Is Israel the Same as South Africa?

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are very close.

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,

Then:

Reaffirming further its resolution 66/18 of 30 November 2011 and all relevant resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem, bearing in mind that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community, and emphasizing the need for a way to be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States,

1) If there really was a resolution 181, wouldn't Jerusalem be occupied UN territory?

2) If E. Jerusalem is Palestinian territory, what is there to negotiate?

(COMMENT)

GA/RES/181(II) did exist (and to a degree still active). And Jerusalem (technically UN Trusteeship territory) was occupied from 1948-to-1967 by the Arab Legion of Jordan. In 1967, Jerusalem was quasi-Liberated but not relinquished by Israeli forces.

It appears that East Jerusalem is not recognized as Palestinian territory. However, the wording suggest that the finality is in abeyance (some what ambiguous); possibly waiting negotiated outcomes.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are a few reasons for that.

Holy Cow, Yes! The State of Palestine (West Bank, Gaza, and Arab Jerusalem) has been sovereign since 1988. Where have you been? However, "Arab Jerusalem" is still up under the ambiguous category.

What is different about Palestine's declaration of 1988 and its declaration of 1948?

Why is one mentioned and not the other?

(COMMENT)

First, GA/RES/181(II) was still active and on the table. Israel had accepted, the newly reconstituted Arab Higher Committee (Arab League) rejected.

Resolution 181 had to be recognized by both sides. If only one side accepts an agreement, there is no agreement. Your reason is false.

Second, with the territory in trusteeship, the trustee would not entertain a second declaration covering the same territory as covered by the GA/RES/181(II) apportionment.

Do you have a link for that? The UN did not recognize Israel in the 1949 armistice agreements which were 6 months after the Palestinian declaration. Even when the UN did recognize Israel it was not on the 181 proposed territory and Jerusalem was not the international city. More evidence that there was no resolution 181.

Third, on the Declaration of Independence for the State of Israel (MAY), War broke-out and the Partition Plan was held in abeyance. By the time of the Armistice, territorial lines had changed and the Israeli areas of control had expanded. This outcome then took precedence over the Arab SEPTEMBER declaration and war of aggression. The Arab's were not to be rewarded for their defiance of the UN Trusteeship in their attempt to take by military force (acquisition by conquest) what was beyond the GA/RES/181(II) apportionment.

Here again you are talking about the resolution that wasn't.

You need to rethink that war of aggression, Israeli propaganda schtick.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are very close.

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,

Then:

Reaffirming further its resolution 66/18 of 30 November 2011 and all relevant resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem, bearing in mind that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community, and emphasizing the need for a way to be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States,

1) If there really was a resolution 181, wouldn't Jerusalem be occupied UN territory?

2) If E. Jerusalem is Palestinian territory, what is there to negotiate?

(COMMENT)

GA/RES/181(II) did exist (and to a degree still active). And Jerusalem (technically UN Trusteeship territory) was occupied from 1948-to-1967 by the Arab Legion of Jordan. In 1967, Jerusalem was quasi-Liberated but not relinquished by Israeli forces.

That would mean that Israel has been occupying West Jerusalem since 1948.

It appears that East Jerusalem is not recognized as Palestinian territory. However, the wording suggest that the finality is in abeyance (some what ambiguous); possibly waiting negotiated outcomes.

It is not?

...stress the need for the withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem,...

Perhaps you should read your own link.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hoffstra]

East Jerusalem was "liberated" in 1967?

you cannot liberate something that is not legally yours to begin with.

 

[MHunterB]

Hoffsra, you seem to have forgotten the Jordanian Army shelling civilian neigborhoods in EJ - and forcing out the Jewish residents of those EJ neighborhoods when the fighting stopped, in a well-document (LIFE magazine) instance of ethnic cleansing.

EJ was indeed captured by the Jordanians and remained under *illegal* Jordanian occupation for 19 years - during which time Jews from everywhere in the world were denied access to the Western Wall.

So EJ wasn't really "Palestinian" because the Jordanians controlled it.

 

[Hoffstra]

Hoffsra, you seem to have forgotten the Jordanian Army shelling civilian neigborhoods in EJ - and forcing the J residents of those EJ neighborhoods when the fighting stopped.

EJ was indeed captured by the Jordanians and remained under *illegal* Jordanian occupation for 19years - during which time Jews from everywhere in the world were denied access to the Western Wall.

So EJ wasn't really "Palestinian" because the Jordanians controlled it.

the Jordanian occupiation of Arab Palestine was totally legal.

not once did anyone ever accuse Jordan of illegally occupying the West Bank.

 

[RoccoR]

PF Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is up to you to read and interpret.

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are a few reasons for that.

What is different about Palestine's declaration of 1988 and its declaration of 1948?

Why is one mentioned and not the other?

(COMMENT)

First, GA/RES/181(II) was still active and on the table. Israel had accepted, the newly reconstituted Arab Higher Committee (Arab League) rejected.

Resolution 181 had to be recognized by both sides. If only one side accepts an agreement, there is no agreement. Your reason is false.

(COMMENT)

Not "both" BUT rather "either." False! Not likely.

F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS

When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.

SOURCE: GA/RES/181(II)

Do you have a link for that? The UN did not recognize Israel in the 1949 armistice agreements which were 6 months after the Palestinian declaration. Even when the UN did recognize Israel it was not on the 181 proposed territory and Jerusalem was not the international city. More evidence that there was no resolution 181.

(COMMENT)

References

• CABLEGRAM DATED 15 MAY 1948 ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL BY FOREIGN SECRETARY OF THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL

FOR RECOGNITION AS PROVISIONAL COUNCIL GOVERNMENT UNDER PART ONE B FOUR OF RESOLUTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON NOVEMBER 29TH 1947 MET YESTERDAY MAY 14TH AND ISSUED PROCLAMATION DECLARING FOLLOWING “ON NOVEMBER 29 1947 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF UNITED NATIONS ADOPTED RESOLUTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT JEWISH STATE IN PALESTINE AND CALLED UPON INHABITANTS OF COUNTRY TO TAKE SUCH STEPS AS MAY BE NECESSARY ON THEIR PART TO PUT THE PLAN INTO EFFECT.​

• APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND DECLARATION ACCEPTING OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CHARTER

On May 14 1948, the independence of the State of Israel was proclaimed by the National Council of the Jewish people in Palestine by virtue of the natural and historic right of the Jewish people to independence in its own sovereign State and in pursuance of the General Assembly resolution of November 29, 1947.
... ... ...
On behalf of the Provisional Government of Israel, I have now the honour to request the admission of Israel as a Member of the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter.​

• 69 (1949). Resolution of 4 March 1949

Recommends to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,​

• Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations

Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.​

Third, on the Declaration of Independence for the State of Israel (MAY), War broke-out and the Partition Plan was held in abeyance. By the time of the Armistice, territorial lines had changed and the Israeli areas of control had expanded. This outcome then took precedence over the Arab SEPTEMBER declaration and war of aggression. The Arab's were not to be rewarded for their defiance of the UN Trusteeship in their attempt to take by military force (acquisition by conquest) what was beyond the GA/RES/181(II) apportionment.

Here again you are talking about the resolution that wasn't.

You need to rethink that war of aggression, Israeli propaganda schtick.

(COMMENT)

OK, you can believe what you want to believe. But it doesn't make you correct. Documentation is all here, in timeline order.

As far as GA/RES/181(II), I'm sure that President Abbas would cite a Resolution that doesn't matter and ask for admission into the UN under the provisional of this resolution that doesn't matter. Yeah, that makes sense that in every major document cites this same resolution.

History is what it is.

The first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs.​

Between February and July 1949, under United Nations auspices, armistice agreements were signed between Israel, on the one hand, and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria on the other. The agreements, which were similar in general content, accepted the establishment of the armistice as an indispensable step towards the restoration of peace in Palestine.​

SOURCE: The Question of Palestine and the United Nations

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

Tinmore, was there a clause in the 1947 partition plan that said if one side rejects the proposal, then the other side can't establish a country?

 

[P F Tinmore]

On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.

Israel was ethnic cleansing Palestinians from outside the proposed territory including Jerusalem before the 1948 war.

Israel violated three components of resolution 181 before it was mentioned in its declaration.

 

[toastman]

On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.

Israel was ethnic cleansing Palestinians from outside the proposed territory including Jerusalem before the 1948 war.

Israel violated three components of resolution 181 before it was mentioned in its declaration.

What you call ethnic cleansing, was actually a civil war.

1947?48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How convenient that you always forget to mention the attacks by the Palestinian Arabs against Jews in their districts

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tinmore, was there a clause in the 1947 partition plan that said if one side rejects the proposal, then the other side can't establish a country?

I don't recall. I don't think so, but I think it was covered under existing law. The mandate said it did not have the authority to cede land to Israel without Palestinian approval. The Security Council said that they could not enforce the resolution without Palestinian approval.

 

[toastman]

Tinmore, was there a clause in the 1947 partition plan that said if one side rejects the proposal, then the other side can't establish a country?

I don't recall. I don't think so, but I think it was covered under existing law. The mandate said it did not have the authority to cede land to Israel without Palestinian approval. The Security Council said that they could not enforce the resolution without Palestinian approval.

Hmmm are you sure about that ? Provide the link so we can have a look.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tinmore, was there a clause in the 1947 partition plan that said if one side rejects the proposal, then the other side can't establish a country?

I don't recall. I don't think so, but I think it was covered under existing law. The mandate said it did not have the authority to cede land to Israel without Palestinian approval. The Security Council said that they could not enforce the resolution without Palestinian approval.

Hmmm are you sure about that ? Provide the link so we can have a look.

However, the British did "not feel able to implement" any agreement unless it was acceptable to both the Arabs and the Jews, and asked that the General Assembly provide an alternative implementing authority if that proved to be the case.

When Bevin received the partition proposal, he promptly ordered for it not to be imposed on the Arabs.[53][qt 10] The plan was vigorously debated in the British parliament. Britain ultimately announced that it would accept the partition plan, but refused to implement the plan by force because it was not acceptable to both sides.

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Here again, you are making a mistake in understanding how a state is created.

Tinmore, was there a clause in the 1947 partition plan that said if one side rejects the proposal, then the other side can't establish a country?

I don't recall. I don't think so, but I think it was covered under existing law. The mandate said it did not have the authority to cede land to Israel without Palestinian approval. The Security Council said that they could not enforce the resolution without Palestinian approval.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate to the Mandatory was written by the League of Nations and inherited by the Trustee System of the UN. While the Mandatory had that limitation, the LoN and UN did not. By resolution, they could do any number of actions.

However, in this case, the creation of the State of Israel was affected by the right of self-determination. They declared independence. The LoN, the UN, or the Mandatory (UK) did not cede any territory. It went through the process.

Where did the Security Council say they could not enforce the resolution. They certainly recommended positive action.

The Security Council,

Having received and considered the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,

1. Decides in its judgement that Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter, and accordingly,

2. Recommends to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.​

SOURCE: S/RES/69 (1949) S/1277 4 March 1949

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The next day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs.

The Arab states entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians in Palestine.

That is a clear cut case of defense.

 

[P F Tinmore]

However, in this case, the creation of the State of Israel was affected by the right of self-determination. They declared independence.

You have never posted anything that states how foreigners going to another country with the stated goal of taking over that country claim self determination.

Got a link?

 

[Hossfly]

However, in this case, the creation of the State of Israel was affected by the right of self-determination. They declared independence.

You have never posted anything that states how foreigners going to another country with the stated goal of taking over that country claim self determination.

Got a link?

So, in other words, Israel is not the same as South Africa? I knew it all the time.

 

[P F Tinmore]

However, in this case, the creation of the State of Israel was affected by the right of self-determination. They declared independence.

You have never posted anything that states how foreigners going to another country with the stated goal of taking over that country claim self determination.

Got a link?

So, in other words, Israel is not the same as South Africa? I knew it all the time.

Foreigners came and took over the country in both instances.

 

[toastman]

The next day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs.

The Arab states entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians in Palestine.

That is a clear cut case of defense.

That is a BIG load of crap.

Defense my ass. The Jews created their country legally.

The Arabs had NO right to come in and start a war of , and I quote, "extermination"

 

[P F Tinmore]

The next day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs.

The Arab states entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians in Palestine.

That is a clear cut case of defense.

That is a BIG load of crap.

Defense my ass. The Jews created their country legally.

The Arabs had NO right to come in and start a war of , and I quote, "extermination"

The Arab armies never entered Israel. They fought Israeli troops in Palestine.