Regarding your statement that "The pro-Palestinian movement keeps screaming "protection of non-Jewish civil and religious rights": It would seem to me that the pro-Palestinian movement is simply drawing attention one of the two basic tenets of the Mandate, which 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", as Ronstar has previously pointed out. This means that you are proposing that the creation of a Jewish country (as opposed to a Homeland) within the country of Palestine was not in conflict with the Mandate, and that such a creation did not prejudice the civil rights of the 'Arab' and Christian Palestinians. Furthermore, a particular additional prejudice is the following: The Mandate (in Article 26) provides for a mechanism for the resolution of disputes regarding "the interpretation or the application of the provisions of the mandate". During discussion of UNGA 181 in November 1947 the Arab League requested that that piece of international law be applied, namely that "181" be put before the International Court of Justice for an opinion as to the legality of the draft resolution. I note further that the principle verb in article 26 is "shall" and not "might". Instead the UN voted itself the right not to comply with the law. Was that not a violation of Arab rights?
I respectfully disagree, as do most legal analysts on the matter. Article 22 in the context of article 13 of the Covenant of the League of Nations addresses this issue. Howard Grief, a specialist in Israeli constitutional law, is even more clear on the legal nature of the Mandate - http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/02-issue/grief-2.htm Sanford R. Silverburg is also in accord - "Palestine under Britain's mandate was a subject of international law despite the control exercised by Britain (page 38 of Palestine and International Law: Essays on Politics and Economics). The European Centre for Law and Justice concludes - "In sum, the following must be reiterated. First, the Mandate for Palestine was, and remains, a part of international law - http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/52613B182F328F6685257C8B0051561C Perhaps most well-known, John Quigley, Presidents Club Professor in Law, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University in his book THE CASE FOR PALESTINE: AN INTERNATIONAL LAW PERSPECTIVE (2005) places the foundation of his analyses of "181" on the international law provided by the Mandate for Palestine. On a less professional level many pro-Israeli web sites have taken up the same view and proliferated it, e.g.: "The Mandate for Palestine, a legally binding document under international law ..." - http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/14048#.U2B4VvmSwrU
I am on record as stating that wanting to turn back the clock to 1947 in the southern Levant is highly unlikely to be fruitful. Too many pieces of salami have been sliced off in the interim for a returnable sausage to remain. But that does not mean that developments back then are irrelevant. Events in the 19th C are still very relevant as we have recently seen in the Ukraine. So although undoing 181 and its immediate consequences is not likely, their history is important in two ways: 1) The clearly emotional stage of Us-and-Them; Good-guy-Bad-guy, and who got shafted back then, and did they get shafted again repeatedly. However it was not my ox that got gored when 70% of a population was forcibly displaced in 1948/1949, so I am sure that there are Palestinian groups who would vehemently disagree with me, and hence goes a long way to explaining the continuing militancy amongst certain factions. In THAT context the ancient history is still very relevant. 2) Next is the legality; the mechanism whereby Israel gained its independence and subsequent recognition by the UN. This sets clear precedents for today. In this context one could, and I believe should, raise certain questions: # What is the essence of 181. Is it really approval under international law? If so, what statute gives the UN General Assembly the right to create (or break) international law? Or is it as many contend, a recommendation to the Mandate holder, the only entity legally empowered by the still-operating Mandate for Palestine? Was its essence (note) a recommendation to the Security Council? # Who was 181 directed at? Who was the active party? Who was responsible for making the wheels turn? Was it Israel? # If not, how legal was Israels unilateral declaration of independence, quoted in their declaration as being based on 181? Were the steps required by 181 faithfully followed? # What prevents the Palestinians from following the same protocol today? Why should parties supporting of such a step be viewed as anti-peace? What does that matter? # Who currently has sovereignty over Gaza and the West Bank under international law? I invite the readers views
The Palestine Mandate is still effective international law? lol!! laughable absurdity. but if it is, Israel is in SEVERE violation of it, as they daily stomp upon the civil rights of non-Jews in the West Bank.
The Kerry's plan would be the first giant step toward peace and establishing an Arab state, but if the Arabs rejected the offer that Kerry's suggested to them (that the fututre Arab country will be in 67' lines) and they anounced several times that it will be a must in a future establishment of an Arab country, but if the Arab rejected it so how can it be that they want any country? If the Arabs would accepted what Kerry suggested the talks about borders and all that would be discussed, the porpuse of this plan was to "prepare the ground" on the talks about all the rest issues about the Arab country. http://www.imemc.org/article/66765 read the source i gave you and giving you here- its clearly said there that the Palestinians rejected Kerry's plan. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...an-to-recognise-Israel-as-a-Jewish-state.html click on the link and see what is "Kerry's Plan", and what was offering to the Arabs, if you dont want to relate to what i give you so it better for you not to comment back, because oviously you didnt refered to what I gave you and you just reapiting yourself like a broken record. JUST THAT YOU WILL KNOW KERRY"S PLAN WAS POBLISHED ON The New York Times.
Kerry's plan was never published in the NY Times. so we have no idea what exactly the Palestinians rejected.
Thomas Friedman ring any bell? Thomas Friedman, that he is close to the U.S. administration, published it in his column in the New York Times - he is a New York Times journalist!
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/opinion/friedman-why-kerry-is-scary.html?_r=0 It been also published on the Jerusalem post site that I already gave you- http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-P...h-state-339704
"The Kerry Plan, likely to be unveiled soon" do you EVER read the articles that you post????????????????????
The Kerry's Plan likely to be unvelid soon because the Arabs rejected it, so the plan will never be velid, because it wasnt been acceptd by the two sides ( the Israeli Prime Minister accepted it).
You are reapiting yourself over and over again, even when I gave you evidences whwere Kerry's plan published and who rejected it. But let try it one more time: The Arabs rejected Kerry's plan. How I know it? simple, TAKE A LOOK: Source: http://www.imemc.org/article/66765 What is Kerry's Plan? simple, it been published on The New York Times, by their journalist Thomas Freidman, how do i know it? simple, TAKE A LOOK: And why it was written that the Plan likely to be unvalided? simple because there is a possability that some side will not agree to it, and the side was the Arab side, Israel likely accepted it, how do I know? simple, TAKE A LOOK: Source: http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/diplomania/.premium-1.570836
What is Kerry's Plan? simple, it been published on The New York Times, by their journalist Thomas Freidman, how do i know it? simple, TAKE A LOOK: WHERE DID IT PUBLISHED ON? The New York Times by Thomas Friedman. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/op...cary.html?_r=0 you are not reading what I'm giving you and continue reapeting yourself, PLEASE READ WHAT I'M GIVING YOU AND REPLAY PROPERLY AND DO NOT REAPET YOURSELF BECAUSE THE ANSWER OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING I ALREADY ANSWERED YOU AND GAVE YOU EVIDENCES FOR IT.
its not been published. that's what the following line means: "The “Kerry Plan,” likely to be unveiled soon, is expected " we have no idea what the details of the plan are. we have no idea what the Palestinians actually rejected. its all just baseless assumptions and speculation.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/op...cary.html?_r=0 New York Times is a big newspeper in New York, it is not a blog!!
The Kerry Plan has yet to be unveiled. we don't know the details. we don't know what the Palestinians exactly rejected.
klipkap, et al, As a point of consideration, the two citations submitted for our examination (the ECLJ Brief and the Silverburg Brief) are both competent yet unofficial NGO interpretations. (COMMENT) The Mandate was terminated. Whether or not it had applicability to the status of any aspect of law is not in question. It ceased to have any authority on mid-night 14/15 May 1948. The UK was no longer the Mandatory and the content of the Mandate was no longer valid. The Successor Government under the Assembly and the Security Council was in place. The Mandate was authority, direction and instructions from the Allied Powers and League of Nations to the Mandatory (no one else). The Mandatory was no longer in place on May 15, 1948. While the mandate can be considered legal precedence prior to 15 May, it was no longer valid after 14 May. Most Respectfully, R
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/op...cary.html?_r=0 READING COMMENTS ARE ESSENTIAL FOR REPLAYING, PLEASE DO IT BEFORE YOU REPLAY!
stuntman, et al, Reference: NYTs The Opinion Pages | OP-ED COLUMNIST | JAN. 28, 2014 | Thomas L. Friedman: Why Kerry Is Scary I don't always agree with "Friedman," but I like the way he presents his thoughts. His opening is: Secretary of State (SECSTATE) John Kerry will either be: Israels diplomatic salvation, or --- the most dangerous diplomatic fanatic Israel has ever encountered. (COMMENT) As for me, I'm not sure at all that the US is answering the calls of a threatened people. And I'm not at all sure that the US is acting in the best interests of the United States and the world. And I'm very concerned that the SECSTATE cannot explain (in plain language) who the threat is to America (we the people) and what the US interests (to John Q Public) are in the various theaters for which we are involved. Most Respectfully, R
once we actually know what the details of the Kerry Plan were that the Palestinians rejected, we can continue this conversation.
You disputed that the Mandate was international law in so far as the passing of "181" was concerned. My research has shown that to be conclusively an erroneous view. Your subsequent response was then that The mandate was terminated. The mandate was terminated on 15th May 1948, so of course it had pertinence to 181 in November 1947 and the Arabs therefore had full right to invoke its Article 26. What happened 6 months later does not alter that one iota.
What follows is an extract from Rocco's post above with my rebuttals in [red]: [Please excuse the unorthodox reply protocol] -------------------------------------------------------- Rocco: The Mandate was not a "law." It was a directive and an authority. [I believe that has been satisfactorily addressed in post #127 and not refuted in your response #144. The Mandate was international law. But I suspect that, whether it was or was not international law, is irrelevant to the particular portion of our discussion that follows] It was a directive from the Allied Powers and League of Nations to the Mandatory (UK). It was not intended to be interpreted by external influences outside the process. It is not a fundamental law to be used by other than the three parties under which the Mandate applies. [See above red] The Allied Powers and the League of Nations speak to the Mandatory through this document; not the Arab People and the the Jewish People. The Mandate is an authority from the membership of in the League of Nations. It speaks directly to the Mandatory about the expectations the membership has in the Administration of the territory and the people over which the League gave the Mandatory responsibility. The authority, permissions and limitations in the Mandate apply only to the Mandatory; not the Arab People or the Jewish People. [Except insofar as it prescribes courses of action to the Mandatory is response to certain hypothetical situations that might involve or be initiated by those parties in the Mandate territory, e.g. if developments prejudiced the civil rights of the non-Jewish people, they would be a violation of the Mandate and the Mandatory would be obliged to respond. It also prescribes obligations for the Mandatory viz-a-viz third parties, e.g. not to allow the ceding of Palestinian territory to foreign powers, are to follow a specific directive should there be disputes between the Mandatory and certain third parties] The Mandate was not a tool for either the Arab or the Jewish people to use, but a basic guide under which the Mandatory functioned; intended for the Mandatory and not the Arab or Jewish People. [I would put is stronger than that (a basic guide). In modern business parlance it was the Mandatorys Terms of Reference; it contained more than a guide; in fact it contained many obligations] The Mandate, written by the League and Allied Powers, was not unchangeable. The Allied Powers and the League could mold it to address specific needs through The Palestine Order in Council. [I disagree completely with all of this interpretation since I find it to be baseless - see below] The Mandate was not a set of laws like the "Ten Commandments." The tenants could be shaped. [I disagree completely. I give my reasons below as consecutive rebuttals of your position: # The Palestine Order in Council was a purely British institution and creation and hence part of the Mandatory, i.e. Britain # As such it too was fully subject to the terms of the Mandate and could not override them without prior presentation by Britain for League of Nations approval # But neither could the League of Nations override the Mandate terms, i.e. change Britains Terms of Reference, for the following reason: # The Mandate in Article1 states the following: The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate. And those limits were (stated in the prelude) it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League (i.e. outside the stipulations of the mandate terms), shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations [What this means is that Britain (incl. its Palestine Order in Council) had the FULL (i.e. sole) right to legislate regarding the Mandate and to administer it, but that it could only do so with League approval where issues were involved no catered for by the Mandate. Under no circumstances can this be taken to mean that the League of Nations could change the Mandate terms (including specifically for the purposes of our current discussion, Articles 1, 6 and 26) without prior legislative proposals from Britain And that is the reason that 181 was a recommendation to Britain and not an order to her or to third parties. This is a key point in this debate.] Finally, the recommendations by the UN Special Committee on Palestine and the subsequent Resolution adopted by the General Assembly of 1947 was not implemented under the Mandate. It was coordinated to be implemented after the termination of the Mandate. GA/RES/181(II) and the establishment of the Jewish State was implemented under the UN Trustee Program and NOT the League Covenant Mandate Program. [The UNSCOP recommendations were not binding and are therefore irrelevant to our issue] [/LIST] [*]The phrase "Jewish National Home" is not a single entity concept; but a diverse collection of potentials. A national home is a open ended set in which a number of possible political solutions are described without being preferential or specific to one over another. [Not without limits. It has to be interpreted within the context of the remainder of the Mandate, and that contains a separate entity concept, namely country which in my version of English is largely equivaklent to State, so in the Mandate context, Homeland does not contemplate State/Country ] A single state [Not so. See immediately above. In the text of the Mandate the word State is only used as an adjective or to refer to foreign entities. ] , safe haven territory in which Jewish People were free to immigrate without objection is one possible "national home" solution. [Not so; there was no freedom. Immigration was to be strictly controlled by the Mandatory ] A union of the Arab and Jewish political interest created either by treaty or an adopted common constitution, with the central government being required to provide support for all members. A federated state in which the political entities (Arab and Jewish) make a formation characterized by a union of partially self-governing regions (states or provinces) under a central government; with a the division of power between the Arab and Jewish constituents --- each contributing to a central government. The two-state solution, in which the territory is divided and each constituent (Arab and Jewish) independently form individual and autonomous sovereignties. [Not so, see red above. The Mandate wording plus the 1922 British White Paper preclude this creation of separate states ]
