Palestinian Peace Proposal

[montelatici]

In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.

Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a non-binding proposal – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become binding, until and unless it was approved by the Security Council.

The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, and because of Arab and other Muslim opposition, it could only be implemented by force; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine – after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away – was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the US was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence - actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.

The truth of the time was that Israel, which came into being mainly as a consequence of Zionist terrorism and pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist unless ….. Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.

As it was put to me many years ago by Khalad al-Hassan, Fatah’s intellectual giant on the right, that legitimacy was “the only thing the Zionists could not take from us by force.”

The truth of history as summarised briefly above is the explanation of why, really, Zionism has always insisted that its absolute pre-condition for negotiations with more than a snowball’s chance in hell of a successful outcome (an acceptable measure of justice for the Palestinians and peace for all) is recognition of Israel’s right to exist. A right, it knows, it does not have and will never have unless the Palestinians grant it.

NEWS-ON-A-WIRE - 1948

And yet it did, does, will do and all power to Israel in its fight against murderous Palestinian, Syrian and any other terrorist scum. Britain, as the mandated Power at the time, most definitely had the right to establish the State of Israel. The UN Assembled approved it, and now only gutless murdering scum and their apologists oppose it.

This article is about the Mandate instrument passed by the League of Nations granting Britain a mandate over the territories of the Ottoman Empire, that today are the State of Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Jordan. For a history of the period, see Mandatory Palestine and Emirate of Transjordan.
League of Nations - Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan Memorandum

British Command Paper 1785, December 1922, containing the Mandate for Palestine and the Transjordan memorandum
Created 1920-2
Ratified 1923
Signatories League of Nations
Purpose Creation of the territories of Palestine and Transjordan
The British Mandate for Palestine, or simply the Mandate for Palestine, was a legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Empire sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros. The draft of the Mandate was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, supplemented via the 16 September 1922 Transjordan memorandum[1][2] and then came into effect on 29 September 1923[1] following the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne.[3][4] The mandate ended at midnight on 14 May 1948.

The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920, by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War.[1] The mandate formalised British rule in the southern part of Ottoman Syria from 1923–1948.

The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[5] The mandate document formalized the creation of two British protectorates: Palestine, to include a national home for the Jewish people, under direct British rule, and Transjordan, an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain, under the rule of the Hashemite family.[1

Bad luck that Arafat hated Jews more than he loved his people. Damn him to Hades!!

Greg

In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.

Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a non-binding proposal – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become binding, until and unless it was approved by the Security Council.

The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, and because of Arab and other Muslim opposition, it could only be implemented by force; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine – after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away – was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the US was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence - actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.

The truth of the time was that Israel, which came into being mainly as a consequence of Zionist terrorism and pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist unless ….. Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.

As it was put to me many years ago by Khalad al-Hassan, Fatah’s intellectual giant on the right, that legitimacy was “the only thing the Zionists could not take from us by force.”

The truth of history as summarised briefly above is the explanation of why, really, Zionism has always insisted that its absolute pre-condition for negotiations with more than a snowball’s chance in hell of a successful outcome (an acceptable measure of justice for the Palestinians and peace for all) is recognition of Israel’s right to exist. A right, it knows, it does not have and will never have unless the Palestinians grant it.

NEWS-ON-A-WIRE - 1948

You forget that the land was given to the Jews while the arab muslims received trans Jordan. That is the only partition that was legal. Now if you push this islamonazi propaganda then all the nations in the M.E. are also illegal as they were created under the same mandate laws.

They were created the same.

But then foreigners went down to Palestine from Europe and drove the natives out of their homes.

WRONG the arab muslim hordes tried to drive the Jews out of their homes from 1921 till the present day. The Jews did nothing to the arab muslims until they started to attack the Jews. This led to the formation of Jewish defence groups that went from place to place to protect Jews from arab muslim terrorist groups and gangs. Then in 1948 Israel declared independence and the arab muslim armies invaded trying to mass murder all the Jews, so the Jews evicted those arab muslims living in Israel with a known connection to the terrorist groups, in line with INTERNATIONAL LAW of that time. Many were recent illegal arab muslim migrants which is why the UN refused to grant them refugee status.

In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.

Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a non-binding proposal – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become binding, until and unless it was approved by the Security Council.

The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, and because of Arab and other Muslim opposition, it could only be implemented by force; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine – after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away – was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the US was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence - actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.

The truth of the time was that Israel, which came into being mainly as a consequence of Zionist terrorism and pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist unless ….. Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.

As it was put to me many years ago by Khalad al-Hassan, Fatah’s intellectual giant on the right, that legitimacy was “the only thing the Zionists could not take from us by force.”

The truth of history as summarised briefly above is the explanation of why, really, Zionism has always insisted that its absolute pre-condition for negotiations with more than a snowball’s chance in hell of a successful outcome (an acceptable measure of justice for the Palestinians and peace for all) is recognition of Israel’s right to exist. A right, it knows, it does not have and will never have unless the Palestinians grant it.

NEWS-ON-A-WIRE - 1948

You forget that the land was given to the Jews while the arab muslims received trans Jordan. That is the only partition that was legal. Now if you push this islamonazi propaganda then all the nations in the M.E. are also illegal as they were created under the same mandate laws.

They were created the same.

But then foreigners went down to Palestine from Europe and drove the natives out of their homes.

WRONG the arab muslim hordes tried to drive the Jews out of their homes from 1921 till the present day. The Jews did nothing to the arab muslims until they started to attack the Jews. This led to the formation of Jewish defence groups that went from place to place to protect Jews from arab muslim terrorist groups and gangs. Then in 1948 Israel declared independence and the arab muslim armies invaded trying to mass murder all the Jews, so the Jews evicted those arab muslims living in Israel with a known connection to the terrorist groups, in line with INTERNATIONAL LAW of that time. Many were recent illegal arab muslim migrants which is why the UN refused to grant them refugee status.

The only hordes were the hordes of Europeans that invaded Palestine at the expense of the Christian and Muslim inhabitants. There were no non-Jewish migrants to Palestine to speak of as reported by the UN and League of Nations. Nearly all the invading migrants were European Jews. So quit telling fairy tales.

"UNITED
NATIONS
A

• 
  General Assembly

A/364
3 September 1947
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY


SUPPLEMENT No. 11



UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE



REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
​

"14. It will have been noticed that not only has there been a remarkably rapid increase in the total population of Palestine but also the proportion of Jews in the total has greatly increased, from 12.91 -per cent in 1922 to 32.96 per cent in 1946. Conversely, of course, the Arab proportion has fallen since 1922. The Moslem proportion of the population (almost entirely Arab) has fallen from about 75 per cent of the total to 60 per cent, and the Christian proportion (very largely Arab) from 11 per cent to 8 per cent. Thus, at the present time about one-third of the total settled population is Jewish.

(b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths. Indeed, the natural rate of increase of Moslem Arabs in Palestine is the highest in recorded statistics,1 a phenomenon explained by very high fertility rates coupled with a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health, The natural rate of increase of Jews is also relatively high, but is conditioned by a favorable age distribution of the population due to the high rate of immigration."

A 364 of 3 September 1947

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

You seem to love this feeder information. You've made it known several times now.

The only hordes were the hordes of Europeans that invaded Palestine at the expense of the Christian and Muslim inhabitants. There were no non-Jewish migrants to Palestine to speak of as reported by the UN and League of Nations. Nearly all the invading migrants were European Jews. So quit telling fairy tales.

"UNITED
NATIONS
A

• 
  General Assembly

A/364
3 September 1947
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY


SUPPLEMENT No. 11



UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE



REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
​

"14. It will have been noticed that not only has there been a remarkably rapid increase in the total population of Palestine but also the proportion of Jews in the total has greatly increased, from 12.91 -per cent in 1922 to 32.96 per cent in 1946. Conversely, of course, the Arab proportion has fallen since 1922. The Moslem proportion of the population (almost entirely Arab) has fallen from about 75 per cent of the total to 60 per cent, and the Christian proportion (very largely Arab) from 11 per cent to 8 per cent. Thus, at the present time about one-third of the total settled population is Jewish.

(b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths. Indeed, the natural rate of increase of Moslem Arabs in Palestine is the highest in recorded statistics,1 a phenomenon explained by very high fertility rates coupled with a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health, The natural rate of increase of Jews is also relatively high, but is conditioned by a favorable age distribution of the population due to the high rate of immigration."

A 364 of 3 September 1947

(QUESTION)

What is the relevance of this information, given it was considered at the time A/RES/181(II) was considered and adopted?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This logic is a double-edged sword --- especially for the Palestinian Arab --- the enemy population in WWI and the enemy population in WWII.

In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.

(COMMENT)

When did the Arab Palestinian gain the authority over the area formerly under Mandate?

Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a non-binding proposal – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become binding, until and unless it was approved by the Security Council.

The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, and because of Arab and other Muslim opposition, it could only be implemented by force; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

(COMMENT)

First --- the Partition Plan [A/RES/181 (II)] UN Voting (NOT by the Narrowest of Margins):

• Final vote
  • In favor, (33 countries, 72% of voting)
  • Against, (13 countries, 28% of voting)
  • Abstentions, (10 countries)
  • Absent, (1 country)

The truth is, the Partition Plan [A/RES/181 (II)] went to the UN Security Council; with the Security Council playing a vital role in the implementation of the Plan (Part I --- Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence):

14. The Commission shall be guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue.

The measures taken by the Commission, within the recommendations of the General Assembly, shall become immediately effective unless the Commission has previously received contrary instructions from the Security Council.​

As it was put to me many years ago by Khalad al-Hassan, Fatah’s intellectual giant on the right, that legitimacy was “the only thing the Zionists could not take from us by force.”

The truth of history as summarised briefly above is the explanation of why, really, Zionism has always insisted that its absolute pre-condition for negotiations with more than a snowball’s chance in hell of a successful outcome (an acceptable measure of justice for the Palestinians and peace for all) is recognition of Israel’s right to exist. A right, it knows, it does not have and will never have unless the Palestinians grant it.

(COMMENT)

The Zionist, or any name by which the Arab wish to describe the Jewish immigrants willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home under the Mandate for Palestine, as citizens of Palestine, had the exact same rights to self-determination as the Arab and did not take the territory described under the Partition Plan by force. Instead, the conflict was triggered by Hostile Arab Palestinians represented "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, defying the resolution [A/RES/181(II)] of the General Assembly and engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force (as aggressor nations) the settlement envisaged therein."

Most Respectfully,
R

When did the Arab Palestinian gain the authority over the area formerly under Mandate?​

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978

Prior to 1978.

At what time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain the right to territorial integrity?

When they declared independence under the terms of 181, which they have not exercised yet.

OK, so Israel accepted it and Palestine accepted it.

Now all we have to do is get the Security Council to implement it.

Let me know when that happens.

 

[Phoenall]

Why when its implementation is not required under International law, as your own link stated


The ICJ assumes that Israel’s independence is a result of a partial implementation of the “Partition Plan.”
The ICJ Bench states in paragraph 71 of its opinion that:

“… on 14 May 1948, Israel proclaimed its independence on the strength of the General Assembly resolution.”

Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document was never consummated. Like the schemes that preceded it, Resolution 181’s validity hinged on acceptance by both parties of the General Assembly’s recommendation.

Sir Lauterpacht, a renowned expert on international law and editor of Oppenheim’s International Law, clarified that, from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs. In a monograph relating to one of the most complex aspects of the territorial issue, the status of Jerusalem,7 Lauterpacht wrote that to be a binding force, the “Partition Plan” would have had to arise from the principle pacta sunt servanda,8 that is, from agreement of the parties at variance to the proposed plan. In the case of Israel, Lauterpacht explains:

“… the coming into existence of Israel does not depend legally upon the Resolution. The right of a State to exist flows from its factual existence – especially when that existence is prolonged, shows every sign of continuance and is recognised by the generality of nations.”

Reviewing Lauterpacht’s arguments, Professor Stone added that Israel’s “legitimacy” or the “legal foundation” for its birth does not reside with the United Nations’ “Partition Plan,” which as a consequence of Arab actions became a dead issue. Professor Stone concluded:

“… The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.”9

Such attempts by Palestinians (and now by the ICJ) to ‘roll back the clock’ and resuscitate Resolution 181 almost six decades after its rejection as if nothing had happened, are totally inadmissible. Both Palestinians and their Arab brethren in neighboring countries rendered the plan null and void by their own subsequent aggressive actions.


Reply Online Book Chapter 4

 

[Phoenall]

In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.

Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a non-binding proposal – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become binding, until and unless it was approved by the Security Council.

The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, and because of Arab and other Muslim opposition, it could only be implemented by force; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine – after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away – was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the US was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence - actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.

The truth of the time was that Israel, which came into being mainly as a consequence of Zionist terrorism and pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist unless ….. Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.

As it was put to me many years ago by Khalad al-Hassan, Fatah’s intellectual giant on the right, that legitimacy was “the only thing the Zionists could not take from us by force.”

The truth of history as summarised briefly above is the explanation of why, really, Zionism has always insisted that its absolute pre-condition for negotiations with more than a snowball’s chance in hell of a successful outcome (an acceptable measure of justice for the Palestinians and peace for all) is recognition of Israel’s right to exist. A right, it knows, it does not have and will never have unless the Palestinians grant it.

NEWS-ON-A-WIRE - 1948

And yet it did, does, will do and all power to Israel in its fight against murderous Palestinian, Syrian and any other terrorist scum. Britain, as the mandated Power at the time, most definitely had the right to establish the State of Israel. The UN Assembled approved it, and now only gutless murdering scum and their apologists oppose it.

This article is about the Mandate instrument passed by the League of Nations granting Britain a mandate over the territories of the Ottoman Empire, that today are the State of Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Jordan. For a history of the period, see Mandatory Palestine and Emirate of Transjordan.
League of Nations - Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan Memorandum

British Command Paper 1785, December 1922, containing the Mandate for Palestine and the Transjordan memorandum
Created 1920-2
Ratified 1923
Signatories League of Nations
Purpose Creation of the territories of Palestine and Transjordan
The British Mandate for Palestine, or simply the Mandate for Palestine, was a legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Empire sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros. The draft of the Mandate was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, supplemented via the 16 September 1922 Transjordan memorandum[1][2] and then came into effect on 29 September 1923[1] following the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne.[3][4] The mandate ended at midnight on 14 May 1948.

The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920, by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War.[1] The mandate formalised British rule in the southern part of Ottoman Syria from 1923–1948.

The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[5] The mandate document formalized the creation of two British protectorates: Palestine, to include a national home for the Jewish people, under direct British rule, and Transjordan, an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain, under the rule of the Hashemite family.[1

Bad luck that Arafat hated Jews more than he loved his people. Damn him to Hades!!

Greg

In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.

Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a non-binding proposal – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become binding, until and unless it was approved by the Security Council.

The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, and because of Arab and other Muslim opposition, it could only be implemented by force; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine – after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away – was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the US was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence - actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.

The truth of the time was that Israel, which came into being mainly as a consequence of Zionist terrorism and pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist unless ….. Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.

As it was put to me many years ago by Khalad al-Hassan, Fatah’s intellectual giant on the right, that legitimacy was “the only thing the Zionists could not take from us by force.”

The truth of history as summarised briefly above is the explanation of why, really, Zionism has always insisted that its absolute pre-condition for negotiations with more than a snowball’s chance in hell of a successful outcome (an acceptable measure of justice for the Palestinians and peace for all) is recognition of Israel’s right to exist. A right, it knows, it does not have and will never have unless the Palestinians grant it.

NEWS-ON-A-WIRE - 1948

You forget that the land was given to the Jews while the arab muslims received trans Jordan. That is the only partition that was legal. Now if you push this islamonazi propaganda then all the nations in the M.E. are also illegal as they were created under the same mandate laws.

They were created the same.

But then foreigners went down to Palestine from Europe and drove the natives out of their homes.

WRONG the arab muslim hordes tried to drive the Jews out of their homes from 1921 till the present day. The Jews did nothing to the arab muslims until they started to attack the Jews. This led to the formation of Jewish defence groups that went from place to place to protect Jews from arab muslim terrorist groups and gangs. Then in 1948 Israel declared independence and the arab muslim armies invaded trying to mass murder all the Jews, so the Jews evicted those arab muslims living in Israel with a known connection to the terrorist groups, in line with INTERNATIONAL LAW of that time. Many were recent illegal arab muslim migrants which is why the UN refused to grant them refugee status.

In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.

Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a non-binding proposal – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become binding, until and unless it was approved by the Security Council.

The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, and because of Arab and other Muslim opposition, it could only be implemented by force; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine – after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away – was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the US was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence - actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.

The truth of the time was that Israel, which came into being mainly as a consequence of Zionist terrorism and pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist unless ….. Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.

As it was put to me many years ago by Khalad al-Hassan, Fatah’s intellectual giant on the right, that legitimacy was “the only thing the Zionists could not take from us by force.”

The truth of history as summarised briefly above is the explanation of why, really, Zionism has always insisted that its absolute pre-condition for negotiations with more than a snowball’s chance in hell of a successful outcome (an acceptable measure of justice for the Palestinians and peace for all) is recognition of Israel’s right to exist. A right, it knows, it does not have and will never have unless the Palestinians grant it.

NEWS-ON-A-WIRE - 1948

You forget that the land was given to the Jews while the arab muslims received trans Jordan. That is the only partition that was legal. Now if you push this islamonazi propaganda then all the nations in the M.E. are also illegal as they were created under the same mandate laws.

They were created the same.

But then foreigners went down to Palestine from Europe and drove the natives out of their homes.

WRONG the arab muslim hordes tried to drive the Jews out of their homes from 1921 till the present day. The Jews did nothing to the arab muslims until they started to attack the Jews. This led to the formation of Jewish defence groups that went from place to place to protect Jews from arab muslim terrorist groups and gangs. Then in 1948 Israel declared independence and the arab muslim armies invaded trying to mass murder all the Jews, so the Jews evicted those arab muslims living in Israel with a known connection to the terrorist groups, in line with INTERNATIONAL LAW of that time. Many were recent illegal arab muslim migrants which is why the UN refused to grant them refugee status.

The only hordes were the hordes of Europeans that invaded Palestine at the expense of the Christian and Muslim inhabitants. There were no non-Jewish migrants to Palestine to speak of as reported by the UN and League of Nations. Nearly all the invading migrants were European Jews. So quit telling fairy tales.

"UNITED
NATIONS
A

• 
  General Assembly

A/364
3 September 1947
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY


SUPPLEMENT No. 11



UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE



REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
​

"14. It will have been noticed that not only has there been a remarkably rapid increase in the total population of Palestine but also the proportion of Jews in the total has greatly increased, from 12.91 -per cent in 1922 to 32.96 per cent in 1946. Conversely, of course, the Arab proportion has fallen since 1922. The Moslem proportion of the population (almost entirely Arab) has fallen from about 75 per cent of the total to 60 per cent, and the Christian proportion (very largely Arab) from 11 per cent to 8 per cent. Thus, at the present time about one-third of the total settled population is Jewish.

(b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths. Indeed, the natural rate of increase of Moslem Arabs in Palestine is the highest in recorded statistics,1 a phenomenon explained by very high fertility rates coupled with a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health, The natural rate of increase of Jews is also relatively high, but is conditioned by a favorable age distribution of the population due to the high rate of immigration."

A 364 of 3 September 1947

Whats wrong with your other UN report that you relied on so much, was it the fact it put arab muslim illegal immigration as 60% of the total immigration to Palestine.

Do explain what wonder drugs the arab muslims invented that stopped all deaths between 1931 and 1941 allowing the arab muslim population to double.

 

[member]

I can keep going if you'd like Tinmore...

I know, but:

The partition plan was not implemented.[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

The ICJ describes these scores of events in seven words: “The Plan of Partition was not implemented.”14 http://www.mythsandfacts.org/replyonlineedition/chapter-4.html

It was merely a recommendation that the Security Council did not implement.

"I know, but:..."






- It was already destined for Israel---to be Israel...

- the other thing: just what planet earth needs: Another ISLAMic terrorist hell-hole. you're not blind. you know/see. but for some sick reason, you just like looking the other way -- east.

good to know, Tel Aviv ain't...Tel Al el abu.


bye skinmore....

 

[MJB12741]

I can keep going if you'd like Tinmore...

I know, but:

The partition plan was not implemented.[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

The ICJ describes these scores of events in seven words: “The Plan of Partition was not implemented.”14 http://www.mythsandfacts.org/replyonlineedition/chapter-4.html

It was merely a recommendation that the Security Council did not implement.

"I know, but:..."






- It was already destined for Israel---to be Israel...

- the other thing: just what planet earth needs: Another ISLAMic terrorist hell-hole. you're not blind. you know/see. but for some sick reason, you just like looking the other way -- east.

good to know, Tel Aviv ain't...Tel Al el abu.


bye skinmore....

Excellent points. Iran was once the greatest nation on earth. The very heart of the Persian empire. The home of Cyrus the Great. Just look what happened to Iran after the Islamic invasion. From the grandeur & glory of Persepolis under Zoroastrian rule to the slums of Shiras under Muslim rule.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why when its implementation is not required under International law, as your own link stated


The ICJ assumes that Israel’s independence is a result of a partial implementation of the “Partition Plan.”
The ICJ Bench states in paragraph 71 of its opinion that:

“… on 14 May 1948, Israel proclaimed its independence on the strength of the General Assembly resolution.”

Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document was never consummated. Like the schemes that preceded it, Resolution 181’s validity hinged on acceptance by both parties of the General Assembly’s recommendation.

Sir Lauterpacht, a renowned expert on international law and editor of Oppenheim’s International Law, clarified that, from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs. In a monograph relating to one of the most complex aspects of the territorial issue, the status of Jerusalem,7 Lauterpacht wrote that to be a binding force, the “Partition Plan” would have had to arise from the principle pacta sunt servanda,8 that is, from agreement of the parties at variance to the proposed plan. In the case of Israel, Lauterpacht explains:

“… the coming into existence of Israel does not depend legally upon the Resolution. The right of a State to exist flows from its factual existence – especially when that existence is prolonged, shows every sign of continuance and is recognised by the generality of nations.”

Reviewing Lauterpacht’s arguments, Professor Stone added that Israel’s “legitimacy” or the “legal foundation” for its birth does not reside with the United Nations’ “Partition Plan,” which as a consequence of Arab actions became a dead issue. Professor Stone concluded:

“… The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.”9

Such attempts by Palestinians (and now by the ICJ) to ‘roll back the clock’ and resuscitate Resolution 181 almost six decades after its rejection as if nothing had happened, are totally inadmissible. Both Palestinians and their Arab brethren in neighboring countries rendered the plan null and void by their own subsequent aggressive actions.


Reply Online Book Chapter 4

It looks like much of the ICJ report was based on assumptions because they were not charged with investigating some information.

A good example of how this happens is when Bill Moyers was interviewing Richard Goldstone. Moyers asked Goldstone if he thought that Israel had the right to defend itself. Goldstone's response was "that is a given." What does that mean? Goldstone has heard his entire life that Israel has the right to defend itself so confirming that to be true was not a consideration.

What "everybody knows" (like the world is flat) might not be true at all.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

You seem to love this feeder information. You've made it known several times now.

The only hordes were the hordes of Europeans that invaded Palestine at the expense of the Christian and Muslim inhabitants. There were no non-Jewish migrants to Palestine to speak of as reported by the UN and League of Nations. Nearly all the invading migrants were European Jews. So quit telling fairy tales.

"UNITED
NATIONS
A

• 
  General Assembly

A/364
3 September 1947
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY


SUPPLEMENT No. 11



UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE



REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
​

"14. It will have been noticed that not only has there been a remarkably rapid increase in the total population of Palestine but also the proportion of Jews in the total has greatly increased, from 12.91 -per cent in 1922 to 32.96 per cent in 1946. Conversely, of course, the Arab proportion has fallen since 1922. The Moslem proportion of the population (almost entirely Arab) has fallen from about 75 per cent of the total to 60 per cent, and the Christian proportion (very largely Arab) from 11 per cent to 8 per cent. Thus, at the present time about one-third of the total settled population is Jewish.

(b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths. Indeed, the natural rate of increase of Moslem Arabs in Palestine is the highest in recorded statistics,1 a phenomenon explained by very high fertility rates coupled with a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health, The natural rate of increase of Jews is also relatively high, but is conditioned by a favorable age distribution of the population due to the high rate of immigration."

A 364 of 3 September 1947

(QUESTION)

What is the relevance of this information, given it was considered at the time A/RES/181(II) was considered and adopted?

Most Respectfully,
R

The relevance, Rocco, is that many of your buddies deny the fact that the migrants to Palestine were overwhelming Jews.

 

[Phoenall]

Why when its implementation is not required under International law, as your own link stated


The ICJ assumes that Israel’s independence is a result of a partial implementation of the “Partition Plan.”
The ICJ Bench states in paragraph 71 of its opinion that:

“… on 14 May 1948, Israel proclaimed its independence on the strength of the General Assembly resolution.”

Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document was never consummated. Like the schemes that preceded it, Resolution 181’s validity hinged on acceptance by both parties of the General Assembly’s recommendation.

Sir Lauterpacht, a renowned expert on international law and editor of Oppenheim’s International Law, clarified that, from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs. In a monograph relating to one of the most complex aspects of the territorial issue, the status of Jerusalem,7 Lauterpacht wrote that to be a binding force, the “Partition Plan” would have had to arise from the principle pacta sunt servanda,8 that is, from agreement of the parties at variance to the proposed plan. In the case of Israel, Lauterpacht explains:

“… the coming into existence of Israel does not depend legally upon the Resolution. The right of a State to exist flows from its factual existence – especially when that existence is prolonged, shows every sign of continuance and is recognised by the generality of nations.”

Reviewing Lauterpacht’s arguments, Professor Stone added that Israel’s “legitimacy” or the “legal foundation” for its birth does not reside with the United Nations’ “Partition Plan,” which as a consequence of Arab actions became a dead issue. Professor Stone concluded:

“… The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.”9

Such attempts by Palestinians (and now by the ICJ) to ‘roll back the clock’ and resuscitate Resolution 181 almost six decades after its rejection as if nothing had happened, are totally inadmissible. Both Palestinians and their Arab brethren in neighboring countries rendered the plan null and void by their own subsequent aggressive actions.


Reply Online Book Chapter 4

It looks like much of the ICJ report was based on assumptions because they were not charged with investigating some information.

A good example of how this happens is when Bill Moyers was interviewing Richard Goldstone. Moyers asked Goldstone if he thought that Israel had the right to defend itself. Goldstone's response was "that is a given." What does that mean? Goldstone has heard his entire life that Israel has the right to defend itself so confirming that to be true was not a consideration.

What "everybody knows" (like the world is flat) might not be true at all.

Exactly what it says, in other words "it goes without saying that it is right". Just because you don't believe that Israel has the right to defend against acts of war and terrorist attacks does not mean international law gives them that right. As you say you believe the Earth is flat, when the rest of the world know it is an imperfect ovoid.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

You seem to love this feeder information. You've made it known several times now.

The only hordes were the hordes of Europeans that invaded Palestine at the expense of the Christian and Muslim inhabitants. There were no non-Jewish migrants to Palestine to speak of as reported by the UN and League of Nations. Nearly all the invading migrants were European Jews. So quit telling fairy tales.

"UNITED
NATIONS
A

• 
  General Assembly

A/364
3 September 1947
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY


SUPPLEMENT No. 11



UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE



REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
​

"14. It will have been noticed that not only has there been a remarkably rapid increase in the total population of Palestine but also the proportion of Jews in the total has greatly increased, from 12.91 -per cent in 1922 to 32.96 per cent in 1946. Conversely, of course, the Arab proportion has fallen since 1922. The Moslem proportion of the population (almost entirely Arab) has fallen from about 75 per cent of the total to 60 per cent, and the Christian proportion (very largely Arab) from 11 per cent to 8 per cent. Thus, at the present time about one-third of the total settled population is Jewish.

(b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths. Indeed, the natural rate of increase of Moslem Arabs in Palestine is the highest in recorded statistics,1 a phenomenon explained by very high fertility rates coupled with a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health, The natural rate of increase of Jews is also relatively high, but is conditioned by a favorable age distribution of the population due to the high rate of immigration."

A 364 of 3 September 1947

(QUESTION)

What is the relevance of this information, given it was considered at the time A/RES/181(II) was considered and adopted?

Most Respectfully,
R

The relevance, Rocco, is that many of your buddies deny the fact that the migrants to Palestine were overwhelming Jews.

And you deny the truth that the vast majority of immigrants were arab muslims, even when your own links say they made up 60% of the total numbers. If the Jews migrating legally and in accordance with international law numbered 1500 a year and the arab muslims migrating illegally numbered 3,000 then the arab muslim numbers were greater than the Jewish numbers.

 

[MJB12741]

montelatici, et al,

You seem to love this feeder information. You've made it known several times now.

The only hordes were the hordes of Europeans that invaded Palestine at the expense of the Christian and Muslim inhabitants. There were no non-Jewish migrants to Palestine to speak of as reported by the UN and League of Nations. Nearly all the invading migrants were European Jews. So quit telling fairy tales.

"UNITED
NATIONS
A

• 
  General Assembly

A/364
3 September 1947
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY


SUPPLEMENT No. 11



UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE



REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
​

"14. It will have been noticed that not only has there been a remarkably rapid increase in the total population of Palestine but also the proportion of Jews in the total has greatly increased, from 12.91 -per cent in 1922 to 32.96 per cent in 1946. Conversely, of course, the Arab proportion has fallen since 1922. The Moslem proportion of the population (almost entirely Arab) has fallen from about 75 per cent of the total to 60 per cent, and the Christian proportion (very largely Arab) from 11 per cent to 8 per cent. Thus, at the present time about one-third of the total settled population is Jewish.

(b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths. Indeed, the natural rate of increase of Moslem Arabs in Palestine is the highest in recorded statistics,1 a phenomenon explained by very high fertility rates coupled with a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health, The natural rate of increase of Jews is also relatively high, but is conditioned by a favorable age distribution of the population due to the high rate of immigration."

A 364 of 3 September 1947

(QUESTION)

What is the relevance of this information, given it was considered at the time A/RES/181(II) was considered and adopted?

Most Respectfully,
R

The relevance, Rocco, is that many of your buddies deny the fact that the migrants to Palestine were overwhelming Jews.

And you deny the truth that the vast majority of immigrants were arab muslims, even when your own links say they made up 60% of the total numbers. If the Jews migrating legally and in accordance with international law numbered 1500 a year and the arab muslims migrating illegally numbered 3,000 then the arab muslim numbers were greater than the Jewish numbers.

Israel should remove all Palestinian squatters who hold no titles or deeds to the land they stole.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why when its implementation is not required under International law, as your own link stated


The ICJ assumes that Israel’s independence is a result of a partial implementation of the “Partition Plan.”
The ICJ Bench states in paragraph 71 of its opinion that:

“… on 14 May 1948, Israel proclaimed its independence on the strength of the General Assembly resolution.”

Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document was never consummated. Like the schemes that preceded it, Resolution 181’s validity hinged on acceptance by both parties of the General Assembly’s recommendation.

Sir Lauterpacht, a renowned expert on international law and editor of Oppenheim’s International Law, clarified that, from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs. In a monograph relating to one of the most complex aspects of the territorial issue, the status of Jerusalem,7 Lauterpacht wrote that to be a binding force, the “Partition Plan” would have had to arise from the principle pacta sunt servanda,8 that is, from agreement of the parties at variance to the proposed plan. In the case of Israel, Lauterpacht explains:

“… the coming into existence of Israel does not depend legally upon the Resolution. The right of a State to exist flows from its factual existence – especially when that existence is prolonged, shows every sign of continuance and is recognised by the generality of nations.”

Reviewing Lauterpacht’s arguments, Professor Stone added that Israel’s “legitimacy” or the “legal foundation” for its birth does not reside with the United Nations’ “Partition Plan,” which as a consequence of Arab actions became a dead issue. Professor Stone concluded:

“… The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.”9

Such attempts by Palestinians (and now by the ICJ) to ‘roll back the clock’ and resuscitate Resolution 181 almost six decades after its rejection as if nothing had happened, are totally inadmissible. Both Palestinians and their Arab brethren in neighboring countries rendered the plan null and void by their own subsequent aggressive actions.


Reply Online Book Chapter 4

It looks like much of the ICJ report was based on assumptions because they were not charged with investigating some information.

A good example of how this happens is when Bill Moyers was interviewing Richard Goldstone. Moyers asked Goldstone if he thought that Israel had the right to defend itself. Goldstone's response was "that is a given." What does that mean? Goldstone has heard his entire life that Israel has the right to defend itself so confirming that to be true was not a consideration.

What "everybody knows" (like the world is flat) might not be true at all.

Exactly what it says, in other words "it goes without saying that it is right". Just because you don't believe that Israel has the right to defend against acts of war and terrorist attacks does not mean international law gives them that right. As you say you believe the Earth is flat, when the rest of the world know it is an imperfect ovoid.

There is a lot of "say so" about Israel that cannot be documented.

 

[Penelope]

In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.

Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a non-binding proposal – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become binding, until and unless it was approved by the Security Council.

The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, and because of Arab and other Muslim opposition, it could only be implemented by force; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine – after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away – was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the US was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence - actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.

The truth of the time was that Israel, which came into being mainly as a consequence of Zionist terrorism and pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist unless ….. Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.

As it was put to me many years ago by Khalad al-Hassan, Fatah’s intellectual giant on the right, that legitimacy was “the only thing the Zionists could not take from us by force.”

The truth of history as summarised briefly above is the explanation of why, really, Zionism has always insisted that its absolute pre-condition for negotiations with more than a snowball’s chance in hell of a successful outcome (an acceptable measure of justice for the Palestinians and peace for all) is recognition of Israel’s right to exist. A right, it knows, it does not have and will never have unless the Palestinians grant it.

NEWS-ON-A-WIRE - 1948

Not that it would have made a difference for Israel, but the Palestinians did accept resolution 181...in 1988.....

since the Israelites have broken the resolution its no longer binding. AS BIBI said today, Jerusalem is ours and will not be divided. Their doom will come when they take down that Dome, they are waiting for Iran to be dismantled first.

 

[Penelope]

Why when its implementation is not required under International law, as your own link stated


The ICJ assumes that Israel’s independence is a result of a partial implementation of the “Partition Plan.”
The ICJ Bench states in paragraph 71 of its opinion that:

“… on 14 May 1948, Israel proclaimed its independence on the strength of the General Assembly resolution.”

Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document was never consummated. Like the schemes that preceded it, Resolution 181’s validity hinged on acceptance by both parties of the General Assembly’s recommendation.

Sir Lauterpacht, a renowned expert on international law and editor of Oppenheim’s International Law, clarified that, from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs. In a monograph relating to one of the most complex aspects of the territorial issue, the status of Jerusalem,7 Lauterpacht wrote that to be a binding force, the “Partition Plan” would have had to arise from the principle pacta sunt servanda,8 that is, from agreement of the parties at variance to the proposed plan. In the case of Israel, Lauterpacht explains:

“… the coming into existence of Israel does not depend legally upon the Resolution. The right of a State to exist flows from its factual existence – especially when that existence is prolonged, shows every sign of continuance and is recognised by the generality of nations.”

Reviewing Lauterpacht’s arguments, Professor Stone added that Israel’s “legitimacy” or the “legal foundation” for its birth does not reside with the United Nations’ “Partition Plan,” which as a consequence of Arab actions became a dead issue. Professor Stone concluded:

“… The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.”9

Such attempts by Palestinians (and now by the ICJ) to ‘roll back the clock’ and resuscitate Resolution 181 almost six decades after its rejection as if nothing had happened, are totally inadmissible. Both Palestinians and their Arab brethren in neighboring countries rendered the plan null and void by their own subsequent aggressive actions.


Reply Online Book Chapter 4

It looks like much of the ICJ report was based on assumptions because they were not charged with investigating some information.

A good example of how this happens is when Bill Moyers was interviewing Richard Goldstone. Moyers asked Goldstone if he thought that Israel had the right to defend itself. Goldstone's response was "that is a given." What does that mean? Goldstone has heard his entire life that Israel has the right to defend itself so confirming that to be true was not a consideration.

What "everybody knows" (like the world is flat) might not be true at all.

Exactly what it says, in other words "it goes without saying that it is right". Just because you don't believe that Israel has the right to defend against acts of war and terrorist attacks does not mean international law gives them that right. As you say you believe the Earth is flat, when the rest of the world know it is an imperfect ovoid.

There is a lot of "say so" about Israel that cannot be documented.

or believed if its from Israel, they are changing Wiki articles as we speak.

 

[Penelope]

montelatici, et al,

You seem to love this feeder information. You've made it known several times now.

The only hordes were the hordes of Europeans that invaded Palestine at the expense of the Christian and Muslim inhabitants. There were no non-Jewish migrants to Palestine to speak of as reported by the UN and League of Nations. Nearly all the invading migrants were European Jews. So quit telling fairy tales.

"UNITED
NATIONS
A

• 
  General Assembly

A/364
3 September 1947
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY


SUPPLEMENT No. 11



UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE



REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
​

"14. It will have been noticed that not only has there been a remarkably rapid increase in the total population of Palestine but also the proportion of Jews in the total has greatly increased, from 12.91 -per cent in 1922 to 32.96 per cent in 1946. Conversely, of course, the Arab proportion has fallen since 1922. The Moslem proportion of the population (almost entirely Arab) has fallen from about 75 per cent of the total to 60 per cent, and the Christian proportion (very largely Arab) from 11 per cent to 8 per cent. Thus, at the present time about one-third of the total settled population is Jewish.

(b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths. Indeed, the natural rate of increase of Moslem Arabs in Palestine is the highest in recorded statistics,1 a phenomenon explained by very high fertility rates coupled with a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health, The natural rate of increase of Jews is also relatively high, but is conditioned by a favorable age distribution of the population due to the high rate of immigration."

A 364 of 3 September 1947

(QUESTION)

What is the relevance of this information, given it was considered at the time A/RES/181(II) was considered and adopted?

Most Respectfully,
R

The relevance, Rocco, is that many of your buddies deny the fact that the migrants to Palestine were overwhelming Jews.

And you deny the truth that the vast majority of immigrants were arab muslims, even when your own links say they made up 60% of the total numbers. If the Jews migrating legally and in accordance with international law numbered 1500 a year and the arab muslims migrating illegally numbered 3,000 then the arab muslim numbers were greater than the Jewish numbers.

Israel should remove all Palestinian squatters who hold no titles or deeds to the land they stole.

Who do you think was living there that Britain found a need to make a division between the Pals and Ashkenazis? The Pals. What is it about this you do not understand?

 

[Phoenall]

Why when its implementation is not required under International law, as your own link stated


The ICJ assumes that Israel’s independence is a result of a partial implementation of the “Partition Plan.”
The ICJ Bench states in paragraph 71 of its opinion that:

“… on 14 May 1948, Israel proclaimed its independence on the strength of the General Assembly resolution.”

Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document was never consummated. Like the schemes that preceded it, Resolution 181’s validity hinged on acceptance by both parties of the General Assembly’s recommendation.

Sir Lauterpacht, a renowned expert on international law and editor of Oppenheim’s International Law, clarified that, from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs. In a monograph relating to one of the most complex aspects of the territorial issue, the status of Jerusalem,7 Lauterpacht wrote that to be a binding force, the “Partition Plan” would have had to arise from the principle pacta sunt servanda,8 that is, from agreement of the parties at variance to the proposed plan. In the case of Israel, Lauterpacht explains:

“… the coming into existence of Israel does not depend legally upon the Resolution. The right of a State to exist flows from its factual existence – especially when that existence is prolonged, shows every sign of continuance and is recognised by the generality of nations.”

Reviewing Lauterpacht’s arguments, Professor Stone added that Israel’s “legitimacy” or the “legal foundation” for its birth does not reside with the United Nations’ “Partition Plan,” which as a consequence of Arab actions became a dead issue. Professor Stone concluded:

“… The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.”9

Such attempts by Palestinians (and now by the ICJ) to ‘roll back the clock’ and resuscitate Resolution 181 almost six decades after its rejection as if nothing had happened, are totally inadmissible. Both Palestinians and their Arab brethren in neighboring countries rendered the plan null and void by their own subsequent aggressive actions.


Reply Online Book Chapter 4

It looks like much of the ICJ report was based on assumptions because they were not charged with investigating some information.

A good example of how this happens is when Bill Moyers was interviewing Richard Goldstone. Moyers asked Goldstone if he thought that Israel had the right to defend itself. Goldstone's response was "that is a given." What does that mean? Goldstone has heard his entire life that Israel has the right to defend itself so confirming that to be true was not a consideration.

What "everybody knows" (like the world is flat) might not be true at all.

Exactly what it says, in other words "it goes without saying that it is right". Just because you don't believe that Israel has the right to defend against acts of war and terrorist attacks does not mean international law gives them that right. As you say you believe the Earth is flat, when the rest of the world know it is an imperfect ovoid.

There is a lot of "say so" about Israel that cannot be documented.

Like what ?

The granting of the land to the Jews is documented in the LoN Mandate.

The Israeli's right to defend against terrorist attacks and acts of war is embodied in the UN charter and International law.

So what "say so" about Israel is not documented. ?

 

[Phoenall]

Why when its implementation is not required under International law, as your own link stated


The ICJ assumes that Israel’s independence is a result of a partial implementation of the “Partition Plan.”
The ICJ Bench states in paragraph 71 of its opinion that:

“… on 14 May 1948, Israel proclaimed its independence on the strength of the General Assembly resolution.”

Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document was never consummated. Like the schemes that preceded it, Resolution 181’s validity hinged on acceptance by both parties of the General Assembly’s recommendation.

Sir Lauterpacht, a renowned expert on international law and editor of Oppenheim’s International Law, clarified that, from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs. In a monograph relating to one of the most complex aspects of the territorial issue, the status of Jerusalem,7 Lauterpacht wrote that to be a binding force, the “Partition Plan” would have had to arise from the principle pacta sunt servanda,8 that is, from agreement of the parties at variance to the proposed plan. In the case of Israel, Lauterpacht explains:

“… the coming into existence of Israel does not depend legally upon the Resolution. The right of a State to exist flows from its factual existence – especially when that existence is prolonged, shows every sign of continuance and is recognised by the generality of nations.”

Reviewing Lauterpacht’s arguments, Professor Stone added that Israel’s “legitimacy” or the “legal foundation” for its birth does not reside with the United Nations’ “Partition Plan,” which as a consequence of Arab actions became a dead issue. Professor Stone concluded:

“… The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.”9

Such attempts by Palestinians (and now by the ICJ) to ‘roll back the clock’ and resuscitate Resolution 181 almost six decades after its rejection as if nothing had happened, are totally inadmissible. Both Palestinians and their Arab brethren in neighboring countries rendered the plan null and void by their own subsequent aggressive actions.


Reply Online Book Chapter 4

It looks like much of the ICJ report was based on assumptions because they were not charged with investigating some information.

A good example of how this happens is when Bill Moyers was interviewing Richard Goldstone. Moyers asked Goldstone if he thought that Israel had the right to defend itself. Goldstone's response was "that is a given." What does that mean? Goldstone has heard his entire life that Israel has the right to defend itself so confirming that to be true was not a consideration.

What "everybody knows" (like the world is flat) might not be true at all.

Exactly what it says, in other words "it goes without saying that it is right". Just because you don't believe that Israel has the right to defend against acts of war and terrorist attacks does not mean international law gives them that right. As you say you believe the Earth is flat, when the rest of the world know it is an imperfect ovoid.

There is a lot of "say so" about Israel that cannot be documented.

or believed if its from Israel, they are changing Wiki articles as we speak.

EVIDENCE like producing the before and after and the IP address of the person who changed them.

You do realise that IP addresses are country specific don't you ?

 

[MJB12741]

Why when its implementation is not required under International law, as your own link stated


The ICJ assumes that Israel’s independence is a result of a partial implementation of the “Partition Plan.”
The ICJ Bench states in paragraph 71 of its opinion that:

“… on 14 May 1948, Israel proclaimed its independence on the strength of the General Assembly resolution.”

Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document was never consummated. Like the schemes that preceded it, Resolution 181’s validity hinged on acceptance by both parties of the General Assembly’s recommendation.

Sir Lauterpacht, a renowned expert on international law and editor of Oppenheim’s International Law, clarified that, from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs. In a monograph relating to one of the most complex aspects of the territorial issue, the status of Jerusalem,7 Lauterpacht wrote that to be a binding force, the “Partition Plan” would have had to arise from the principle pacta sunt servanda,8 that is, from agreement of the parties at variance to the proposed plan. In the case of Israel, Lauterpacht explains:

“… the coming into existence of Israel does not depend legally upon the Resolution. The right of a State to exist flows from its factual existence – especially when that existence is prolonged, shows every sign of continuance and is recognised by the generality of nations.”

Reviewing Lauterpacht’s arguments, Professor Stone added that Israel’s “legitimacy” or the “legal foundation” for its birth does not reside with the United Nations’ “Partition Plan,” which as a consequence of Arab actions became a dead issue. Professor Stone concluded:

“… The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.”9

Such attempts by Palestinians (and now by the ICJ) to ‘roll back the clock’ and resuscitate Resolution 181 almost six decades after its rejection as if nothing had happened, are totally inadmissible. Both Palestinians and their Arab brethren in neighboring countries rendered the plan null and void by their own subsequent aggressive actions.


Reply Online Book Chapter 4

It looks like much of the ICJ report was based on assumptions because they were not charged with investigating some information.

A good example of how this happens is when Bill Moyers was interviewing Richard Goldstone. Moyers asked Goldstone if he thought that Israel had the right to defend itself. Goldstone's response was "that is a given." What does that mean? Goldstone has heard his entire life that Israel has the right to defend itself so confirming that to be true was not a consideration.

What "everybody knows" (like the world is flat) might not be true at all.

Exactly what it says, in other words "it goes without saying that it is right". Just because you don't believe that Israel has the right to defend against acts of war and terrorist attacks does not mean international law gives them that right. As you say you believe the Earth is flat, when the rest of the world know it is an imperfect ovoid.

There is a lot of "say so" about Israel that cannot be documented.

Right on. But we sure have plenty of documentation on Palestinian terrorists dedicated to annihilate Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why when its implementation is not required under International law, as your own link stated


The ICJ assumes that Israel’s independence is a result of a partial implementation of the “Partition Plan.”
The ICJ Bench states in paragraph 71 of its opinion that:

“… on 14 May 1948, Israel proclaimed its independence on the strength of the General Assembly resolution.”

Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document was never consummated. Like the schemes that preceded it, Resolution 181’s validity hinged on acceptance by both parties of the General Assembly’s recommendation.

Sir Lauterpacht, a renowned expert on international law and editor of Oppenheim’s International Law, clarified that, from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs. In a monograph relating to one of the most complex aspects of the territorial issue, the status of Jerusalem,7 Lauterpacht wrote that to be a binding force, the “Partition Plan” would have had to arise from the principle pacta sunt servanda,8 that is, from agreement of the parties at variance to the proposed plan. In the case of Israel, Lauterpacht explains:

“… the coming into existence of Israel does not depend legally upon the Resolution. The right of a State to exist flows from its factual existence – especially when that existence is prolonged, shows every sign of continuance and is recognised by the generality of nations.”

Reviewing Lauterpacht’s arguments, Professor Stone added that Israel’s “legitimacy” or the “legal foundation” for its birth does not reside with the United Nations’ “Partition Plan,” which as a consequence of Arab actions became a dead issue. Professor Stone concluded:

“… The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.”9

Such attempts by Palestinians (and now by the ICJ) to ‘roll back the clock’ and resuscitate Resolution 181 almost six decades after its rejection as if nothing had happened, are totally inadmissible. Both Palestinians and their Arab brethren in neighboring countries rendered the plan null and void by their own subsequent aggressive actions.


Reply Online Book Chapter 4

It looks like much of the ICJ report was based on assumptions because they were not charged with investigating some information.

A good example of how this happens is when Bill Moyers was interviewing Richard Goldstone. Moyers asked Goldstone if he thought that Israel had the right to defend itself. Goldstone's response was "that is a given." What does that mean? Goldstone has heard his entire life that Israel has the right to defend itself so confirming that to be true was not a consideration.

What "everybody knows" (like the world is flat) might not be true at all.

Exactly what it says, in other words "it goes without saying that it is right". Just because you don't believe that Israel has the right to defend against acts of war and terrorist attacks does not mean international law gives them that right. As you say you believe the Earth is flat, when the rest of the world know it is an imperfect ovoid.

There is a lot of "say so" about Israel that cannot be documented.

Right on. But we sure have plenty of documentation on Palestinian terrorists dedicated to annihilate Israel.

Is name calling all you have?

Sad.