Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: An Assessment of International Law: The Arabs and BBC Have Lied

  1. #1
    Canajew
    Guest

    An Assessment of International Law: The Arabs and BBC Have Lied

    It is abundantly clear that news organizations such as the BBC have sided with the Palestinians in their assertions regarding international law. References to the West Bank and Gaza as "illegally occupied Palestinian lands" and to Israeli settlements outside of the armistice demarcation lines as "illegal Israeli settlements" within Most media reports belies the fact that the mainstream media has internalized Palestinian pronouncements about the legality of various actions.

    From what I have seen, these media organizations have not based these assertions on any actual legal analyses, rather they seem to merely have adopted terminology they feel is correct. They are wrong, and it is really no surprise that the Arabsand Plaestinians have provided falsehoods and manipulations of fact rather than legitimate arguments. Tis is, of course, entirely consistent with past practices.

    What follows is an analysis of International law as it applies to the TERRITORIAL issues surrounding the Israeli-Arab conflict. It is not meant to address the humanitarian aspects of international law which have similarly been manipulated by the Palestinians and their supporters (like invoking the Geneva conventions and all the rest). If I get a chance, this issue belongs in a separate thread.

    Now, when speaking of international law and legitimacy, it is important to pick an appropriate starting point for analysis. While I do not assert that i know this proper starting point, Ifigure that if we start at the earliest relevant date, while there may be irrelevancies, we will not cut out any necessary information.

    So I will start with the conquest of the land by the Ottomans in 1517. Before this, the land had been occupied by a succession of empires stretching back to the Roman empire and its dislocation of ancient Jewish sovereignty over the land.

    The League of Nations, The Palestine Mandate and British “Trusteeship”

    In 1917, Great Britain captured the province of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire. In 1920, a conference of nations was held at San Reno, Italy, to implement the terms of the treaty of Versailles, which formally terminated WWI. The Treaty ( http://history.acusd.edu/gen/text/ve...ty/ver001.html ) included provisions creating the League of Nations (the precursor to the United Nations) and establishing a system of international mandates for the temporary governance of the world's remaining non-sovereign territories. The non-sovereign territory of Palestine was assigned to Great Britain, as Mandatory TRUSTEE, pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (the covenant being the first 26 Articles of the Treaty of Versailles).

    From Webster's 1913 Dictionary
    ( http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/trustee )

    Trustee n. (Law)

    A person to whom property is legally committed in trust, to be applied either for the benefit of specified individuals, or for public uses; one who is intrusted with property for the benefit of another; also, a person in whose hands the effects of another are attached in a trustee process.

    So as per the legal grant of a TRUSTEESHIP in the Mandate of Palestine, Great Britain was given sovereign control over the territory. However, as a matter of law, a trustee is not permitted to do anything that would be either expressly against the mandate that the trustee was mandated to protect, or do to anything which is inimical to the interests of the person or people for whom the trust was created. There is a special fiduciary relationship between the trustee and the object of the trust.

    ( http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f026.htm )

    FIDUCIARY DUTY - An obligation to act in the best interest of another party. For instance, a corporation's board member has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders, a trustee has a fiduciary duty to the trust's beneficiaries, and an attorney has a fiduciary duty to a client.

    So for what purpose was this trusteeship created, and what powers were vested in the mandatory trustee in order to further this purpose.

    The relevant parts of the League of Nations enabling legislation for the Palestine Mandate are replicated below:

    ( http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/palmanda.htm )

    The Council of the League of Nations:

    Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

    Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people , it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

    Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

    Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

    Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
    confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:

    ARTICLE 1.

    The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.

    ART. 2.

    The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

    ART. 5.

    The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power .

    ART. 6.

    The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes .

    ART. 7.

    The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

    ART. 15.
    The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief .
    …

    ART. 25.
    In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine (i.e. what is now Jordan) as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, [B] provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, [B] 16 and 18

    ART. 27.
    The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.

    The Land governed by this mandate consisted of approximately 120,450 km2. Of the total lands, approximately 22,990 km2, or 22% of the total, lay to the west of the Jordan river, while the remaining 78% consisted of what is today Jordan and the Golan Heights.

  2. #2
    Canajew
    Guest

    Part 2

    Later in 1932, the Mandatory Trustee for Palestine effectively severed from the mandate what is now the State of Jordan, by creating in this part of the Palestine Mandate the semi-autonomous Emirate of Trans-Jordan. All Jewish immigration to these territories was barred by the Mandatory Trustee.

    Article 25 of the Mandatory Enabling Legislation which provides that, “the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions”, implicitly authorized the mandatory trustee to carve the lands east of the Jordan out of the Mandate, it was NOT allowed to bar the entry of Jews into that area, as Article 25 contained the specific prohibition: “provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15…” As seen above, Article 15 provides, in part: “No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.”

    As the term Palestine in the Mandate Enabling Legislation obviously referred to the entirety of the mandate rather than that portion which TODAY is understood to mean Palestine, the combined effects of Articles 25 and 15 rendered the actions of the Trustee in barring Jewish settlement in the semi-autonomous region of mandatory Palestine named Trans-Jordan as patently illegal and in direct violation of the trustee’s obligations under the Mandate.

    The Golan Heights

    Soon after, the trustee once again violated the express provisions of the Mandate, but this express violation continues to legal relevance today. In 1923 Great Britain, acting as the trustee for Mandatory Palestine, ceded to France, as the trustee of Mandatory Syria, the lands known as the Golan Heights. This transfer was patently illegal under the express terms of the Birtish Mandate to administer Palestine. To wit, Article 5 of the Mandatory legislation provides: The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

    As France was clearly a “foreign power” within the meaning of Article 5, Great Britain, as the Mandatory Trustee was not authorized in law to make such a transfer. As such, this transfer of sovereignty over the Golan Heights from mandatory Palestine to mandatory Syria was ultra vires (outside the power) of the British Mandatory trustee. To simplify, the British had no legal AUTHORITY to transfer these lands.

    This is of course relevant today, as the Golan Heights are now again within the scope of the direct legal descendant of the Palestine mandate. Since the initial transfer was illegal under the Mandate, it follows that Syria does not have a legal claim to the territory. As such, Israel is not “illegally occupying” the Golan Heights.

    The “Occupied Territories” and the Legality of Jewish Settlements

    Between 1922 and 1948, the British trustee fundamentally violated the terms of its trust mandate by permitting open Arab immigration while tightly restricting Jewish immigration. Violations also included the expulsion of Jews from Hebron in 1929 (again a violation of Article 15). The demographic balance in this period was altered in large part due to the failure of Britain to fulfil its duty as a trustee to uphold the terms of its enabling legislation.

    In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 181, commonly known as the Palestine Partition Plan, which called for a termination of the Mandate for Palestine and the division of its remaining territory (i.e. the 22% not ceded to the independent nation of Trans-Jordan, created the year before, in 1946) into three separate entities – an Arab sector, a set of loosely joined Jewish cantons, and an internationally administered district of Jerusalem.

    This resolution, as a Resolution of the General Assembly, was not binding under international law, though it was subsequently accepted by the Jewish self-governance institutions that had already been created in Palestine. Arabs living in Palestine, however, rejected this proposition, and starting in November 1947 began a sustained jihad against the Jewish communities living in Palestine.

    While Great Britain’s de facto abdication of its Mandatory responsibilities as Mandatory trustee in February 1947 (when it referred matters to the UN) had effectively terminated its authority to administer the mandate, it did NOT terminate the mandate itself, especially since resolution 181 was rejected by the Arabs in Palestine and the Arab states, and thus was never implemented. However, the creation of independent states in Trans-Jordan in 1946 and Israel in 1948, did remove these territories from the Mandate’s ambit. Neither were given to a foreign nation in violation of Article 5 (like the transfer of the Golan to French Syria) and both had ascended to independence.

    Thus, as the mandate was never terminated, it, and the enabling legislation which created it and delineated its mission and authority, continued to apply to the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

    Subsequent to the Israeli declaration of independence, The “Palestinian” Arabs (who at the time did not consider themselves to be “Palestinian”) were joined by the armies of six surrounding Arab nations in an attempt to destroy the nascent State of Israel, thereby effecting a retroactive nullification of the internationally sanctioned Palestine mandate and its internationally sanctioned objects. In the course of defending itself in that war, the State of Israel expanded its sovereign control from 11% of Mandatory Palestine to 17% of the original mandate. The remaining 5% not ceded to the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan was occupied by Jordan (the West Bank), Egypt (Gaza) and Syria (the Golan Heights, as per the illegal transfer of these lands from the Mandatory trustee to French Syria).

    In the process of Trans-Jordan and Egypt’s ILLEGAL conquest of the remained of Mandatory Palestine, the conquering armies destroyed EVERY ONE of the existing Jewish communities in these conquered mandatory lands – both those that were LEGALLY created under the authority of the Mandate (such as Kfar Darom in Gaza) and those which had existed from time immemorial (such as the ancient Jewish neighbourhoods situated in East Jerusalem) – and the occupiers massacred or expelled ALL of these communities inhabitants.

    However, consistent with Israel’s detractors arguments that Israeli occupation does not change the legal status of the “occupied territories”, Egyptian and Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and Gaza did NOT alter the fact that these territories remained under the authority of the League of Nations Mandate and its enabling legislation.

    As a result, because these illegal occupations did NOT remove the Mandatory rights provided in Article 6, to wit: “… close settlement by Jews on the Land”, Israeli settlements created since 1967 DO NOT violate international law, as the relevant law to be applied is the Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations and carried on by its successor, the UN.

    This seldom acknowledged truth of international law is reinforced by the fact that the 1949 armistice agreements between Israel and the invading foreign armies, which were negotiated under supervision of the United Nations, essentially declared that the Armistice Demarcation Lines that surrounded Israel at the end of that war were NOT to be deemed its lawful international boundaries but ONLY military separation-of-forces lines determined “without prejudice” to the combating parties’ “rights, claims and positions … in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question … ”.
    Last edited by Canajew; 11-28-2003 at 09:23 AM.

  3. #3
    Canajew
    Guest

    part 3

    Relevant Excerpts:

    Israel-Egypt Armistice Agreement dated February 24, 1949 (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/isegarm.html )

    …

    Article IV

    …

    3. It is further recognised that rights, claims or interests of a non-military character in the area of Palestine covered by this Agreement may be asserted by either Party, and that these, by mutual agreement being excluded from the Armistice negotiations, shall be, at the discretion of the Parties, the subject of later settlement. It is emphasised that it is not the purpose of this Agreement to establish, to recognise, to strengthen, or to weaken or nullify, in any way, any territorial, custodial or other rights, claims or interests which may be asserted by either Party in the area of Palestine or any part or locality thereof covered by this Agreement , whether such asserted rights, claims or interests derive from Security Council resolutions, including the resolution of 4 November 1948 and the Memorandum of 13 November 1948 for its implementation, or from any other source. The provisions of this Agreement are dictated exclusively by military considerations and are valid only for the period of the Armistice.

    Article V

    1. The line described in Article VI of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Line and is delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolutions of the Security Council of 4 and 16 November 1948.

    2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

    3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.

    Israel–Trans-Jordan Armistice Agreement dated April 3, 1949 ( http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH018s0 )

    Article II

    With a specific view to the implementation of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948, the following principles and purposes are affirmed:

    1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognised;

    2. It is also recognised that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

    Article IV

    1. The lines described in articles V and VI of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Lines and are delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948.

    2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Lines is to delineate the lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.

    3. Rules and regulations of the armed forces of the Parties, which prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement with application to the Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI.

    From these agreements, it is clear that the Armistice Demarcation Lines were not borders, nor were they ever recognized as such. The rights granted to the Jews (and thus Israel) pursuant to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine were not extinguished, and as a result those who assert that final borders between Israel and a Palestinian State must be the 1949 Armistice Demarcation Lines are making NORMATIVE judgments rather than judgments based on the relevant international law.

    If anything, sovereign Israeli control coupled with a majority of Israeli Jewish inhabitants would provide more justification for that area becoming part of Israel rather than for it being ceded to a Palestinian State and having all of its Jewish inhabitants expelled.

    Further, as per Articles 77, 79 80 of the United Nations Charter of 1945 ( http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter ) , even the United Nations ITSELF cannot lawfully terminate the collective Jewish rights of settlement and self-determination authorized by the Mandate for Palestine without Israel’s formal consent. To wit:

    “… The terms of trusteeship for each territory to be placed under the trusteeship system, including any alteration or amendment , shall be agreed upon by the states directly concerned.”

    As such, not only is continued Jewish settlement of those lands which remained part of the Palestine Mandate perfectly legal (from an international law perspective; many Israeli regulations place legitimate legal limits on settlement activity), it will continue to be perfectly legal until Israel expressly assents to the alteration of the original Mandate.

    The UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the six-day war in 1967, did not alter this fundamental reality. This resolution was passed under Chapter VI of the U.N Charter ( http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter ) , which provides for making “recommendations” regarding the resolution of issues by the parties involved. Resolutions passed under this Chapter of the UN Charter are non-binding and DO NOT create substantive rights or obligations in law.

    Conclusions

    From the preceding review of the body of international law relevant to the current dispute between Israel and those Arabs who have become known as Palestinian, it has become quite clear that not only is continued Jewish settlement of state lands in the “occupied territories” not illegal, it has been authorized and permitted by the highest currently valid international laws.

    Further, since the act of Great Britain ceding the Golan Heights to French Syria was illegal and ultra-vires Great Britain’s authority as trustee of the Mandate with a fiduciary obligation to uphold the terms of the Mnadate’s enabling legislation, Syria does not have a claim IN LAW for the return of the Golan Heights, and in fact Israel, as the legal descendant of the “Jewish National Home” referred to in the Mandate document has a better claim than they, based both on the Mandate and on the fact that it was captured in a defensive war initiated by Syria.



    So, to sum up, those who blindly claim that isarel is in violation of International law in either its occupation or its settlement of the west bank or glan heights are wrong. Takeo, unless you can refute or nullify any of these points, you are wong on this too, both with respect to the west bank, and with respect to the Golan Heights. I eagerly anticipate a rely.

  4. #4
    Concheeta
    Guest
    Great Posts Canajew--

    For the record- just wanted to add this commentary regarding yesterday's announcement by Koffi Annon that Israel's fence is "counter to international law" or some such --
    The following is one of those clear and simple commentaries, IMO.
    ________________________

    Israeli Fence Violates 'International Law'

    There's a Law Against Border Fences?
    The UN General Assembly has passed a resolution demanding that Israel halt the construction of a controversial security barrier separating Israel from Palestinian areas in the West Bank.

    One hundred and forty-four countries voted with the UN to demand Israel halt construction of its security fence. Backed by the 15-member European Union, the resolution stated that the fence is "in contradiction to relevant provisions of international law."

    This is particularly interesting. There is an international law against building a fence around your border?

    How many countries, do you suppose, have border fences? Lessee, America has fenced portions of its southern border to prevent illegal aliens from sneaking into the country. There are even fenced areas along the US-Canadian border.

    So where is the UN resolution condemning the US for its border fences?

    Just for the record, there is no international law that forbids countries from building border fences. But there IS an international law that forbids the UN from involving itself in the internal domestic affairs of a member state. It is part of the UN's own charter.

    Israel, although the UN doesn't like to admit it, is a member state of the UN. On the other hand, there is no state of Palestine. What the Palestinians claim as their state is legally, under international law, Israel.

    If not, then California and Texas are not part of America, since we got them the same way. We won them in a war.

    The same way Israel got possession of the West Bank from Jordan and Gaza from Egypt. Israel WON possesion of them in a war of aggression STARTED by the other side.

    On June 1, 1967, the West Bank was part of Jordan and Gaza and the Gaza Strip were part of Egypt. Egypt and Jordan were among the combatants defeated by Isrel in the Six Days' War. Had the Arabs won, would the UN now be condemning Yasser Arafat for fencing out the Jews? Unlikely. There wouldn't BE any Jews.

    But the Arabs lost. When the war was over, the West Bank and Gaza were part of Israel. Nothing unusual about that. There is only so much land. Nobody will make anymore. That is how countries are built. Every country on the face of the planet was once somebody else's land. Every UN member state used to be something else.

    Every Arab state in the UN was created by the same pen that drew the borders of Israel at the San Remo Conference in 1923.

    Since British Foreign Secretary Winston Churchill drew the borders of Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, if their borders are legitimate, then Israel's is equally legitimate.

    In this case, however, the UN finds itself interfering in the domestic affairs of a member state on behalf of an insurgent population. If the UN is going to pontificate about 'international law', they should start there.

    That is all the UN is doing is pontificating -- because there is no such thing as 'international law'. If there were, the UN would be its principle violator.

    'International law' is what the UN says it is on any given day. Since it doesn't actually exist in fact, the UN can declare anything it wants to be a violation.

    That is how the UN arrived at the conclusion that the legal state of Israel has no right to build a fence through the MIDDLE of its territory -- since, under 'international law', either the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel, or California and Texas are part of Mexico.

    The United Nations resolution demands Israel stop building its security fence, but contains not a single word referencing why the fence was necessary in the first place.

    "As long as the majority in this assembly will pander and tolerate these rituals, no one should wonder why the victims of terrorism and those who hope for peace look elsewhere for guidance, protection and inspiration," Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman said after the vote.

    The resolution requests Secretary-General Kofi Annan to submit periodic reports on Israel's compliance, with the first due within one month. Once the report is received, it says, "further actions should be considered, if necessary, within the United Nations system."

    The resolution "demands that Israel stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in departure of the Armistice Line of 1949 and is in contradiction to relevant provisions of international law."

    As we've already pointed out, there is no 'relevant provision of international law' that is applicable here. The proof is in the fact that the UN resolution fails to cite the 'relevant provision' that Israel is in contravention of.

    Gillerman demanded to know whether any nation "seriously thinks it legitimate for the secretary-general to focus a report on Israeli security measures but not on Palestinian violations and terrorism that necessitate those measures."

    Think of it! Israel is a UN member state. The Palestinians are an insurgent rebel population using terrorism against women and children to force Israel to surrender land legally annexed following its victory in a war of aggression forced upon them by neighboring states.

    The United Nations is siding with the insurgent rebels against a UN member state, to the point where they have passed a resolution that, in effect, forbids the member state from protecting its citizens against attack by rebel insurgents!

    Now we turn again to the words of the prophet Zechariah, who predicted this exact situation, 2,500 years ago.

    "Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE EARTH be gathered together against it." (Zechariah 12:2-3)

    Of all the nations of the world, only Israel, the US, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands voted against the assembly resolution.

    Commentary on the News Thursday, October 23, 2003
    Jack Kinsella Excerpted from the Omega Letter Daily Intelligence Digest Vol: 25 Issue: 22 © http://www.omegaletter.com

  5. #5
    Concheeta
    Guest
    Also waiting for an argument against your excellent presentation.

  6. #6
    Canajew
    Guest
    Originally posted by Concheeta
    [B]Great Posts Canajew--

    For the record- just wanted to add this commentary regarding yesterday's announcement by Koffi Annon that Israel's fence is "counter to international law" or some such --
    The following is one of those clear and simple commentaries, IMO.
    an interesting note, but I followed the story you refer to above as it was breaking on Friday ( I think). The interesting thing about it was that almost uniformly all the different media reports said that Anan called it illegal but they did not quote the particular phrase he used. It became clear that all of the reports I was reading, including the one in the Jerusalem Post, were originally drawn from AP. It seems that AP decided to make that little judgment for itself and the rest of the wrold's media picked up on it.

    But of course building the wall is not illegal. the only possible justification for its legality would be a prohibition by a binding United Nations Security Council resolution OR pursuant to international treaty. The UN general assembly can't make anything binding and so what it had to say on the matter in its resolutions makes NO difference from the perspective of international legality.


    And to clarify Israel has never annexed the west bank or gaza. It has annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, extending soverteignty and allowing all those living there to citizenship (and voting rights) in Israel as of right, but the weswt bank and gaza continue to be administered territories. Annexing would be problematic as Israel has no intention of giving the vote in isareli elections to the palestinians, and can you really blame it?

    But there seems no reason why Israel cannot legally annex PART of the west bank, especially where that land's inhabitants are currently majority Jewish and demand to be separated. it is quite clear that the palestinians, once they do get sovereignty, would not provide adequate protections and safeguards to those Jews living there, and as this was one of the largest justifications for the Peel commission to recommend partition in 1936 (as the Arabs couldn't seem to stop pogromming Jews even them), it makes sense that this lack of protection (and indeed the common threats of expulsion) would justify this area's inhabitants exercising their self-determination rights (similar to those rights of self-determination that provide the only REAL legal/moral justification for Palestinian autonomy and perhaps independence).

  7. #7
    Concheeta
    Guest
    CanaJew
    I see nobody has yet come back with an argument, nevertheless. Sounds to me that the AP is passing on a bit of its propaganda then in this characterisation. Have you notified CAMERA or HonestReporting about it?

    Also I wanted to ask you if you would be averse to my quoting your presentation in its entirety at another site - possibly http://middleeastinfo.org/ -- (in the forums) and if so how you wish to be credited.

    Thank you, Concheet

    note:
    The interesting thing about it was that almost uniformly all the different media reports said that Anan called it illegal but they did not quote the particular phrase he used.
    the article I posted below says that the general assembly resolution called it illegal:
    the resolution stated that the fence is "in contradiction to relevant provisions of international law."

  8. #8
    Canajew
    Guest
    Originally posted by Concheeta
    CanaJew
    I see nobody has yet come back with an argument, nevertheless. Sounds to me that the AP is passing on a bit of its propaganda then in this characterisation. Have you notified CAMERA or HonestReporting about it?

    Also I wanted to ask you if you would be averse to my quoting your presentation in its entirety at another site - possibly http://middleeastinfo.org/ -- (in the forums) and if so how you wish to be credited.

    Thank you, Concheet

    note:


    the article I posted below says that the general assembly resolution called it illegal:
    Maybe this is how it happened, that AP used this condemnation as illegal to say that the act iself was illegal. Of course, as the general assembly has no actual authority to rule on anything, this would be like the media relying on the opinion of a court clerk to say that something is against the law which would still be a failure of Jornalism.

    I have not reported this to honest reporting. They seem to usually be on the ball with AP stuff so I figured I'll just wait and see.

    You can quote everything above. It is really just legal anlaysis rather than any sort of work that I feel I created. It is a kind of sloppy analysis, though - left out a bit about the transfer of law and authority from the League to the UN, and didn't proof read so likely lots of errors - but if you want to use it feel free. But if someone might want to give me a job doing this sort of thing, you can direct them to me here .

    And I am not even really a hard-core settlement supporter, I just figured that since the palestinaisn love to make up things about the law, and since I am a lawyer and sometimes bored at the office, that I might take a stab at doing a little bit of actual research and finding out exaclty what the law has to say about all these types fo things.

    For me this type of analysis is more for an understanding of WHAT IS rather than WHAT OUGHT TO BE. And under international laws these settlements are not illegal. I'd love to get the BBC or the like to address these points, as they love to call settlements 'illegal' all the time, but I do not believe this argument then allows for the conclusion that settlements are a good thing or OUGHT to be allowed or any of those things.

  9. #9
    Concheeta
    Guest
    Here is the "Report" in PDF form:

    http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/...pdf?OpenElement 11 pages
    and the following: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE NOON BRIEFING
    BY FRED ECKHARD
    SPOKESMAN FOR THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS -UN HEADQUARTERS, NEW YORK -Friday, November 28, 2003 http://www.un.org/News/ossg/hilites.htm

    ANNAN: ISRAEL NOT COMPLYING WITH DEMAND TO HALT BARRIER
    IN OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY

    Secretary-General Kofi Annan today released his report, requested by the General Assembly, on the Government of Israel’s compliance with a General Assembly Resolution, which demands that Israel stop and reverse construction of a barrier in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

    The Secretary-General concludes that Israel is not in compliance with this demand.

    In the report, the Secretary-General acknowledges and recognizes Israel’s right and duty to protect its people against terrorist attacks.


    The Secretary-General’s position has always been that the State of Israel has the legitimate right to live in peace and security. Nevertheless, he points out, that this right "should not be carried out in a way that is in contradiction to international law (my bolds), that could damage the longer-term prospects for peace by making the creation of an independent, viable and contiguous Palestinian state more difficult, or that increases suffering among the Palestinian people."

    In addition to reporting on Israel’s compliance with the Resolution, the Secretary-General informs the General Assembly about the humanitarian and socio-economic impact of completed Barrier sections, and the implications of the official planned route. His findings include the following:

    · Approximately 56,000 Palestinians already live in enclaves created by the Barrier, most notably the town of Qalqiliya, in which access to land, markets, jobs and services is seriously impeded.
    The Secretary-General remains convinced that the only outcome that will bring lasting security and prosperity to both sides is a just, durable and comprehensive peace in the Middle East in which two sovereign and independent states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders.

    He urges the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority to go back to the negotiating table to reach this end.
    _______________________________________
    same old, same old blah blah

    However it doesn't sound like "is" in violation -- interesting and clever choice of words: "shouldn't be carried out in a way that is in contradiction to international law.." (what would that be, I wonder?) Of course the mere mention of Israel being in contradiction of international law is all the fodder the Israel-haters needs!

    (ps-- thanks for the permission --if I get requests for a lawyer on these issues I will surely pass it on to you) pps-- I take it you are Canadian. Did you see the article regarding Canada implementing Sharia law? I shall try to find the link for you.
    Last edited by Concheeta; 12-01-2003 at 01:26 PM.

  10. #10
    Concheeta
    Guest
    NORTHERN EXPOSURE
    Canada prepares to enforce Islamic law
    Judges will give legal sanction to disputes between Muslims
    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35850

  11. #11
    Concheeta
    Guest
    Here it is: from the report:

    http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement


    B. Compliance with resolution ES-10/13
    3. Paragraph 1 of resolution ES-10/13 states that the United Nations General Assembly “demands that Israel stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in
    departure of the Armistice Line of 1949 and is in contradiction to relevant provisions of international law
    ”. Israel has not complied with that demand. It has not stopped or reversed the ongoing construction of the Barrier.
    This is shown by the
    following information from United Nations field monitoring:
    • Ongoing construction in the occupied Palestinian territory, along the north-east boundary of the West Bank and east of Jerusalem
    • Levelling of land for a section in the north-west of the West Bank
    • Ongoing issuance of land requisition orders
    • Release of the first official map showing the planned route of the Barrier and declaration of intent to complete it by 2005.

  12. #12
    Canajew
    Guest
    Originally posted by Concheeta
    NORTHERN EXPOSURE
    Canada prepares to enforce Islamic law
    Judges will give legal sanction to disputes between Muslims
    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35850
    I'm not so worried about this at all. I think we do something similar for Jewish law.

    For me to support such an initiative, I would require:

    that both parties have the option of selecting an Islamic court, and if one does not then the court of competent jurisdiction should hear the case.

    That all punishments and procedures adhere to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with a right to appeal to the ordinary Courts.

    There is nothing wrong with having a dietary case (like kashrut) being dealt with by a religious court, just so long as all parties are in favour of it AND that court cannot do things that an ordinary court cannot - like the detah penalty or like treating different gendered people as unequal before and under the law.

    We are a multicultural country, after all, and quite proud of it.

  13. #13
    Canajew
    Guest
    Originally posted by Concheeta
    Here it is: from the report:

    http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement


    B. Compliance with resolution ES-10/13
    3. Paragraph 1 of resolution ES-10/13 states that the United Nations General Assembly “demands that Israel stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in
    departure of the Armistice Line of 1949 and is in contradiction to relevant provisions of international law
    ”. Israel has not complied with that demand. It has not stopped or reversed the ongoing construction of the Barrier.
    This is shown by the
    following information from United Nations field monitoring:
    • Ongoing construction in the occupied Palestinian territory, along the north-east boundary of the West Bank and east of Jerusalem
    • Levelling of land for a section in the north-west of the West Bank
    • Ongoing issuance of land requisition orders
    • Release of the first official map showing the planned route of the Barrier and declaration of intent to complete it by 2005.
    this, and the actual words of Anans spokesperson, show exactly that they will not within the UN executive refer to what Israel does as illegal (because they know better).

    The UN general assembly did not even mention these laws, only tried to refer to their existence, but it obviously doesn't work this way.

    What we see here, I think, is media spin at work, a general assembly that panders to this spin on pruspose, and a UN head who really is pushing for the false stories to win the day.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •