de jure requisition of territory. The term “territory of a High Contracting Party” is used. The ICRC commentary of the convention even describes it as “the first time that a set of international regulations has been devoted not to State interests, but solely to the protection of the individual.” Considering Israel hasn’t even annexed the West Bank in its entirety, this leaves no legal basis for Israel being in the West Bank.

Argument #2:

This part of the report deals with article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Let’s take a look at what some legal scholars have to say about it:

Yoram Dinstein wrote: “Article 49(6) of the [Fourth] Geneva Convention touches on the core of the question of civilian settlement [in the occupied territories]. According to this rule, it is prohibited for an occupying state to transfer parts of its civilian population into occupied territory. The emphasis here is on the transfer and civilian nature of the population. Accordingly, on the one hand, there is no obstacle to the establishment of civilian settlements in the West Bank if they are required by military necessity and governed as are ordinary military installations. On the other hand, there is no defect in the establishment of outposts which are not directed from above [by government], on land purchased on the open market from local residents. When a clearly civilian settlement is established in the West Bank, under a direct decision of the Israeli government and entailing the expropriation of private land, it is difficult not to regard this as a violation of the Geneva Convention.”

Antonio Cassese wrote that “The prohibition on using land belonging to the occupied state or to its inhabitants for purposes other than those referred to above (military needs of the occupant, etc.) is strengthened by Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which provides that 'the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its civilian population into the territory it occupies.' This provision is but the logical corollary of the requirement of customary international law whereby the occupant is not allowed to use the property of the occupied country, or of its inhabitants, for the furtherance of its own economic or other interests. Plainly, the transfer of civilians from the occupying state into the occupied territory cannot but serve economic, social or 'strategic' needs of the occupying state as such. To this extent it is strictly prohibited.”

Also the judges of the ICJ found that “As regards these settlements, the Court notes that Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its ow11 civilian population into the territory it occupies." That provision prohibits not only depor- tations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to organize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory.

In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited”

The Israeli government provides incentives for Israelis to move into the West Bank settlements. The Israel government then is responsible for providing the infrastructure, and supplies like water, for the settlements. It cannot be claimed that everything is done voluntarily by Israeli citizens.

Or as Adam Roberts has wrote: “... As with deportations, so with settlements: there have been some claims that Israeli practices are compatible with international norms, including those of the fourth Geneva Convention. A distinction has been drawn between the transfer of people - which is forbidden under article 49 - and the voluntary settlement of nationals on an individual basis; and it has been asserted that there is nothing wrong with settlements in the sense of army bases where soldiers are engaged in agriculture for part of the time. Civilian settlements have also been called necessary for the occupying power's security, and therefore essential if the occupying power is to preserve public order and safety. Such arguments are far from convincing. In particular, even if voluntary settlement of nationals on an individual basis were permissible under article 49, the ambitious settlement program of the 1980s, which was planned, encouraged and financed at the governmental level, does not meet that description. Moreover, it is doubtful whether the settlement program was primarily intended to contribute to the occupying power's security and whether, in any event, it has contributed to that end; by causing friction with the Palestinian inhabitants of the territories, the program may even have added to the work of the IDF. The settlement program is quite simply contrary to international law.”

The ICRC commentary on Article 49(6) states that this paragraph was “intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories.” And this is exactly what Israel is currently doing, colonizing the West Bank. B’Tselem says that “the construction of these settlements has completely changed the West Bank map and substantially worsened the situation of the Palestinian population.”

B'Tselem has also published an article refuting the findings of the Levy report. That can be found here: http://www.btselem.org/setllements/20120711_levy_committee_report

 

This is just a little more on the "no state owned the West Bank" argument. The International Court of Justice went over this in "LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY"

Look at section 95:http://www.israellawresourcecenter....dvisoryopinion2003/fulltext/icjao2003text.htm

The Court notes that, according to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that Convention is applicable when two conditions are fulfilled: that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized); and that the conflict has arisen between two contracting parties. If those two conditions are satisfied, the Convention applies, in particular, in any territory occupied in the course of the conflict by one of the contracting parties.

The object of the second paragraph of Article 2 is not to restrict the scope of application of the Convention, as defined by the first paragraph, by excluding therefrom territories not falling under the sovereignty of one of the contracting parties. It is directed simply to making it clear that, even if occupation effected during the conflict met no armed resistance, the Convention is still applicable.

This interpretation reflects the intention of the drafters of the Fourth Geneva Convention to protect civilians who find themselves, in whatever way, in the hands of the occupying Power. Whilst the drafters of the Hague Regulations of 1907 were as much concerned with protecting the rights of a State whose territory is occupied, as with protecting the inhabitants of that territory, the drafters of the Fourth Geneva Convention sought to guarantee the protection of civilians in time of war, regardless of the status of the occupied territories, as is shown by Article 47 of the Convention.

That interpretation is confirmed by the Convention's travaux préparatoires. The Conference of Government Experts convened by the International Committee of the Red Cross (hereinafter, "ICRC") in the aftermath of the Second World War for the purpose of preparing the new Geneva Conventions recommended that these conventions be applicable to any armed conflict "whether [it] is or is not recognized as a state of war by the parties" and "in cases of occupation of territories in the absence of any state of war" (Report on the Work of the Conference of Government Experts for the Study of the Conventions for the Protection of War Victims, Geneva, 14 26 April 1947, p. . The drafters of the second paragraph of Article 2 thus had no intention, when they inserted that paragraph into the Convention, of restricting the latter's scope of application. They were merely seeking to provide for cases of occupation without combat, such as the occupation of Bohemia and Moravia by Germany in 1939.

 

We also must acknowledge that the Palestinians have also been in gross violation of the Geneva Conventions and have also committed crimes against humanity and war crimes as well as the Israelis. There is blood on both the Israeli and Palestinian hands.

 

Well, the proof of the pudding is that for some 45 years Israel has avoided complying because it "gave it's word" and neither has it been forced to comply based on the UN Charter, because the US :

# keeps vetoing resolutions aimed at compliance
# it's president airs flagrantly contrary deflections such as "facts on the ground"
# when Israel is threatened with penalties for non-compliance (academic sanctions; investment withdrawal; technology restrictions) the US official policy is absolutely contrary to the stream

So Israel's international relations, crumbling as they have been over the past 6 years (particularly as a consequence of Operation Cast Lead and its violation of the Law of the Sea), play absolutely zero effective role while to US refuses to walk the talk of its UN voting.

So where to now, Shiva? How does the international community get the "Great Satan" to stop playing silly buggers?

 

The idea of the wall sir, was a great success, it has helped to minimize the Arab attacks on the Jewish population. Please Google WALLS and find out how many of these were built in the world for the same purpose.


L

In response to your exxagerate post, I have to point out that Israel does not fall under the Geneva convention articles, Israel does not occupy any foreign soil, Israel is its own realm. In addition ISRAEL OWES NOTHING TO NO ONE, and in remembering past history please read some more...

It was not until February 22, 1948, that Transjordan broke its last links with Britain to become nominally independent. Its army, however, remained under British command and invaded western Palestine, - conquering large tracts, including part of Jerusalem. All Jews were either killed or expelled.

In 1967 King Hussein thought he would be able to complete the conquest of all of Palestine (since 77% of it was already under his command). He attacked Israel..., was roundly beaten and forced back across the Jordan. The Israelis stopped at the Jordan River..., although they could easily have rolled on to Amman. They stopped because they hoped that the original 1922 partition would be the accepted consensus. But it was not... Still the Arabs want everything. Is there any moral duty to give them anything at all, let alone everything?

The present division of Palestine (77% Trans-Jordan and 23% Cis-Jordan) is certainly not unfair to the Arabs. Although many Palestinian Arabs as well as Palestinian Jews have been innocent victims of war, it is nonetheless a fact that Arab hate against the Jews is the cause of all this fighting, and Israel cannot be expected to take moral responsibility for this or its consequences.

The purely moral issues are quite clear. If the Palestinian Arabs have been wronged, it was by their own leadership and the other Arab states. As long as they do not dissociate themselves from these warlike policies, they must share the blame for the troubles they have brought upon themselves.

It must be emphasized that we have dealt only with the purely moral question here... The charting of a wise course for the Israeli ship of state is at this instant not steered by the most ideal Captain, but this is what Israel has elected to put at its commanding post...

It is also very important to recognize that there is a false doctrine being preached on this boards by all kinds of self-appointed friends and half-disguised enemies, who make out as if there is a moral case against Israel..., and as a native born Jerusalemite, I resent it !

 

Continued evasion of the topic? The "Wall" has nothing to do with UNSC Resolution 242.

The facts remain that Israel, as well as the Palestinians, are ultimately required to comply with UNSC Resolution 242. As previously addressed Israel cannot unilaterally annex any of the territory it gained military control over in 1967 and it's civilian immigration to those territories is a violation of the explicit conditions of the Geneva Conventions. The Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights, West Bank and E Jerusalem are a violation of International Law and Israel's treaty obligations.

Those are the legal facts in this case and they cannot be disputed.

 

HBendor, besides not responding to Shiva, and then producing half a dozen strawmen and after chatting to them, pretending that you have refuted him in debate, you go further and return to a topic on which you have been defeated over and over again. Not once have you provided proof (other than the deflections and strawmen which you presumably see as representing valid rebuttal) that Israel has sovereignty over the West Bank, because you were systematically defeated on all of the following.

# On various occasions you tired to show that the Palestinians had no right to claim sovereignty over Palestine because they were recent immigrants from neighbouring Arab lands. In each case you were shown to be completely incorrect and that your evidence was either false or derived from cherry-picking and selective editing, or faulty math/demographic data or, at best, a deflectionary strawman.

# On various occasions you tired to show that Balfour and the Mandate for Palestine promised Israel statehood. You were confronted with fully referenced source documents and you were shown to be utterly wrong

# You tried to show that Britain illegally excised Trans-Jordan from the mandated territory and that therefore the 'Palestinians' had already been given their reasonable piece of the Mandate. Again you were shown that Britain followed the League's Mandate rules to the letter and had full LoN approval (after negotiations with the French) to do so. Yet you periodically return to post exactly the same debunked thesis.

# You tried to show that the British Foreign Secretary via the British representative McMahon did not promise Palestine to the Arabs and were shown that what is now Israel can in no way be construed as have been amongst the documented exclusions to the British promise to the Arabs in 1915. Balfour therefore conflicted with a prior British pact. You finally when silent when the geography of the original Syrian provinces were shown to you.

# Even were the 'McMahon' promise to be ignored, you were shown the nonetheless the Balfour declaration, the San Remo agreement and the Mandate for Palestine were all violated by the prejudices brought about to the civil rights of non-Jewish Palestinians caused by the collusion between Britain and the Zionists, and were hence completely illegal, including Jewish immigration beyond levels supported by the Arabs and the moist obvious of all - the proposal to partition Palestine.

# You were shown that UNSCR 181 was utterly illegal because it violated international law in the form of article 26 of the Mandate for Palestine, and that there was therefore no question that the Arabs acted completely according to law in rejecting it, yet you use their perfectly legal rejection as removing rights from them.

# You were shown that nowhere in international law is a 'pre-emptive strike' a permitted action under the modern laws of war.

# You were shown that nowhere in international law is a distinction made between a 'defensive' and an 'aggressive' war, and hence there is absolutely no foundation in law for the acquisition of territory through war, 'defensive' or not, other than via a negotiated settlement

# You were shown that these laws have been in place since the aftermath of World War I and that pointing to territorial acquisitions prior to WWI does not prove any precedence.

# You were shown that the UN ultimately became the holder of the Mandate for Palestine and that by the absence of any formal change to that status, the West Bank cannot be considered to be "up for grabs".

# You tried to show that UNSCR 181 was irrelevant, but you were then faced with the fact that if this were so, then the Israeli declaration of Independence which was based on '181' was unsupported.

# You were shown that the Arabs made offers for peace negotiations and on at least four separate occasions based on UNSCR 242, but that each these was rejected by Israel

# You were shown how Israel carefully avoided situations which might have led to acceptable offers, by placing pre-conditions on negotiations, or, in the case of the Oslo talks, by scuppering them deliberately.

# You were shown how any of the attempts by Israel to claim sovereignty to the West Bank were false, in particular in a majority opinion on this topic delivered by the International Court of Justice (see Khalil's post above for confirmation)

# You were shown how international law prohibits the transfer of an occupiers civilian population into occupied territory, most recently by Shiva.

And yet, despite all of the foregoing, you now post this:

You leave me no choice:

MYTH ALERT!!! MYTH ALERT!!! MYTH ALERT!!!

What is the definition of a troll?

 

I am sorry to say that I was not evading you SHIVA... my computer was down and in the shop right no... I am using my Laptop for the occasion. My post was a retort to Khalil and had nothing to do with your post...
I do not want to be involved with 242 I stated my position and you stated yours... we disagree and this should end it.
You and I are not making policy for the Arabs nor for Israel <I presume so>

 

Israel has no intention to follow your wishes Shiva... slowly, slowly your unmasking your true desires.

There is no such a thing as Palestine... This nomenclature died the moment the country opted for 'ISRAEL' as a country designation.
The so called title of Palestinians was suggested by Arafat in 1964... we did not have a fight with his entity at the time since he had none.
We liberated the country from the yoke of the Jordanian Army led at the time by British Officers... With your permission I would like to retort to other posts now... have a nice day.

 

My desire for Israel would be for it to become a respected member of the world community by honoring it's treaty obligations and international laws. If the government of Israel has no intention of doing this then that government has no valid foundation for existing.

As the UN Charter requires member nations must abide by UNSC Resolutions and if they don't then it's the responsibility of all other UN member nations to do whatever is necessary to force that compliance. The days of the United States shielding Israel from international economic sanctions will come to an end and then Israel imports and exports will cease.

It's in the hands of the Israeli government as to whether Israel survives or not. The Israeli govenment has to decide on whether it will follow international laws and honor it's treaty obligations or not. If it decides against it then Israel is doomed by it's own actions.

 

Ok we will take this under advisement...

 

I believe it's a good thing to consider. By analogy if I knew two people and one had absolute integrity and the other had no integrity at all which would I choose to be around and support? Which one would I have respect for?

A nation honoring it's treaties is all about it's national integrity. If a nation honors it's treaty obligations it will be respected in the world community but one that doesn't honor it's treaty obligations won't be respected by any other nation eventually.