Palestinian Peace Proposal

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh come-on now Paul. that is a legitimate tag for the Hostile Arab Palestinians which have an extended history pertaining to the conduct of:

32002F0475
Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism

Official Journal L 164 , 22/06/2002 P. 0003 - 0007
Article 1

Terrorist offenses and fundamental rights and principles

1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the intentional acts referred to below in points (a) to (i), as defined as offenses under national law, which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organization where committed with the aim of:

- seriously intimidating a population, or

- unduly compelling a Government or international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act, or

- seriously destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation,
shall be deemed to be terrorist offenses:

(a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;

A young woman, Dalia Lamkus was stabbed to death by an individual associated with the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization on November 10th.​

(b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;

On November 17 2014 two Palestinian cousins Ghassan and Uday Abu Jamal entered the Kehilat Yaakov Synagogue in Jerusalem at 7am armed with knives, meat cleavers, hatchets and guns, and began opening fire and wildly slashing at the estimated 25 individuals inside.​

(c) kidnapping or hostage taking;

Frankel, Shaar, and Yifrach were hitchhiking home from attending yeshiva in Gush Etzion when they disappeared. After a three week search their bodies were found near Halhul, a short drive away from where they wer abducted. This attack is the spark that began Operation Protective Edge.​

(d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;

• Thousands of rocket and Mortar attacks.

(e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;

• Pan Am Flight 73 (1986): While preparing to depart for Frankfurt from Karachi, Pakistan, four members of the Abu Nidal Organization, dressed as Karachi airport security guards, hijacked Pan Am Flight 73.
• On October 7, 1985, four men representing the Palestine Liberation Front hijacked the Italian MS Achille Lauro liner off the coast of Egypt, as she was sailing from Alexandria to Ashdod, Israel.

(f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;

• "Several illegal firearms were seized by the police in the flat of the late Palestinian ambassador," Jamal al Jamal, Prague police spokeswoman Andrea Zoulova told CNN about al Jamal, 57.
• The Israel Defense Forces said Wednesday it intercepted an Iranian shipment of "advanced" weapons bound for "terrorist organizations" operating in Gaza. The Israeli navy stopped a Panamanian-flagged civilian cargo ship and boarded the vessel, the IDF said. The weapons found were identified as Syrian-manufactured surface-to-surface rockets, IDF spokesman Lt. Col. Peter Lerner said. It was an Iranian shipment headed for Gaza, the IDF said, citing intelligence.

(g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;

(h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;

(i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).

• Khaled Meshal said: Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and true for the Liberation of Palestine road, and the restoration of all the rights, and with it, of course, all forms of political, diplomatic, media and the public and legal struggle; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle, and summon the strength factors have.
• 'Issam 'Adwan argued that: Hamas had the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests as well as senior Israeli officials anywhere in the world. He added that the resistance is also entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, headed by the U.S.

Don't be such a nerd. In almost nearly 95% of all criminal cases that go to trial, just like you plead the innocence of the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), so it is the case that most traditional criminals plead innocent.

With the exception of items 1g, and 1h, there is little doubt that an example can be cited for all the others. There is virtually no question that the HoAP have been, for some time, in violation of Security Council Resolution S/RES/1373 (2001). And that Israel, as well as all other states, are called upon to implement (by UNSC Resolution 1269) fully the international anti-terrorist conventions (A/RES/49/60) to which they are parties, encourages all States to consider as a matter of priority adhering to those to which they are not parties, and encourages also the speedy adoption of the pending conventions;

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.[/QUOTE]
Is name calling all you have?

Sad.[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

The insinuation that the description of "terrorist" is somehow unfair or inaccurate is merely an attempt to suggest, in a reverse manner, that the it is totally proper for the HoAP to engage in Jihadist and Fedayeen (Islamic Extremism) in the pursuit of their political agenda and to intimidate the lawfully establish State of Israel into acquiescing to HoAP demands. This is, in itself a variation on the theme of prohibited by A/RES/2/110 which prohibits forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh come-on now Paul. that is a legitimate tag for the Hostile Arab Palestinians which have an extended history pertaining to the conduct of:

32002F0475
Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism

Official Journal L 164 , 22/06/2002 P. 0003 - 0007
Article 1

Terrorist offenses and fundamental rights and principles

1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the intentional acts referred to below in points (a) to (i), as defined as offenses under national law, which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organization where committed with the aim of:

- seriously intimidating a population, or

- unduly compelling a Government or international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act, or

- seriously destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation,
shall be deemed to be terrorist offenses:

(a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;

A young woman, Dalia Lamkus was stabbed to death by an individual associated with the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization on November 10th.​

(b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;

On November 17 2014 two Palestinian cousins Ghassan and Uday Abu Jamal entered the Kehilat Yaakov Synagogue in Jerusalem at 7am armed with knives, meat cleavers, hatchets and guns, and began opening fire and wildly slashing at the estimated 25 individuals inside.​

(c) kidnapping or hostage taking;

Frankel, Shaar, and Yifrach were hitchhiking home from attending yeshiva in Gush Etzion when they disappeared. After a three week search their bodies were found near Halhul, a short drive away from where they wer abducted. This attack is the spark that began Operation Protective Edge.​

(d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;

• Thousands of rocket and Mortar attacks.

(e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;

• Pan Am Flight 73 (1986): While preparing to depart for Frankfurt from Karachi, Pakistan, four members of the Abu Nidal Organization, dressed as Karachi airport security guards, hijacked Pan Am Flight 73.
• On October 7, 1985, four men representing the Palestine Liberation Front hijacked the Italian MS Achille Lauro liner off the coast of Egypt, as she was sailing from Alexandria to Ashdod, Israel.

(f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;

• "Several illegal firearms were seized by the police in the flat of the late Palestinian ambassador," Jamal al Jamal, Prague police spokeswoman Andrea Zoulova told CNN about al Jamal, 57.
• The Israel Defense Forces said Wednesday it intercepted an Iranian shipment of "advanced" weapons bound for "terrorist organizations" operating in Gaza. The Israeli navy stopped a Panamanian-flagged civilian cargo ship and boarded the vessel, the IDF said. The weapons found were identified as Syrian-manufactured surface-to-surface rockets, IDF spokesman Lt. Col. Peter Lerner said. It was an Iranian shipment headed for Gaza, the IDF said, citing intelligence.

(g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;

(h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;

(i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).

• Khaled Meshal said: Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and true for the Liberation of Palestine road, and the restoration of all the rights, and with it, of course, all forms of political, diplomatic, media and the public and legal struggle; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle, and summon the strength factors have.
• 'Issam 'Adwan argued that: Hamas had the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests as well as senior Israeli officials anywhere in the world. He added that the resistance is also entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, headed by the U.S.

Don't be such a nerd. In almost nearly 95% of all criminal cases that go to trial, just like you plead the innocence of the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), so it is the case that most traditional criminals plead innocent.

With the exception of items 1g, and 1h, there is little doubt that an example can be cited for all the others. There is virtually no question that the HoAP have been, for some time, in violation of Security Council Resolution S/RES/1373 (2001). And that Israel, as well as all other states, are called upon to implement (by UNSC Resolution 1269) fully the international anti-terrorist conventions (A/RES/49/60) to which they are parties, encourages all States to consider as a matter of priority adhering to those to which they are not parties, and encourages also the speedy adoption of the pending conventions;

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.[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

The insinuation that the description of "terrorist" is somehow unfair or inaccurate is merely an attempt to suggest, in a reverse manner, that the it is totally proper for the HoAP to engage in Jihadist and Fedayeen (Islamic Extremism) in the pursuit of their political agenda and to intimidate the lawfully establish State of Israel into acquiescing to HoAP demands. This is, in itself a variation on the theme of prohibited by A/RES/2/110 which prohibits forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
So, when are you going to give us a list of Israel's crimes?

You look biased and one sided when you only do the Palestinian thing.

 

[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.

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

Is name calling all you have?

Sad.

Calling a TERRORIST a TERRORIST is not name calling. We know you don't see the targeting of children and civilians with weapons of terror as terrorism but unfortunately it is. And it also a fact that hamas is a proven terrorist organisation no matter how legitimate they see themselves.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh come-on now Paul. that is a legitimate tag for the Hostile Arab Palestinians which have an extended history pertaining to the conduct of:

32002F0475
Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism

Official Journal L 164 , 22/06/2002 P. 0003 - 0007
Article 1

Terrorist offenses and fundamental rights and principles

1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the intentional acts referred to below in points (a) to (i), as defined as offenses under national law, which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organization where committed with the aim of:

- seriously intimidating a population, or

- unduly compelling a Government or international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act, or

- seriously destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation,
shall be deemed to be terrorist offenses:

(a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;

A young woman, Dalia Lamkus was stabbed to death by an individual associated with the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization on November 10th.​

(b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;

On November 17 2014 two Palestinian cousins Ghassan and Uday Abu Jamal entered the Kehilat Yaakov Synagogue in Jerusalem at 7am armed with knives, meat cleavers, hatchets and guns, and began opening fire and wildly slashing at the estimated 25 individuals inside.​

(c) kidnapping or hostage taking;

Frankel, Shaar, and Yifrach were hitchhiking home from attending yeshiva in Gush Etzion when they disappeared. After a three week search their bodies were found near Halhul, a short drive away from where they wer abducted. This attack is the spark that began Operation Protective Edge.​

(d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;

• Thousands of rocket and Mortar attacks.

(e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;

• Pan Am Flight 73 (1986): While preparing to depart for Frankfurt from Karachi, Pakistan, four members of the Abu Nidal Organization, dressed as Karachi airport security guards, hijacked Pan Am Flight 73.
• On October 7, 1985, four men representing the Palestine Liberation Front hijacked the Italian MS Achille Lauro liner off the coast of Egypt, as she was sailing from Alexandria to Ashdod, Israel.

(f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;

• "Several illegal firearms were seized by the police in the flat of the late Palestinian ambassador," Jamal al Jamal, Prague police spokeswoman Andrea Zoulova told CNN about al Jamal, 57.
• The Israel Defense Forces said Wednesday it intercepted an Iranian shipment of "advanced" weapons bound for "terrorist organizations" operating in Gaza. The Israeli navy stopped a Panamanian-flagged civilian cargo ship and boarded the vessel, the IDF said. The weapons found were identified as Syrian-manufactured surface-to-surface rockets, IDF spokesman Lt. Col. Peter Lerner said. It was an Iranian shipment headed for Gaza, the IDF said, citing intelligence.

(g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;

(h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;

(i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).

• Khaled Meshal said: Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and true for the Liberation of Palestine road, and the restoration of all the rights, and with it, of course, all forms of political, diplomatic, media and the public and legal struggle; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle, and summon the strength factors have.
• 'Issam 'Adwan argued that: Hamas had the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests as well as senior Israeli officials anywhere in the world. He added that the resistance is also entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, headed by the U.S.

Don't be such a nerd. In almost nearly 95% of all criminal cases that go to trial, just like you plead the innocence of the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), so it is the case that most traditional criminals plead innocent.

With the exception of items 1g, and 1h, there is little doubt that an example can be cited for all the others. There is virtually no question that the HoAP have been, for some time, in violation of Security Council Resolution S/RES/1373 (2001). And that Israel, as well as all other states, are called upon to implement (by UNSC Resolution 1269) fully the international anti-terrorist conventions (A/RES/49/60) to which they are parties, encourages all States to consider as a matter of priority adhering to those to which they are not parties, and encourages also the speedy adoption of the pending conventions;

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.

(COMMENT)

The insinuation that the description of "terrorist" is somehow unfair or inaccurate is merely an attempt to suggest, in a reverse manner, that the it is totally proper for the HoAP to engage in Jihadist and Fedayeen (Islamic Extremism) in the pursuit of their political agenda and to intimidate the lawfully establish State of Israel into acquiescing to HoAP demands. This is, in itself a variation on the theme of prohibited by A/RES/2/110 which prohibits forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
So, when are you going to give us a list of Israel's crimes?

You look biased and one sided when you only do the Palestinian thing.[/QUOTE]




BECAUSE DEFENDING AGAINST TERRORISM IS NOT A CRIME.

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh come-on now Paul. that is a legitimate tag for the Hostile Arab Palestinians which have an extended history pertaining to the conduct of:

32002F0475
Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism

Official Journal L 164 , 22/06/2002 P. 0003 - 0007
Article 1

Terrorist offenses and fundamental rights and principles

1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the intentional acts referred to below in points (a) to (i), as defined as offenses under national law, which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organization where committed with the aim of:

- seriously intimidating a population, or

- unduly compelling a Government or international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act, or

- seriously destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation,
shall be deemed to be terrorist offenses:

(a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;

A young woman, Dalia Lamkus was stabbed to death by an individual associated with the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization on November 10th.​

(b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;

On November 17 2014 two Palestinian cousins Ghassan and Uday Abu Jamal entered the Kehilat Yaakov Synagogue in Jerusalem at 7am armed with knives, meat cleavers, hatchets and guns, and began opening fire and wildly slashing at the estimated 25 individuals inside.​

(c) kidnapping or hostage taking;

Frankel, Shaar, and Yifrach were hitchhiking home from attending yeshiva in Gush Etzion when they disappeared. After a three week search their bodies were found near Halhul, a short drive away from where they wer abducted. This attack is the spark that began Operation Protective Edge.​

(d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;

• Thousands of rocket and Mortar attacks.

(e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;

• Pan Am Flight 73 (1986): While preparing to depart for Frankfurt from Karachi, Pakistan, four members of the Abu Nidal Organization, dressed as Karachi airport security guards, hijacked Pan Am Flight 73.
• On October 7, 1985, four men representing the Palestine Liberation Front hijacked the Italian MS Achille Lauro liner off the coast of Egypt, as she was sailing from Alexandria to Ashdod, Israel.

(f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;

• "Several illegal firearms were seized by the police in the flat of the late Palestinian ambassador," Jamal al Jamal, Prague police spokeswoman Andrea Zoulova told CNN about al Jamal, 57.
• The Israel Defense Forces said Wednesday it intercepted an Iranian shipment of "advanced" weapons bound for "terrorist organizations" operating in Gaza. The Israeli navy stopped a Panamanian-flagged civilian cargo ship and boarded the vessel, the IDF said. The weapons found were identified as Syrian-manufactured surface-to-surface rockets, IDF spokesman Lt. Col. Peter Lerner said. It was an Iranian shipment headed for Gaza, the IDF said, citing intelligence.

(g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;

(h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;

(i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).

• Khaled Meshal said: Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and true for the Liberation of Palestine road, and the restoration of all the rights, and with it, of course, all forms of political, diplomatic, media and the public and legal struggle; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle, and summon the strength factors have.
• 'Issam 'Adwan argued that: Hamas had the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests as well as senior Israeli officials anywhere in the world. He added that the resistance is also entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, headed by the U.S.

Don't be such a nerd. In almost nearly 95% of all criminal cases that go to trial, just like you plead the innocence of the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), so it is the case that most traditional criminals plead innocent.

With the exception of items 1g, and 1h, there is little doubt that an example can be cited for all the others. There is virtually no question that the HoAP have been, for some time, in violation of Security Council Resolution S/RES/1373 (2001). And that Israel, as well as all other states, are called upon to implement (by UNSC Resolution 1269) fully the international anti-terrorist conventions (A/RES/49/60) to which they are parties, encourages all States to consider as a matter of priority adhering to those to which they are not parties, and encourages also the speedy adoption of the pending conventions;

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.[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

The insinuation that the description of "terrorist" is somehow unfair or inaccurate is merely an attempt to suggest, in a reverse manner, that the it is totally proper for the HoAP to engage in Jihadist and Fedayeen (Islamic Extremism) in the pursuit of their political agenda and to intimidate the lawfully establish State of Israel into acquiescing to HoAP demands. This is, in itself a variation on the theme of prohibited by A/RES/2/110 which prohibits forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]


Thank you for documented facts. And these are the people who want Israel to negotiate peace with them.

 

[aris2chat]

This is what Israel deals with

Nazi flag flies high over West Bank mosque VIDEO - Wilmington Conservative Examiner.com

 

[aris2chat]

Israel silent while Hamas digs tunnels - Al-Monitor the Pulse of the Middle East

Peace with whom?

 

[MJB12741]

Israel silent while Hamas digs tunnels - Al-Monitor the Pulse of the Middle East

Peace with whom?

Want peace from Palestinians? Look to Jordan's Black September. History has proven king Hussein was right. LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

 

[aris2chat]

Palestinian hits two Israel police with car and a third policeman shoots the drive dead in Jerusalem. Hamas is calling it an execution.
They wanted the drive to be arrested and get a four year degree in jail?
Israel has four passes for palestinians from the WB to enter Israel for work and nearly three thousand enter from gaza for medical care in Israeli hospitals.
Israel is not the stumbling block to peace. Palestinians attitude of hate is.

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh come-on now Paul. that is a legitimate tag for the Hostile Arab Palestinians which have an extended history pertaining to the conduct of:

32002F0475
Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism

Official Journal L 164 , 22/06/2002 P. 0003 - 0007
Article 1

Terrorist offenses and fundamental rights and principles

1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the intentional acts referred to below in points (a) to (i), as defined as offenses under national law, which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organization where committed with the aim of:

- seriously intimidating a population, or

- unduly compelling a Government or international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act, or

- seriously destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation,
shall be deemed to be terrorist offenses:

(a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;

A young woman, Dalia Lamkus was stabbed to death by an individual associated with the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization on November 10th.​

(b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;

On November 17 2014 two Palestinian cousins Ghassan and Uday Abu Jamal entered the Kehilat Yaakov Synagogue in Jerusalem at 7am armed with knives, meat cleavers, hatchets and guns, and began opening fire and wildly slashing at the estimated 25 individuals inside.​

(c) kidnapping or hostage taking;

Frankel, Shaar, and Yifrach were hitchhiking home from attending yeshiva in Gush Etzion when they disappeared. After a three week search their bodies were found near Halhul, a short drive away from where they wer abducted. This attack is the spark that began Operation Protective Edge.​

(d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;

• Thousands of rocket and Mortar attacks.

(e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;

• Pan Am Flight 73 (1986): While preparing to depart for Frankfurt from Karachi, Pakistan, four members of the Abu Nidal Organization, dressed as Karachi airport security guards, hijacked Pan Am Flight 73.
• On October 7, 1985, four men representing the Palestine Liberation Front hijacked the Italian MS Achille Lauro liner off the coast of Egypt, as she was sailing from Alexandria to Ashdod, Israel.

(f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;

• "Several illegal firearms were seized by the police in the flat of the late Palestinian ambassador," Jamal al Jamal, Prague police spokeswoman Andrea Zoulova told CNN about al Jamal, 57.
• The Israel Defense Forces said Wednesday it intercepted an Iranian shipment of "advanced" weapons bound for "terrorist organizations" operating in Gaza. The Israeli navy stopped a Panamanian-flagged civilian cargo ship and boarded the vessel, the IDF said. The weapons found were identified as Syrian-manufactured surface-to-surface rockets, IDF spokesman Lt. Col. Peter Lerner said. It was an Iranian shipment headed for Gaza, the IDF said, citing intelligence.

(g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;

(h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;

(i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).

• Khaled Meshal said: Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and true for the Liberation of Palestine road, and the restoration of all the rights, and with it, of course, all forms of political, diplomatic, media and the public and legal struggle; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle, and summon the strength factors have.
• 'Issam 'Adwan argued that: Hamas had the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests as well as senior Israeli officials anywhere in the world. He added that the resistance is also entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, headed by the U.S.

Don't be such a nerd. In almost nearly 95% of all criminal cases that go to trial, just like you plead the innocence of the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), so it is the case that most traditional criminals plead innocent.

With the exception of items 1g, and 1h, there is little doubt that an example can be cited for all the others. There is virtually no question that the HoAP have been, for some time, in violation of Security Council Resolution S/RES/1373 (2001). And that Israel, as well as all other states, are called upon to implement (by UNSC Resolution 1269) fully the international anti-terrorist conventions (A/RES/49/60) to which they are parties, encourages all States to consider as a matter of priority adhering to those to which they are not parties, and encourages also the speedy adoption of the pending conventions;

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.

(COMMENT)

The insinuation that the description of "terrorist" is somehow unfair or inaccurate is merely an attempt to suggest, in a reverse manner, that the it is totally proper for the HoAP to engage in Jihadist and Fedayeen (Islamic Extremism) in the pursuit of their political agenda and to intimidate the lawfully establish State of Israel into acquiescing to HoAP demands. This is, in itself a variation on the theme of prohibited by A/RES/2/110 which prohibits forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
So, when are you going to give us a list of Israel's crimes?

You look biased and one sided when you only do the Palestinian thing.[/QUOTE]

Great point. Just look what those Zionists have done to the Palestinians with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concerssions so the Palestinians can remain in Israel. Face it you Zionists, not even once has Israel tried to help free them back to their indigenous homelands. Shame on you people for that.

 

[RoccoR]

MJB12741, P F Tinmore, et al,

In any conflict that has lasted as long as the Arab-Israeli conflict, there will be claims and counter-claims. In the end, the terminator is usually a war between the belligerents that settles the matter.

In the 20th Century, the more civilized nations of the world have attempted to intervene in these unsuccessful conflicts that have started as minor squabbles and evolved into Regional conflicts; interventions that usually have negative or imperfect outcomes. In the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the hostilities were almost like spontaneous ignition --- a type of cultural conflict that occurs by itself (exothermic internal reactions of mixing volatile elements and conditions); followed by a gradual development until a thermal runaway occurs (on both sides Arab and Jewish) which rapidly accelerates to high political confrontation, --- and zoom --- a war starts. They have been locked in conflict for so long that they cannot even agree on the triggering event. Like any fire (cultural feud), the point of origin is often hard to pinpoint. Clearly, the Jewish and the Muslims do not mix well in the Mediterranean climate.

Where both sides innocent at all times? No --- clearly not so. There were uncontrolled hot heads on both sides. But the accusations are not being soundly addressed.

So, when are you going to give us a list of Israel's crimes?
You look biased and one sided when you only do the Palestinian thing.

Great point. Just look what those Zionists have done to the Palestinians with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concerssions so the Palestinians can remain in Israel. Face it you Zionists, not even once has Israel tried to help free them back to their indigenous homelands. Shame on you people for that.

(COMMENT)

In the case of the Israelis (I'm accused of not mentioning the "Israeli Crimes"), my perspective is different. And that is because a clear and concise accusation is seldom made. But Since the point was raised (supra P F Tinmore) and seconded (supra by MJB'), I thought I would attempt to address them (one-by-one). In the absence of a member accusation, I used the "LIST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW VIOLATIONS BY THE STATE OF ISREAL" found by the search of that same name - post by "ItisApartheid.Org":

• ISRAELI OCCUPATION IS ILLEGAL: Laws Violated: U.N. Charter, Article 2(4) & 51 (1945); Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations…, Principle 1 (1970). Israeli Actions: It is illegal under international law to acquire land by force: Israel annexed land occupied by force during 1948 and 1967 wars (lands other than those given by the UN 1947-48 partition plan) ILRC article. Military action and occupations are legal only if they are for self-defense, or to directly benefit the native population. But studies show Israel is not just defending itself as it develops de-facto annexation with its settlements and separation barrier on occupied land, as it takes over most of the occupied territories (over 70%) and its natural resources for its own use and economic benefit, at the expense of the native population. ILRC article on why the Occupation is illegal.
  • Israel did not occupy any territory under Arab sovereignty in 1948. It accepted the offering under General Assembly Resolution 181(II), pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," in the establishment of a "Jewish State." Thus, it is not a Violation of Article 2(4) & 51 (1945).
  • Israel did not take the territory by force, rather it defended its right of self-determination and the accepted offering by the General Assembly, and was immediately attacked by a coalition of Arab Forces (Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon - Arab High Committee's Holy War Army - volunteers from the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and the Sudan) on the day of Independence.
  • The conflict between Israel and the Coalition of Arab Forces ended in a UN negotiated ceasefire and Armistice --- with Armistice agreements concluded between Israel and the four adjacent Arab States (the major waring parties) in 1949; with Armistice Lines forged along the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA). In certain areas, the FEBA exceeded the "lands other than those given by the UN 1947-48 partition plan." These territories did not come under the control of Israel by an act of aggression on the part of Israel, but rather, were lost to Israel through an act of aggression on the part of the Coalition of Arab Forces. Chapter I, Article 2(4) stipulates that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
    • POINTS TO REMEMBER:
      • Israel was defending its rights to Independence and its territorial integrity from the use of force by the Coalition of Arab Forces; not the other way around.
      • The member nation fostering the Coalition of Arab Forces were member nations of the UN and subject to the charter; where as Israel was not yet a mamber of the UN and not subject to the Charter.
      • For achieving the 1949 Armistice Agreements, Dr. Ralph Bunche received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1950. He served as assistant to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, and thereafter as the principal secretary of the UN Palestine Commission. In 1948, was appointed by the UN to mediate the conflict; after the Count Bernadotte was assassinated. The UN Security Council was intimately involved with the Armistice Negotiations on the Island of Rhodes. The Armistice Lines, and the territory included, were negotiated and approved by the all four major parties to the conflict. Israel was not in violation of any Charter, Treaty, Resolution or international law.
  • Relative to the 1967 War (AKA: The Six-Day War), The 1967 War did not start in the Sinai (while all the events are connected), the critical events that trigger the renewed opening of Hostilities, revolved around:
    • Between January and April 1967: 63 Arab attacks (Syrian tank fire, mines, more than 200 mortar shells, Palestinian terror attacks) heighten anxiety in Israel.
    • 16-19 May 1967: Egypt moves 100,000 troops into the Sinai, demands ALL United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) withdraw.
    • 22 May 1967: Egypt commits an Act of War; Egypt closes the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. The Egyptian government asserted that because of a continuing state of war between Egypt and Israel, Egypt was entitled to take measures to prevent the passage of belligerent ships. The Egyptian government argued that the Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement had not legally ended the state of war between the two nations. Thus by blockading the Strait of Tiran to the Freedom of Navigation by Israeli shipping, Egypt essentially reopened hostilities. Under customary international law, a body of water with the geography of the Gulf of Aqaba is non-territorial. International law recognizes a gulf bordered by more than one littoral state as being part of the high seas (international waters). Ships from Elath and Aqaba has freedom of navigation through the Straits for more than 2000 years.
      • NOTE: The Gulf of Aqaba, bordered by the states of Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, is approximately 100 miles in length. Its width varies from three miles at the narrowest point to seventeen miles at the widest point. The only navigable entrance to the Gulf is the Strait of Tiran, which is located at the southern tip of the Gulf, between Tiran Island and the Sinai Peninsula. Two ports - Elath (Israel) and Aqaba (Oordan) - are located at the northern tip of the Gulf. Egypt has no commercial shipping ports in the Gulf. The blockade was purposefully done to provoke the conflict, after having pre-positioned the Egyptian Army in the Sinai. At the time of the 1967 War Field Marshal Abdul Hakim Amir had deployed a force of four infantry divisions, one armored division and a Mechanized division and an additional armored task force (4 reinforced Armor Battalions) in the Sinai.
    • At the time of the 1967 War, the West Bank was sovereign Jordanian territory. The 1967 War was not an engagement with a Palestinian sovereignty, but with Jordan which became involved as a consequence of a mutual defense agreement with Egypt.
    • The Gaza Strip was a military governorship and occupied by Egyptian Forces. It was not sovereign Palestine.
    • Since the Arab States agreed that the 1948-49 Armistice Arrangements did not end the 1948 War, in which the Coalition of Arab Forces were the aggressor, and since Egypt closed the shipping lane through the Strait of Tiran, Israel is not the aggressor in the 1967 War.

• ILLEGAL ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS ON OCCUPIED LAND: Laws Violated: Geneva Conventions IV, Article 49(6) (1949). It is illegal to colonize occupied land or transfer non-indigenous population to that land. Israeli Actions: Immediately following the 1967 war, Israel began building Israeli civilian settlements on Palestinian lands, eventually building over 200 settlements throughout the occupied territories, and settling over 450,000 Israeli civilians in them, displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians from their own legally owned lands. In addition, Israeli citizens live in hundreds of Israeli settlements on occupied land not originally given to them in the UN Partition Plan, displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. ILRC article.
  • Is it really a violation? What does the Geneva Convention actually say?
    • Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
    • Deportations, transfers, evacuations
      • ARTICLE 49 [ Link ]

• • • • • Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
        • Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
        • The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
        • The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
        • The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
        • The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
    • This 1949 GCIV Protection was to prevent, in the future, any such action as the Jewish endured in the forced transfers to concentration camps. It had nothing to do with settlements by migrating settlers.
    • Hostilities between the HoAP and the Occupation Forces have not ceased. Both halves of the Unity Government still cling to the belief that Jihad is the solution and that the establishment of Israel is illegal.
    • The Oslo Accords between the Israeli Government and the Arab League recognized sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, established Areas "A" "B" and "C" which permitted Israel to allow settlers into Area "C" territory.
    • NOTE: I would be remiss if I did not mention that Article 22(2)(b) of the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind considers “the establishment of settlers in an occupied territory and changes to the demographic composition of an occupied territory” as an “exceptionally serious war crime”. However, it is important to point-out that the intent by the Israeli is not to alter the "demographic composition."

• ILLEGAL ISRAELI PRACTICE OF ETHNIC CLEANSING: Laws Violated: Forbidding civilian populations the right to return to their homes following the end of armed conflict is in direct violation of international law and UN resolutions. Geneva Convention IV, Articles 45, 46 & 49 (1949), UN resolutions 194 (III) (General Assembly; 1948) & 237 (Security Council; 1967). Israeli Actions: Since 1910, in different ways, the Zionists and then Israel have taken Palestinian lands, forced native populations from their land, and then refused the Palestinian landowners or tenants’ residency or employment on them. Following fighting in 1948 and then again in 1967, Palestinian civilians who wished to return to their homes in Israel and the Occupied Territories were forbidden re-entry (“right of return”), confining them to increasingly smaller areas of Israel and Occupied Territories. The Israeli government enacts laws, and employs its military to keep approximately 750,000 Palestinian Arab civilians from returning to their homes following the end of fighting both in 1948 and in the occupied territories in 1967. Israel then violates UN resolutions ordering them to respect Palestinians’ right to return to their homes. See the ILRC article on Right of Return and ILRC article on Ethnic Cleansing.
  • There is no treaty that ends the conflict between the State of Israel and the HoAP either in the Gaza government or the West Bank Government. Again, by the standards set by the HAMAS and Fatah halves of the government, Israel has no right to exist anywhere south of Lebanon and north of the Sinai --- from the Jordan River to the Sea. This is Palestine, exclusively for the Palestinians. The Liberation of Palestine is a national duty; it is the responsibility of the Palestinian people and the Arab and Islamic nation, it is also a humanitarian responsibility in accordance with the requirements of truth and justice. Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine.
  • Prior to 1948 there was no Israel. Therefore, the idea that Israel took part in some sort of Ethnic Cleansing, prior to 1948 with the establishment of the Jewish States is impossible. As stated in the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Customary International Humanitarian Law Study, the biggest challenge for legal scholars when dealing with the term of ethnic cleansing is the fact that “it consists of a combination of a number of war crimes." Legal theory has also placed ethnic cleansing among crimes against humanity and has declared it a form of genocide, so to this end there is still eternal controversy.
    • For the purpose of this Statute (Part II - Article 6 - ICC Rome Statutes), "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• 
  
  (a) Killing members of the group;
  (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.​
• ISRAELI APARTHEID SYSTEM IS ILLEGAL: Laws Violated: International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1976). Link to our fact sheets on Israeli Apartheid. Israeli Actions: The State of Israel has a formal system of legalized discrimination against Palestinian Arabs which technically fits the official UN definition of Apartheid. ILRC article. Israel’s society-wide system of discrimination and isolation of the Palestinian people within Israel, and its system of exploitation, oppression and isolation in the occupied territories, fits exactly the official, legal UN definition of apartheid, which is considered to be a crime against humanity. The practice of passing laws which give special favor throughout Israeli society to the Jewish people over all other people, and especially the native Palestinian Arab people, embodies the UN definition of apartheid, which is giving special favor to one group of people above all other groups based on criteria like what religion they are. Another example is in 2003, the Israeli legislature (Knesset) passed legislation that forbade spouses of Arab-Israeli citizens who are in the occupied territories from joining their families in Israel (with some exceptions). The reason for this legislation is to help maintain the Jewish demographic majority family unification. The racist nature is evident in that only Palestinians (no other ethnic groups) are not forbidden to live in Israel after marrying an Israeli. ILRC article. General article. Amnesty International argues that this law violates fundamental principles of equity, human dignity and personal freedom enshrined in basic law as well as the rights of the child to live with both parents and other fundamental rights enshrined in human rights treaties in which Israel is a signer.
  • "The crime of apartheid" means (Part II - Article 7 - ICC Rome Statutes) inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.
  • There is no oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups. Israel is a multiracial and multicultural society to a much greater extent than the State of Palestine. And Israel has within it every racial group that the State of Palestine has; greater cultural and racial diversity.
  • Israel security countermeasure are instituted to protect or maintaining a regime within the State of Palestine. All security countermeasures and the quarantine of Palestinians are to protect the sovereign integrity of Israel and to maintain the security and safety for its citizenry against a regime that has dedicated itself to Jihad and the destruction of Israel as a State.
• MASSIVE VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS (HR):

Laws Violated: U.N. Charter, Article 1 (1945); Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations…, Principle 5 (1970)​

• COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT IS ILLEGAL:

Laws Violated: Geneva Conventions IV, Article 33 (1949); Geneva Conventions (Protocol I), Article 75(2d) (1977).​

• ILLEGAL MASSIVE TRANSFORMATION OF LOCAL LAWS:

Laws Violated: Hague Regulations IV, Article 43 (1907).​

• SEPARATION BARRIER RULED ILLEGAL

Laws Violated: International Court of Justice of 2004, Advisory Opinion,​

• • Relative to Massive HR Violations, this is merely a grab bag for the Palestinians. The Palestinians have hurt themselves many more times than the Israeli could do intentionally. Since there is no specific allegation here, there is no real response to be made. The world in general understands that this is a belligerent occupation of a parasitic failed government, unable to meet Article 22 (LoN Covenant) requirements to be able to stand on their own, and lead by a conglomeration of Jihadist and Fedayeen that are dedicated to disrupting regional security. Even the adjacent Arab nations don't really want to help them and would prefer that Israel maintain the quarantine.
  • There is no Collective Punishment. Israel is not standing up Arab Palestinian against the wall and shooting them on mass; or punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed.
  • The transformation of local laws would have transferred any way. At the time of the original occupation, the territory was sovereign Jordanian territory. When it became territory occupied by Israel, the local laws were Jordanian. In July 1988, Jordan relinquished sovereignty; and the territory was orphaned (nor legitimate government --- not Palestinian and not Jordanian); by UN Security Council Mandate and under the Geneva Convention the governance fell upon the Occupation Power. The only law at that point was what was enforced by the Occupying Power.
  • Relative to the Separation Barrier --- as P F Tinmore so often reminds us all, the Armistice Line between Israel and the State of Palestine is NOT a border. The State of Palestine has not treaty in respect to borders. As P F Tinmore often asks, where is the treaty or other legal instrument that delineates the border of Palestine? The principle purpose of the Security Barrier is to maintain the security and safety of the citizens of Israel from those hostile elements on the West Bank and Gaza Strip side of the Barriers, which would (given the opportunity) do the Israelis harm. So strong is the need for the Hostile Arab Palestine that the dig tunnels to defeat the purpose of the barriers.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[theliq]

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. ?

But it was the Zionists that were the TERRORISTS,not the Palestinians you fool.....and the Jewish Zionists committed War Crimes to displace the Palestinians..........what did the Palestinians ever do to you????? Funny how you are So Mute about the Nazis,Russians and Catholics who tried to Eliminate the Jewish people........You have treated the Palestinians as you were treated by the Nazis,Russians and Catholics......and you now carry Collective Guilt for your Actions,plus the reason the World have such a Low Opinion of You.

 

[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. ?

But it was the Zionists that were the TERRORISTS,not the Palestinians you fool.....and the Jewish Zionists committed War Crimes to displace the Palestinians..........what did the Palestinians ever do to you????? Funny how you are So Mute about the Nazis,Russians and Catholics who tried to Eliminate the Jewish people........You have treated the Palestinians as you were treated by the Nazis,Russians and Catholics......and you now carry Collective Guilt for your Actions,plus the reason the World have such a Low Opinion of You.

Still waiting for your proof of this, waiting for the list of non partisan nations that declare Zionists to be terrorists. When did these alleged war crimes take place then, and what court with the right authority has charged Israel with the crimes. The Palestinians and their fellow muslims destroyed one Christmas for me and my family by mass murdering 300 innocents flying home for Christmas in 1984.

You seem to have this fixation that I am a Jew, well you are so far of the mark as to be in another universe. I treat the Palestinians with the hate and disdain they deserve after targeting children to force the Jews to leave their country. Just as the muslims in Britain also target the children here to force the British to give in to their demands.

 

[P F Tinmore]

MJB12741, P F Tinmore, et al,

In any conflict that has lasted as long as the Arab-Israeli conflict, there will be claims and counter-claims. In the end, the terminator is usually a war between the belligerents that settles the matter.

In the 20th Century, the more civilized nations of the world have attempted to intervene in these unsuccessful conflicts that have started as minor squabbles and evolved into Regional conflicts; interventions that usually have negative or imperfect outcomes. In the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the hostilities were almost like spontaneous ignition --- a type of cultural conflict that occurs by itself (exothermic internal reactions of mixing volatile elements and conditions); followed by a gradual development until a thermal runaway occurs (on both sides Arab and Jewish) which rapidly accelerates to high political confrontation, --- and zoom --- a war starts. They have been locked in conflict for so long that they cannot even agree on the triggering event. Like any fire (cultural feud), the point of origin is often hard to pinpoint. Clearly, the Jewish and the Muslims do not mix well in the Mediterranean climate.

Where both sides innocent at all times? No --- clearly not so. There were uncontrolled hot heads on both sides. But the accusations are not being soundly addressed.

So, when are you going to give us a list of Israel's crimes?
You look biased and one sided when you only do the Palestinian thing.

Great point. Just look what those Zionists have done to the Palestinians with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concerssions so the Palestinians can remain in Israel. Face it you Zionists, not even once has Israel tried to help free them back to their indigenous homelands. Shame on you people for that.

(COMMENT)

In the case of the Israelis (I'm accused of not mentioning the "Israeli Crimes"), my perspective is different. And that is because a clear and concise accusation is seldom made. But Since the point was raised (supra P F Tinmore) and seconded (supra by MJB'), I thought I would attempt to address them (one-by-one). In the absence of a member accusation, I used the "LIST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW VIOLATIONS BY THE STATE OF ISREAL" found by the search of that same name - post by "ItisApartheid.Org":

• ISRAELI OCCUPATION IS ILLEGAL: Laws Violated: U.N. Charter, Article 2(4) & 51 (1945); Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations…, Principle 1 (1970). Israeli Actions: It is illegal under international law to acquire land by force: Israel annexed land occupied by force during 1948 and 1967 wars (lands other than those given by the UN 1947-48 partition plan) ILRC article. Military action and occupations are legal only if they are for self-defense, or to directly benefit the native population. But studies show Israel is not just defending itself as it develops de-facto annexation with its settlements and separation barrier on occupied land, as it takes over most of the occupied territories (over 70%) and its natural resources for its own use and economic benefit, at the expense of the native population. ILRC article on why the Occupation is illegal.
  • Israel did not occupy any territory under Arab sovereignty in 1948. It accepted the offering under General Assembly Resolution 181(II), pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," in the establishment of a "Jewish State." Thus, it is not a Violation of Article 2(4) & 51 (1945).
  • Israel did not take the territory by force, rather it defended its right of self-determination and the accepted offering by the General Assembly, and was immediately attacked by a coalition of Arab Forces (Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon - Arab High Committee's Holy War Army - volunteers from the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and the Sudan) on the day of Independence.
  • The conflict between Israel and the Coalition of Arab Forces ended in a UN negotiated ceasefire and Armistice --- with Armistice agreements concluded between Israel and the four adjacent Arab States (the major waring parties) in 1949; with Armistice Lines forged along the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA). In certain areas, the FEBA exceeded the "lands other than those given by the UN 1947-48 partition plan." These territories did not come under the control of Israel by an act of aggression on the part of Israel, but rather, were lost to Israel through an act of aggression on the part of the Coalition of Arab Forces. Chapter I, Article 2(4) stipulates that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
    • POINTS TO REMEMBER:
      • Israel was defending its rights to Independence and its territorial integrity from the use of force by the Coalition of Arab Forces; not the other way around.
      • The member nation fostering the Coalition of Arab Forces were member nations of the UN and subject to the charter; where as Israel was not yet a mamber of the UN and not subject to the Charter.
      • For achieving the 1949 Armistice Agreements, Dr. Ralph Bunche received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1950. He served as assistant to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, and thereafter as the principal secretary of the UN Palestine Commission. In 1948, was appointed by the UN to mediate the conflict; after the Count Bernadotte was assassinated. The UN Security Council was intimately involved with the Armistice Negotiations on the Island of Rhodes. The Armistice Lines, and the territory included, were negotiated and approved by the all four major parties to the conflict. Israel was not in violation of any Charter, Treaty, Resolution or international law.
  • Relative to the 1967 War (AKA: The Six-Day War), The 1967 War did not start in the Sinai (while all the events are connected), the critical events that trigger the renewed opening of Hostilities, revolved around:
    • Between January and April 1967: 63 Arab attacks (Syrian tank fire, mines, more than 200 mortar shells, Palestinian terror attacks) heighten anxiety in Israel.
    • 16-19 May 1967: Egypt moves 100,000 troops into the Sinai, demands ALL United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) withdraw.
    • 22 May 1967: Egypt commits an Act of War; Egypt closes the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. The Egyptian government asserted that because of a continuing state of war between Egypt and Israel, Egypt was entitled to take measures to prevent the passage of belligerent ships. The Egyptian government argued that the Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement had not legally ended the state of war between the two nations. Thus by blockading the Strait of Tiran to the Freedom of Navigation by Israeli shipping, Egypt essentially reopened hostilities. Under customary international law, a body of water with the geography of the Gulf of Aqaba is non-territorial. International law recognizes a gulf bordered by more than one littoral state as being part of the high seas (international waters). Ships from Elath and Aqaba has freedom of navigation through the Straits for more than 2000 years.
      • NOTE: The Gulf of Aqaba, bordered by the states of Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, is approximately 100 miles in length. Its width varies from three miles at the narrowest point to seventeen miles at the widest point. The only navigable entrance to the Gulf is the Strait of Tiran, which is located at the southern tip of the Gulf, between Tiran Island and the Sinai Peninsula. Two ports - Elath (Israel) and Aqaba (Oordan) - are located at the northern tip of the Gulf. Egypt has no commercial shipping ports in the Gulf. The blockade was purposefully done to provoke the conflict, after having pre-positioned the Egyptian Army in the Sinai. At the time of the 1967 War Field Marshal Abdul Hakim Amir had deployed a force of four infantry divisions, one armored division and a Mechanized division and an additional armored task force (4 reinforced Armor Battalions) in the Sinai.
    • At the time of the 1967 War, the West Bank was sovereign Jordanian territory. The 1967 War was not an engagement with a Palestinian sovereignty, but with Jordan which became involved as a consequence of a mutual defense agreement with Egypt.
    • The Gaza Strip was a military governorship and occupied by Egyptian Forces. It was not sovereign Palestine.
    • Since the Arab States agreed that the 1948-49 Armistice Arrangements did not end the 1948 War, in which the Coalition of Arab Forces were the aggressor, and since Egypt closed the shipping lane through the Strait of Tiran, Israel is not the aggressor in the 1967 War.

• ILLEGAL ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS ON OCCUPIED LAND: Laws Violated: Geneva Conventions IV, Article 49(6) (1949). It is illegal to colonize occupied land or transfer non-indigenous population to that land. Israeli Actions: Immediately following the 1967 war, Israel began building Israeli civilian settlements on Palestinian lands, eventually building over 200 settlements throughout the occupied territories, and settling over 450,000 Israeli civilians in them, displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians from their own legally owned lands. In addition, Israeli citizens live in hundreds of Israeli settlements on occupied land not originally given to them in the UN Partition Plan, displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. ILRC article.
  • Is it really a violation? What does the Geneva Convention actually say?
    • Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
    • Deportations, transfers, evacuations
      • ARTICLE 49 [ Link ]

• • • • • Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
        • Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
        • The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
        • The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
        • The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
        • The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
    • This 1949 GCIV Protection was to prevent, in the future, any such action as the Jewish endured in the forced transfers to concentration camps. It had nothing to do with settlements by migrating settlers.
    • Hostilities between the HoAP and the Occupation Forces have not ceased. Both halves of the Unity Government still cling to the belief that Jihad is the solution and that the establishment of Israel is illegal.
    • The Oslo Accords between the Israeli Government and the Arab League recognized sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, established Areas "A" "B" and "C" which permitted Israel to allow settlers into Area "C" territory.
    • NOTE: I would be remiss if I did not mention that Article 22(2)(b) of the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind considers “the establishment of settlers in an occupied territory and changes to the demographic composition of an occupied territory” as an “exceptionally serious war crime”. However, it is important to point-out that the intent by the Israeli is not to alter the "demographic composition."

• ILLEGAL ISRAELI PRACTICE OF ETHNIC CLEANSING: Laws Violated: Forbidding civilian populations the right to return to their homes following the end of armed conflict is in direct violation of international law and UN resolutions. Geneva Convention IV, Articles 45, 46 & 49 (1949), UN resolutions 194 (III) (General Assembly; 1948) & 237 (Security Council; 1967). Israeli Actions: Since 1910, in different ways, the Zionists and then Israel have taken Palestinian lands, forced native populations from their land, and then refused the Palestinian landowners or tenants’ residency or employment on them. Following fighting in 1948 and then again in 1967, Palestinian civilians who wished to return to their homes in Israel and the Occupied Territories were forbidden re-entry (“right of return”), confining them to increasingly smaller areas of Israel and Occupied Territories. The Israeli government enacts laws, and employs its military to keep approximately 750,000 Palestinian Arab civilians from returning to their homes following the end of fighting both in 1948 and in the occupied territories in 1967. Israel then violates UN resolutions ordering them to respect Palestinians’ right to return to their homes. See the ILRC article on Right of Return and ILRC article on Ethnic Cleansing.
  • There is no treaty that ends the conflict between the State of Israel and the HoAP either in the Gaza government or the West Bank Government. Again, by the standards set by the HAMAS and Fatah halves of the government, Israel has no right to exist anywhere south of Lebanon and north of the Sinai --- from the Jordan River to the Sea. This is Palestine, exclusively for the Palestinians. The Liberation of Palestine is a national duty; it is the responsibility of the Palestinian people and the Arab and Islamic nation, it is also a humanitarian responsibility in accordance with the requirements of truth and justice. Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine.
  • Prior to 1948 there was no Israel. Therefore, the idea that Israel took part in some sort of Ethnic Cleansing, prior to 1948 with the establishment of the Jewish States is impossible. As stated in the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Customary International Humanitarian Law Study, the biggest challenge for legal scholars when dealing with the term of ethnic cleansing is the fact that “it consists of a combination of a number of war crimes." Legal theory has also placed ethnic cleansing among crimes against humanity and has declared it a form of genocide, so to this end there is still eternal controversy.
    • For the purpose of this Statute (Part II - Article 6 - ICC Rome Statutes), "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• 
  
  (a) Killing members of the group;
  (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.​
• ISRAELI APARTHEID SYSTEM IS ILLEGAL: Laws Violated: International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1976). Link to our fact sheets on Israeli Apartheid. Israeli Actions: The State of Israel has a formal system of legalized discrimination against Palestinian Arabs which technically fits the official UN definition of Apartheid. ILRC article. Israel’s society-wide system of discrimination and isolation of the Palestinian people within Israel, and its system of exploitation, oppression and isolation in the occupied territories, fits exactly the official, legal UN definition of apartheid, which is considered to be a crime against humanity. The practice of passing laws which give special favor throughout Israeli society to the Jewish people over all other people, and especially the native Palestinian Arab people, embodies the UN definition of apartheid, which is giving special favor to one group of people above all other groups based on criteria like what religion they are. Another example is in 2003, the Israeli legislature (Knesset) passed legislation that forbade spouses of Arab-Israeli citizens who are in the occupied territories from joining their families in Israel (with some exceptions). The reason for this legislation is to help maintain the Jewish demographic majority family unification. The racist nature is evident in that only Palestinians (no other ethnic groups) are not forbidden to live in Israel after marrying an Israeli. ILRC article. General article. Amnesty International argues that this law violates fundamental principles of equity, human dignity and personal freedom enshrined in basic law as well as the rights of the child to live with both parents and other fundamental rights enshrined in human rights treaties in which Israel is a signer.
  • "The crime of apartheid" means (Part II - Article 7 - ICC Rome Statutes) inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.
  • There is no oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups. Israel is a multiracial and multicultural society to a much greater extent than the State of Palestine. And Israel has within it every racial group that the State of Palestine has; greater cultural and racial diversity.
  • Israel security countermeasure are instituted to protect or maintaining a regime within the State of Palestine. All security countermeasures and the quarantine of Palestinians are to protect the sovereign integrity of Israel and to maintain the security and safety for its citizenry against a regime that has dedicated itself to Jihad and the destruction of Israel as a State.
• MASSIVE VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS (HR):

Laws Violated: U.N. Charter, Article 1 (1945); Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations…, Principle 5 (1970)​

• COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT IS ILLEGAL:

Laws Violated: Geneva Conventions IV, Article 33 (1949); Geneva Conventions (Protocol I), Article 75(2d) (1977).​

• ILLEGAL MASSIVE TRANSFORMATION OF LOCAL LAWS:

Laws Violated: Hague Regulations IV, Article 43 (1907).​

• SEPARATION BARRIER RULED ILLEGAL

Laws Violated: International Court of Justice of 2004, Advisory Opinion,​

• • Relative to Massive HR Violations, this is merely a grab bag for the Palestinians. The Palestinians have hurt themselves many more times than the Israeli could do intentionally. Since there is no specific allegation here, there is no real response to be made. The world in general understands that this is a belligerent occupation of a parasitic failed government, unable to meet Article 22 (LoN Covenant) requirements to be able to stand on their own, and lead by a conglomeration of Jihadist and Fedayeen that are dedicated to disrupting regional security. Even the adjacent Arab nations don't really want to help them and would prefer that Israel maintain the quarantine.
  • There is no Collective Punishment. Israel is not standing up Arab Palestinian against the wall and shooting them on mass; or punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed.
  • The transformation of local laws would have transferred any way. At the time of the original occupation, the territory was sovereign Jordanian territory. When it became territory occupied by Israel, the local laws were Jordanian. In July 1988, Jordan relinquished sovereignty; and the territory was orphaned (nor legitimate government --- not Palestinian and not Jordanian); by UN Security Council Mandate and under the Geneva Convention the governance fell upon the Occupation Power. The only law at that point was what was enforced by the Occupying Power.
  • Relative to the Separation Barrier --- as P F Tinmore so often reminds us all, the Armistice Line between Israel and the State of Palestine is NOT a border. The State of Palestine has not treaty in respect to borders. As P F Tinmore often asks, where is the treaty or other legal instrument that delineates the border of Palestine? The principle purpose of the Security Barrier is to maintain the security and safety of the citizens of Israel from those hostile elements on the West Bank and Gaza Strip side of the Barriers, which would (given the opportunity) do the Israelis harm. So strong is the need for the Hostile Arab Palestine that the dig tunnels to defeat the purpose of the barriers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thoughtful post. It did, of course, include all of your apologies for Israel. And, of course, much is based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

"The Palestine Mandate was invalid on three grounds set out hereinafter.

"1. The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration and accepting the concept of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine it violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine and their natural rights of independence and self-determination. Palestine was the national home of the Palestinians from time immemorial. The establishment of a national home for an alien people in that country was a violation of the legitimate and fundamental rights of the inhabitants. The League of Nations did not possess the power, any more than the British Government did, to dispose of Palestine, or to grant to the Jews any political or territorial rights in that country. In so far as the Mandate purported to recognize any rights for alien Jews in Palestine, it was null and void.

"2. The second ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that it violated, in spirit and in letter, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, under the authority of which it purported to be made. The Mandate violated Article 22 in three respects:

"(a) The Covenant had envisaged the Mandate as the best method of achieving its basic objective of ensuring the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the Mandated Territories.

"Was the Palestine Mandate conceived for the well-being and development of the inhabitants of Palestine? The answer is found in the provisions of the Mandate itself. The Mandate sought the establishment in Palestine of a national home for another people, contrary to the rights and wishes of the Palestinians ... It required the Mandatory to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as would secure the establishment of a Jewish national home. It required the Mandatory to facilitate Jewish immigration into Palestine. It provided that a foreign body known as the Zionist Organization should be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in matters affecting the establishment of the Jewish national home. It is clear that, although the Mandates System was conceived in the interest of the inhabitants of the Mandated Territory, the Palestine Mandate was conceived in the interest of an alien people originating from outside Palestine, and ran counter to the basic concept of mandates. As Lord Islington observed when he opposed the inclusion of the Balfour Declaration in the Palestine Mandate: "The Palestine Mandate is a real distortion of the mandatory system". The same distinguished Lord added:

"When one sees in Article 22 ... that the well-being and development of such peoples should form a sacred trust of civilization, and when one takes that as the note of the mandatory system, I think your Lordships will see that we are straying down a very far path when we are postponing self-government in Palestine until such time as the population is flooded with an alien race."

"(b) The Palestine Mandate also ran counter to the specific concept of mandates envisaged by Article 22 for countries detached from Turkey at the end of the First World War. In the case of those countries, the intention was to limit the Mandate to the rendering of temporary advice and assistance. It is doubtful whether the people of Palestine, as also other Arab peoples detached from Turkey, were in need of administrative advice and assistance from a Mandatory. Their level of culture was not inferior to that existing at the time in many of the nations that were Members of the League of Nations. Such Arab communities had actively participated with the Turks in the government of their country. Their political maturity and administrative experience were comparable to the political maturity and administrative experience of the Turks, who were left to stand alone.

"Be that as it may, the framers of the Palestine Mandate did not restrict the Mandatory's role to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance, but granted the Mandatory 'full powers of legislation and administration' (Article 1). Such 'full powers of legislation and administration' were not laid down in the interest of the inhabitants, but were intended to be used, and in fact were used, to establish by force the Jewish national home in Palestine. Clearly this was an abuse of the purpose of the Mandate under the Covenant and a perversion of its raison d'être.

"The whole concept of the Palestine Mandate stands in marked contrast to the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon which was given to France on 24 July 1922. This Mandate conformed to Article 22 of the Covenant ...

"... The third ground of invalidity of the Mandate lies in the fact that its endorsement and implementation of the Balfour Declaration conflicted with the assurances and pledges given to the Arabs during the First World War by Great Britain and the Allied Powers. The denial to the Palestine Arabs of their independence and the subjection of their country to the immigration of a foreign people were a breach of those pledges." 63/ - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

You have to start at the beginning not in the middle.

 

[MJB12741]

MJB12741, P F Tinmore, et al,

In any conflict that has lasted as long as the Arab-Israeli conflict, there will be claims and counter-claims. In the end, the terminator is usually a war between the belligerents that settles the matter.

In the 20th Century, the more civilized nations of the world have attempted to intervene in these unsuccessful conflicts that have started as minor squabbles and evolved into Regional conflicts; interventions that usually have negative or imperfect outcomes. In the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the hostilities were almost like spontaneous ignition --- a type of cultural conflict that occurs by itself (exothermic internal reactions of mixing volatile elements and conditions); followed by a gradual development until a thermal runaway occurs (on both sides Arab and Jewish) which rapidly accelerates to high political confrontation, --- and zoom --- a war starts. They have been locked in conflict for so long that they cannot even agree on the triggering event. Like any fire (cultural feud), the point of origin is often hard to pinpoint. Clearly, the Jewish and the Muslims do not mix well in the Mediterranean climate.

Where both sides innocent at all times? No --- clearly not so. There were uncontrolled hot heads on both sides. But the accusations are not being soundly addressed.

So, when are you going to give us a list of Israel's crimes?
You look biased and one sided when you only do the Palestinian thing.

Great point. Just look what those Zionists have done to the Palestinians with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concerssions so the Palestinians can remain in Israel. Face it you Zionists, not even once has Israel tried to help free them back to their indigenous homelands. Shame on you people for that.

(COMMENT)

In the case of the Israelis (I'm accused of not mentioning the "Israeli Crimes"), my perspective is different. And that is because a clear and concise accusation is seldom made. But Since the point was raised (supra P F Tinmore) and seconded (supra by MJB'), I thought I would attempt to address them (one-by-one). In the absence of a member accusation, I used the "LIST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW VIOLATIONS BY THE STATE OF ISREAL" found by the search of that same name - post by "ItisApartheid.Org":

• ISRAELI OCCUPATION IS ILLEGAL: Laws Violated: U.N. Charter, Article 2(4) & 51 (1945); Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations…, Principle 1 (1970). Israeli Actions: It is illegal under international law to acquire land by force: Israel annexed land occupied by force during 1948 and 1967 wars (lands other than those given by the UN 1947-48 partition plan) ILRC article. Military action and occupations are legal only if they are for self-defense, or to directly benefit the native population. But studies show Israel is not just defending itself as it develops de-facto annexation with its settlements and separation barrier on occupied land, as it takes over most of the occupied territories (over 70%) and its natural resources for its own use and economic benefit, at the expense of the native population. ILRC article on why the Occupation is illegal.
  • Israel did not occupy any territory under Arab sovereignty in 1948. It accepted the offering under General Assembly Resolution 181(II), pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," in the establishment of a "Jewish State." Thus, it is not a Violation of Article 2(4) & 51 (1945).
  • Israel did not take the territory by force, rather it defended its right of self-determination and the accepted offering by the General Assembly, and was immediately attacked by a coalition of Arab Forces (Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon - Arab High Committee's Holy War Army - volunteers from the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and the Sudan) on the day of Independence.
  • The conflict between Israel and the Coalition of Arab Forces ended in a UN negotiated ceasefire and Armistice --- with Armistice agreements concluded between Israel and the four adjacent Arab States (the major waring parties) in 1949; with Armistice Lines forged along the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA). In certain areas, the FEBA exceeded the "lands other than those given by the UN 1947-48 partition plan." These territories did not come under the control of Israel by an act of aggression on the part of Israel, but rather, were lost to Israel through an act of aggression on the part of the Coalition of Arab Forces. Chapter I, Article 2(4) stipulates that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
    • POINTS TO REMEMBER:
      • Israel was defending its rights to Independence and its territorial integrity from the use of force by the Coalition of Arab Forces; not the other way around.
      • The member nation fostering the Coalition of Arab Forces were member nations of the UN and subject to the charter; where as Israel was not yet a mamber of the UN and not subject to the Charter.
      • For achieving the 1949 Armistice Agreements, Dr. Ralph Bunche received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1950. He served as assistant to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, and thereafter as the principal secretary of the UN Palestine Commission. In 1948, was appointed by the UN to mediate the conflict; after the Count Bernadotte was assassinated. The UN Security Council was intimately involved with the Armistice Negotiations on the Island of Rhodes. The Armistice Lines, and the territory included, were negotiated and approved by the all four major parties to the conflict. Israel was not in violation of any Charter, Treaty, Resolution or international law.
  • Relative to the 1967 War (AKA: The Six-Day War), The 1967 War did not start in the Sinai (while all the events are connected), the critical events that trigger the renewed opening of Hostilities, revolved around:
    • Between January and April 1967: 63 Arab attacks (Syrian tank fire, mines, more than 200 mortar shells, Palestinian terror attacks) heighten anxiety in Israel.
    • 16-19 May 1967: Egypt moves 100,000 troops into the Sinai, demands ALL United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) withdraw.
    • 22 May 1967: Egypt commits an Act of War; Egypt closes the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. The Egyptian government asserted that because of a continuing state of war between Egypt and Israel, Egypt was entitled to take measures to prevent the passage of belligerent ships. The Egyptian government argued that the Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement had not legally ended the state of war between the two nations. Thus by blockading the Strait of Tiran to the Freedom of Navigation by Israeli shipping, Egypt essentially reopened hostilities. Under customary international law, a body of water with the geography of the Gulf of Aqaba is non-territorial. International law recognizes a gulf bordered by more than one littoral state as being part of the high seas (international waters). Ships from Elath and Aqaba has freedom of navigation through the Straits for more than 2000 years.
      • NOTE: The Gulf of Aqaba, bordered by the states of Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, is approximately 100 miles in length. Its width varies from three miles at the narrowest point to seventeen miles at the widest point. The only navigable entrance to the Gulf is the Strait of Tiran, which is located at the southern tip of the Gulf, between Tiran Island and the Sinai Peninsula. Two ports - Elath (Israel) and Aqaba (Oordan) - are located at the northern tip of the Gulf. Egypt has no commercial shipping ports in the Gulf. The blockade was purposefully done to provoke the conflict, after having pre-positioned the Egyptian Army in the Sinai. At the time of the 1967 War Field Marshal Abdul Hakim Amir had deployed a force of four infantry divisions, one armored division and a Mechanized division and an additional armored task force (4 reinforced Armor Battalions) in the Sinai.
    • At the time of the 1967 War, the West Bank was sovereign Jordanian territory. The 1967 War was not an engagement with a Palestinian sovereignty, but with Jordan which became involved as a consequence of a mutual defense agreement with Egypt.
    • The Gaza Strip was a military governorship and occupied by Egyptian Forces. It was not sovereign Palestine.
    • Since the Arab States agreed that the 1948-49 Armistice Arrangements did not end the 1948 War, in which the Coalition of Arab Forces were the aggressor, and since Egypt closed the shipping lane through the Strait of Tiran, Israel is not the aggressor in the 1967 War.

• ILLEGAL ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS ON OCCUPIED LAND: Laws Violated: Geneva Conventions IV, Article 49(6) (1949). It is illegal to colonize occupied land or transfer non-indigenous population to that land. Israeli Actions: Immediately following the 1967 war, Israel began building Israeli civilian settlements on Palestinian lands, eventually building over 200 settlements throughout the occupied territories, and settling over 450,000 Israeli civilians in them, displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians from their own legally owned lands. In addition, Israeli citizens live in hundreds of Israeli settlements on occupied land not originally given to them in the UN Partition Plan, displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. ILRC article.
  • Is it really a violation? What does the Geneva Convention actually say?
    • Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
    • Deportations, transfers, evacuations
      • ARTICLE 49 [ Link ]

• • • • • Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
        • Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
        • The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
        • The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
        • The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
        • The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
    • This 1949 GCIV Protection was to prevent, in the future, any such action as the Jewish endured in the forced transfers to concentration camps. It had nothing to do with settlements by migrating settlers.
    • Hostilities between the HoAP and the Occupation Forces have not ceased. Both halves of the Unity Government still cling to the belief that Jihad is the solution and that the establishment of Israel is illegal.
    • The Oslo Accords between the Israeli Government and the Arab League recognized sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, established Areas "A" "B" and "C" which permitted Israel to allow settlers into Area "C" territory.
    • NOTE: I would be remiss if I did not mention that Article 22(2)(b) of the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind considers “the establishment of settlers in an occupied territory and changes to the demographic composition of an occupied territory” as an “exceptionally serious war crime”. However, it is important to point-out that the intent by the Israeli is not to alter the "demographic composition."

• ILLEGAL ISRAELI PRACTICE OF ETHNIC CLEANSING: Laws Violated: Forbidding civilian populations the right to return to their homes following the end of armed conflict is in direct violation of international law and UN resolutions. Geneva Convention IV, Articles 45, 46 & 49 (1949), UN resolutions 194 (III) (General Assembly; 1948) & 237 (Security Council; 1967). Israeli Actions: Since 1910, in different ways, the Zionists and then Israel have taken Palestinian lands, forced native populations from their land, and then refused the Palestinian landowners or tenants’ residency or employment on them. Following fighting in 1948 and then again in 1967, Palestinian civilians who wished to return to their homes in Israel and the Occupied Territories were forbidden re-entry (“right of return”), confining them to increasingly smaller areas of Israel and Occupied Territories. The Israeli government enacts laws, and employs its military to keep approximately 750,000 Palestinian Arab civilians from returning to their homes following the end of fighting both in 1948 and in the occupied territories in 1967. Israel then violates UN resolutions ordering them to respect Palestinians’ right to return to their homes. See the ILRC article on Right of Return and ILRC article on Ethnic Cleansing.
  • There is no treaty that ends the conflict between the State of Israel and the HoAP either in the Gaza government or the West Bank Government. Again, by the standards set by the HAMAS and Fatah halves of the government, Israel has no right to exist anywhere south of Lebanon and north of the Sinai --- from the Jordan River to the Sea. This is Palestine, exclusively for the Palestinians. The Liberation of Palestine is a national duty; it is the responsibility of the Palestinian people and the Arab and Islamic nation, it is also a humanitarian responsibility in accordance with the requirements of truth and justice. Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine.
  • Prior to 1948 there was no Israel. Therefore, the idea that Israel took part in some sort of Ethnic Cleansing, prior to 1948 with the establishment of the Jewish States is impossible. As stated in the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Customary International Humanitarian Law Study, the biggest challenge for legal scholars when dealing with the term of ethnic cleansing is the fact that “it consists of a combination of a number of war crimes." Legal theory has also placed ethnic cleansing among crimes against humanity and has declared it a form of genocide, so to this end there is still eternal controversy.
    • For the purpose of this Statute (Part II - Article 6 - ICC Rome Statutes), "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• 
  
  (a) Killing members of the group;
  (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.​
• ISRAELI APARTHEID SYSTEM IS ILLEGAL: Laws Violated: International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1976). Link to our fact sheets on Israeli Apartheid. Israeli Actions: The State of Israel has a formal system of legalized discrimination against Palestinian Arabs which technically fits the official UN definition of Apartheid. ILRC article. Israel’s society-wide system of discrimination and isolation of the Palestinian people within Israel, and its system of exploitation, oppression and isolation in the occupied territories, fits exactly the official, legal UN definition of apartheid, which is considered to be a crime against humanity. The practice of passing laws which give special favor throughout Israeli society to the Jewish people over all other people, and especially the native Palestinian Arab people, embodies the UN definition of apartheid, which is giving special favor to one group of people above all other groups based on criteria like what religion they are. Another example is in 2003, the Israeli legislature (Knesset) passed legislation that forbade spouses of Arab-Israeli citizens who are in the occupied territories from joining their families in Israel (with some exceptions). The reason for this legislation is to help maintain the Jewish demographic majority family unification. The racist nature is evident in that only Palestinians (no other ethnic groups) are not forbidden to live in Israel after marrying an Israeli. ILRC article. General article. Amnesty International argues that this law violates fundamental principles of equity, human dignity and personal freedom enshrined in basic law as well as the rights of the child to live with both parents and other fundamental rights enshrined in human rights treaties in which Israel is a signer.
  • "The crime of apartheid" means (Part II - Article 7 - ICC Rome Statutes) inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.
  • There is no oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups. Israel is a multiracial and multicultural society to a much greater extent than the State of Palestine. And Israel has within it every racial group that the State of Palestine has; greater cultural and racial diversity.
  • Israel security countermeasure are instituted to protect or maintaining a regime within the State of Palestine. All security countermeasures and the quarantine of Palestinians are to protect the sovereign integrity of Israel and to maintain the security and safety for its citizenry against a regime that has dedicated itself to Jihad and the destruction of Israel as a State.
• MASSIVE VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS (HR):

Laws Violated: U.N. Charter, Article 1 (1945); Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations…, Principle 5 (1970)​

• COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT IS ILLEGAL:

Laws Violated: Geneva Conventions IV, Article 33 (1949); Geneva Conventions (Protocol I), Article 75(2d) (1977).​

• ILLEGAL MASSIVE TRANSFORMATION OF LOCAL LAWS:

Laws Violated: Hague Regulations IV, Article 43 (1907).​

• SEPARATION BARRIER RULED ILLEGAL

Laws Violated: International Court of Justice of 2004, Advisory Opinion,​

• • Relative to Massive HR Violations, this is merely a grab bag for the Palestinians. The Palestinians have hurt themselves many more times than the Israeli could do intentionally. Since there is no specific allegation here, there is no real response to be made. The world in general understands that this is a belligerent occupation of a parasitic failed government, unable to meet Article 22 (LoN Covenant) requirements to be able to stand on their own, and lead by a conglomeration of Jihadist and Fedayeen that are dedicated to disrupting regional security. Even the adjacent Arab nations don't really want to help them and would prefer that Israel maintain the quarantine.
  • There is no Collective Punishment. Israel is not standing up Arab Palestinian against the wall and shooting them on mass; or punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed.
  • The transformation of local laws would have transferred any way. At the time of the original occupation, the territory was sovereign Jordanian territory. When it became territory occupied by Israel, the local laws were Jordanian. In July 1988, Jordan relinquished sovereignty; and the territory was orphaned (nor legitimate government --- not Palestinian and not Jordanian); by UN Security Council Mandate and under the Geneva Convention the governance fell upon the Occupation Power. The only law at that point was what was enforced by the Occupying Power.
  • Relative to the Separation Barrier --- as P F Tinmore so often reminds us all, the Armistice Line between Israel and the State of Palestine is NOT a border. The State of Palestine has not treaty in respect to borders. As P F Tinmore often asks, where is the treaty or other legal instrument that delineates the border of Palestine? The principle purpose of the Security Barrier is to maintain the security and safety of the citizens of Israel from those hostile elements on the West Bank and Gaza Strip side of the Barriers, which would (given the opportunity) do the Israelis harm. So strong is the need for the Hostile Arab Palestine that the dig tunnels to defeat the purpose of the barriers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thoughtful post. It did, of course, include all of your apologies for Israel. And, of course, much is based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

"The Palestine Mandate was invalid on three grounds set out hereinafter.

"1. The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration and accepting the concept of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine it violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine and their natural rights of independence and self-determination. Palestine was the national home of the Palestinians from time immemorial. The establishment of a national home for an alien people in that country was a violation of the legitimate and fundamental rights of the inhabitants. The League of Nations did not possess the power, any more than the British Government did, to dispose of Palestine, or to grant to the Jews any political or territorial rights in that country. In so far as the Mandate purported to recognize any rights for alien Jews in Palestine, it was null and void.

"2. The second ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that it violated, in spirit and in letter, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, under the authority of which it purported to be made. The Mandate violated Article 22 in three respects:

"(a) The Covenant had envisaged the Mandate as the best method of achieving its basic objective of ensuring the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the Mandated Territories.

"Was the Palestine Mandate conceived for the well-being and development of the inhabitants of Palestine? The answer is found in the provisions of the Mandate itself. The Mandate sought the establishment in Palestine of a national home for another people, contrary to the rights and wishes of the Palestinians ... It required the Mandatory to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as would secure the establishment of a Jewish national home. It required the Mandatory to facilitate Jewish immigration into Palestine. It provided that a foreign body known as the Zionist Organization should be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in matters affecting the establishment of the Jewish national home. It is clear that, although the Mandates System was conceived in the interest of the inhabitants of the Mandated Territory, the Palestine Mandate was conceived in the interest of an alien people originating from outside Palestine, and ran counter to the basic concept of mandates. As Lord Islington observed when he opposed the inclusion of the Balfour Declaration in the Palestine Mandate: "The Palestine Mandate is a real distortion of the mandatory system". The same distinguished Lord added:

"When one sees in Article 22 ... that the well-being and development of such peoples should form a sacred trust of civilization, and when one takes that as the note of the mandatory system, I think your Lordships will see that we are straying down a very far path when we are postponing self-government in Palestine until such time as the population is flooded with an alien race."

"(b) The Palestine Mandate also ran counter to the specific concept of mandates envisaged by Article 22 for countries detached from Turkey at the end of the First World War. In the case of those countries, the intention was to limit the Mandate to the rendering of temporary advice and assistance. It is doubtful whether the people of Palestine, as also other Arab peoples detached from Turkey, were in need of administrative advice and assistance from a Mandatory. Their level of culture was not inferior to that existing at the time in many of the nations that were Members of the League of Nations. Such Arab communities had actively participated with the Turks in the government of their country. Their political maturity and administrative experience were comparable to the political maturity and administrative experience of the Turks, who were left to stand alone.

"Be that as it may, the framers of the Palestine Mandate did not restrict the Mandatory's role to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance, but granted the Mandatory 'full powers of legislation and administration' (Article 1). Such 'full powers of legislation and administration' were not laid down in the interest of the inhabitants, but were intended to be used, and in fact were used, to establish by force the Jewish national home in Palestine. Clearly this was an abuse of the purpose of the Mandate under the Covenant and a perversion of its raison d'être.

"The whole concept of the Palestine Mandate stands in marked contrast to the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon which was given to France on 24 July 1922. This Mandate conformed to Article 22 of the Covenant ...

"... The third ground of invalidity of the Mandate lies in the fact that its endorsement and implementation of the Balfour Declaration conflicted with the assurances and pledges given to the Arabs during the First World War by Great Britain and the Allied Powers. The denial to the Palestine Arabs of their independence and the subjection of their country to the immigration of a foreign people were a breach of those pledges." 63/ - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

You have to start at the beginning not in the middle.

Yes, yes yes! Let us "start at the beginning." In the beginning JEWS WERE INDIGENOUS PALESTINIANS. Not a single Muslim Palestinian squatter even existed among them in the beginning to steal Israel's land as they are now doing.

 

[Phoenall]

MJB12741, P F Tinmore, et al,

In any conflict that has lasted as long as the Arab-Israeli conflict, there will be claims and counter-claims. In the end, the terminator is usually a war between the belligerents that settles the matter.

In the 20th Century, the more civilized nations of the world have attempted to intervene in these unsuccessful conflicts that have started as minor squabbles and evolved into Regional conflicts; interventions that usually have negative or imperfect outcomes. In the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the hostilities were almost like spontaneous ignition --- a type of cultural conflict that occurs by itself (exothermic internal reactions of mixing volatile elements and conditions); followed by a gradual development until a thermal runaway occurs (on both sides Arab and Jewish) which rapidly accelerates to high political confrontation, --- and zoom --- a war starts. They have been locked in conflict for so long that they cannot even agree on the triggering event. Like any fire (cultural feud), the point of origin is often hard to pinpoint. Clearly, the Jewish and the Muslims do not mix well in the Mediterranean climate.

Where both sides innocent at all times? No --- clearly not so. There were uncontrolled hot heads on both sides. But the accusations are not being soundly addressed.

So, when are you going to give us a list of Israel's crimes?
You look biased and one sided when you only do the Palestinian thing.

Great point. Just look what those Zionists have done to the Palestinians with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concerssions so the Palestinians can remain in Israel. Face it you Zionists, not even once has Israel tried to help free them back to their indigenous homelands. Shame on you people for that.

(COMMENT)

In the case of the Israelis (I'm accused of not mentioning the "Israeli Crimes"), my perspective is different. And that is because a clear and concise accusation is seldom made. But Since the point was raised (supra P F Tinmore) and seconded (supra by MJB'), I thought I would attempt to address them (one-by-one). In the absence of a member accusation, I used the "LIST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW VIOLATIONS BY THE STATE OF ISREAL" found by the search of that same name - post by "ItisApartheid.Org":

• ISRAELI OCCUPATION IS ILLEGAL: Laws Violated: U.N. Charter, Article 2(4) & 51 (1945); Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations…, Principle 1 (1970). Israeli Actions: It is illegal under international law to acquire land by force: Israel annexed land occupied by force during 1948 and 1967 wars (lands other than those given by the UN 1947-48 partition plan) ILRC article. Military action and occupations are legal only if they are for self-defense, or to directly benefit the native population. But studies show Israel is not just defending itself as it develops de-facto annexation with its settlements and separation barrier on occupied land, as it takes over most of the occupied territories (over 70%) and its natural resources for its own use and economic benefit, at the expense of the native population. ILRC article on why the Occupation is illegal.
  • Israel did not occupy any territory under Arab sovereignty in 1948. It accepted the offering under General Assembly Resolution 181(II), pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," in the establishment of a "Jewish State." Thus, it is not a Violation of Article 2(4) & 51 (1945).
  • Israel did not take the territory by force, rather it defended its right of self-determination and the accepted offering by the General Assembly, and was immediately attacked by a coalition of Arab Forces (Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon - Arab High Committee's Holy War Army - volunteers from the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and the Sudan) on the day of Independence.
  • The conflict between Israel and the Coalition of Arab Forces ended in a UN negotiated ceasefire and Armistice --- with Armistice agreements concluded between Israel and the four adjacent Arab States (the major waring parties) in 1949; with Armistice Lines forged along the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA). In certain areas, the FEBA exceeded the "lands other than those given by the UN 1947-48 partition plan." These territories did not come under the control of Israel by an act of aggression on the part of Israel, but rather, were lost to Israel through an act of aggression on the part of the Coalition of Arab Forces. Chapter I, Article 2(4) stipulates that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
    • POINTS TO REMEMBER:
      • Israel was defending its rights to Independence and its territorial integrity from the use of force by the Coalition of Arab Forces; not the other way around.
      • The member nation fostering the Coalition of Arab Forces were member nations of the UN and subject to the charter; where as Israel was not yet a mamber of the UN and not subject to the Charter.
      • For achieving the 1949 Armistice Agreements, Dr. Ralph Bunche received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1950. He served as assistant to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, and thereafter as the principal secretary of the UN Palestine Commission. In 1948, was appointed by the UN to mediate the conflict; after the Count Bernadotte was assassinated. The UN Security Council was intimately involved with the Armistice Negotiations on the Island of Rhodes. The Armistice Lines, and the territory included, were negotiated and approved by the all four major parties to the conflict. Israel was not in violation of any Charter, Treaty, Resolution or international law.
  • Relative to the 1967 War (AKA: The Six-Day War), The 1967 War did not start in the Sinai (while all the events are connected), the critical events that trigger the renewed opening of Hostilities, revolved around:
    • Between January and April 1967: 63 Arab attacks (Syrian tank fire, mines, more than 200 mortar shells, Palestinian terror attacks) heighten anxiety in Israel.
    • 16-19 May 1967: Egypt moves 100,000 troops into the Sinai, demands ALL United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) withdraw.
    • 22 May 1967: Egypt commits an Act of War; Egypt closes the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. The Egyptian government asserted that because of a continuing state of war between Egypt and Israel, Egypt was entitled to take measures to prevent the passage of belligerent ships. The Egyptian government argued that the Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement had not legally ended the state of war between the two nations. Thus by blockading the Strait of Tiran to the Freedom of Navigation by Israeli shipping, Egypt essentially reopened hostilities. Under customary international law, a body of water with the geography of the Gulf of Aqaba is non-territorial. International law recognizes a gulf bordered by more than one littoral state as being part of the high seas (international waters). Ships from Elath and Aqaba has freedom of navigation through the Straits for more than 2000 years.
      • NOTE: The Gulf of Aqaba, bordered by the states of Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, is approximately 100 miles in length. Its width varies from three miles at the narrowest point to seventeen miles at the widest point. The only navigable entrance to the Gulf is the Strait of Tiran, which is located at the southern tip of the Gulf, between Tiran Island and the Sinai Peninsula. Two ports - Elath (Israel) and Aqaba (Oordan) - are located at the northern tip of the Gulf. Egypt has no commercial shipping ports in the Gulf. The blockade was purposefully done to provoke the conflict, after having pre-positioned the Egyptian Army in the Sinai. At the time of the 1967 War Field Marshal Abdul Hakim Amir had deployed a force of four infantry divisions, one armored division and a Mechanized division and an additional armored task force (4 reinforced Armor Battalions) in the Sinai.
    • At the time of the 1967 War, the West Bank was sovereign Jordanian territory. The 1967 War was not an engagement with a Palestinian sovereignty, but with Jordan which became involved as a consequence of a mutual defense agreement with Egypt.
    • The Gaza Strip was a military governorship and occupied by Egyptian Forces. It was not sovereign Palestine.
    • Since the Arab States agreed that the 1948-49 Armistice Arrangements did not end the 1948 War, in which the Coalition of Arab Forces were the aggressor, and since Egypt closed the shipping lane through the Strait of Tiran, Israel is not the aggressor in the 1967 War.

• ILLEGAL ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS ON OCCUPIED LAND: Laws Violated: Geneva Conventions IV, Article 49(6) (1949). It is illegal to colonize occupied land or transfer non-indigenous population to that land. Israeli Actions: Immediately following the 1967 war, Israel began building Israeli civilian settlements on Palestinian lands, eventually building over 200 settlements throughout the occupied territories, and settling over 450,000 Israeli civilians in them, displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians from their own legally owned lands. In addition, Israeli citizens live in hundreds of Israeli settlements on occupied land not originally given to them in the UN Partition Plan, displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. ILRC article.
  • Is it really a violation? What does the Geneva Convention actually say?
    • Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
    • Deportations, transfers, evacuations
      • ARTICLE 49 [ Link ]

• • • • • Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
        • Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
        • The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
        • The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
        • The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
        • The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
    • This 1949 GCIV Protection was to prevent, in the future, any such action as the Jewish endured in the forced transfers to concentration camps. It had nothing to do with settlements by migrating settlers.
    • Hostilities between the HoAP and the Occupation Forces have not ceased. Both halves of the Unity Government still cling to the belief that Jihad is the solution and that the establishment of Israel is illegal.
    • The Oslo Accords between the Israeli Government and the Arab League recognized sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, established Areas "A" "B" and "C" which permitted Israel to allow settlers into Area "C" territory.
    • NOTE: I would be remiss if I did not mention that Article 22(2)(b) of the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind considers “the establishment of settlers in an occupied territory and changes to the demographic composition of an occupied territory” as an “exceptionally serious war crime”. However, it is important to point-out that the intent by the Israeli is not to alter the "demographic composition."

• ILLEGAL ISRAELI PRACTICE OF ETHNIC CLEANSING: Laws Violated: Forbidding civilian populations the right to return to their homes following the end of armed conflict is in direct violation of international law and UN resolutions. Geneva Convention IV, Articles 45, 46 & 49 (1949), UN resolutions 194 (III) (General Assembly; 1948) & 237 (Security Council; 1967). Israeli Actions: Since 1910, in different ways, the Zionists and then Israel have taken Palestinian lands, forced native populations from their land, and then refused the Palestinian landowners or tenants’ residency or employment on them. Following fighting in 1948 and then again in 1967, Palestinian civilians who wished to return to their homes in Israel and the Occupied Territories were forbidden re-entry (“right of return”), confining them to increasingly smaller areas of Israel and Occupied Territories. The Israeli government enacts laws, and employs its military to keep approximately 750,000 Palestinian Arab civilians from returning to their homes following the end of fighting both in 1948 and in the occupied territories in 1967. Israel then violates UN resolutions ordering them to respect Palestinians’ right to return to their homes. See the ILRC article on Right of Return and ILRC article on Ethnic Cleansing.
  • There is no treaty that ends the conflict between the State of Israel and the HoAP either in the Gaza government or the West Bank Government. Again, by the standards set by the HAMAS and Fatah halves of the government, Israel has no right to exist anywhere south of Lebanon and north of the Sinai --- from the Jordan River to the Sea. This is Palestine, exclusively for the Palestinians. The Liberation of Palestine is a national duty; it is the responsibility of the Palestinian people and the Arab and Islamic nation, it is also a humanitarian responsibility in accordance with the requirements of truth and justice. Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine.
  • Prior to 1948 there was no Israel. Therefore, the idea that Israel took part in some sort of Ethnic Cleansing, prior to 1948 with the establishment of the Jewish States is impossible. As stated in the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Customary International Humanitarian Law Study, the biggest challenge for legal scholars when dealing with the term of ethnic cleansing is the fact that “it consists of a combination of a number of war crimes." Legal theory has also placed ethnic cleansing among crimes against humanity and has declared it a form of genocide, so to this end there is still eternal controversy.
    • For the purpose of this Statute (Part II - Article 6 - ICC Rome Statutes), "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• 
  
  (a) Killing members of the group;
  (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.​
• ISRAELI APARTHEID SYSTEM IS ILLEGAL: Laws Violated: International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1976). Link to our fact sheets on Israeli Apartheid. Israeli Actions: The State of Israel has a formal system of legalized discrimination against Palestinian Arabs which technically fits the official UN definition of Apartheid. ILRC article. Israel’s society-wide system of discrimination and isolation of the Palestinian people within Israel, and its system of exploitation, oppression and isolation in the occupied territories, fits exactly the official, legal UN definition of apartheid, which is considered to be a crime against humanity. The practice of passing laws which give special favor throughout Israeli society to the Jewish people over all other people, and especially the native Palestinian Arab people, embodies the UN definition of apartheid, which is giving special favor to one group of people above all other groups based on criteria like what religion they are. Another example is in 2003, the Israeli legislature (Knesset) passed legislation that forbade spouses of Arab-Israeli citizens who are in the occupied territories from joining their families in Israel (with some exceptions). The reason for this legislation is to help maintain the Jewish demographic majority family unification. The racist nature is evident in that only Palestinians (no other ethnic groups) are not forbidden to live in Israel after marrying an Israeli. ILRC article. General article. Amnesty International argues that this law violates fundamental principles of equity, human dignity and personal freedom enshrined in basic law as well as the rights of the child to live with both parents and other fundamental rights enshrined in human rights treaties in which Israel is a signer.
  • "The crime of apartheid" means (Part II - Article 7 - ICC Rome Statutes) inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.
  • There is no oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups. Israel is a multiracial and multicultural society to a much greater extent than the State of Palestine. And Israel has within it every racial group that the State of Palestine has; greater cultural and racial diversity.
  • Israel security countermeasure are instituted to protect or maintaining a regime within the State of Palestine. All security countermeasures and the quarantine of Palestinians are to protect the sovereign integrity of Israel and to maintain the security and safety for its citizenry against a regime that has dedicated itself to Jihad and the destruction of Israel as a State.
• MASSIVE VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS (HR):

Laws Violated: U.N. Charter, Article 1 (1945); Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations…, Principle 5 (1970)​

• COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT IS ILLEGAL:

Laws Violated: Geneva Conventions IV, Article 33 (1949); Geneva Conventions (Protocol I), Article 75(2d) (1977).​

• ILLEGAL MASSIVE TRANSFORMATION OF LOCAL LAWS:

Laws Violated: Hague Regulations IV, Article 43 (1907).​

• SEPARATION BARRIER RULED ILLEGAL

Laws Violated: International Court of Justice of 2004, Advisory Opinion,​

• • Relative to Massive HR Violations, this is merely a grab bag for the Palestinians. The Palestinians have hurt themselves many more times than the Israeli could do intentionally. Since there is no specific allegation here, there is no real response to be made. The world in general understands that this is a belligerent occupation of a parasitic failed government, unable to meet Article 22 (LoN Covenant) requirements to be able to stand on their own, and lead by a conglomeration of Jihadist and Fedayeen that are dedicated to disrupting regional security. Even the adjacent Arab nations don't really want to help them and would prefer that Israel maintain the quarantine.
  • There is no Collective Punishment. Israel is not standing up Arab Palestinian against the wall and shooting them on mass; or punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed.
  • The transformation of local laws would have transferred any way. At the time of the original occupation, the territory was sovereign Jordanian territory. When it became territory occupied by Israel, the local laws were Jordanian. In July 1988, Jordan relinquished sovereignty; and the territory was orphaned (nor legitimate government --- not Palestinian and not Jordanian); by UN Security Council Mandate and under the Geneva Convention the governance fell upon the Occupation Power. The only law at that point was what was enforced by the Occupying Power.
  • Relative to the Separation Barrier --- as P F Tinmore so often reminds us all, the Armistice Line between Israel and the State of Palestine is NOT a border. The State of Palestine has not treaty in respect to borders. As P F Tinmore often asks, where is the treaty or other legal instrument that delineates the border of Palestine? The principle purpose of the Security Barrier is to maintain the security and safety of the citizens of Israel from those hostile elements on the West Bank and Gaza Strip side of the Barriers, which would (given the opportunity) do the Israelis harm. So strong is the need for the Hostile Arab Palestine that the dig tunnels to defeat the purpose of the barriers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thoughtful post. It did, of course, include all of your apologies for Israel. And, of course, much is based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

"The Palestine Mandate was invalid on three grounds set out hereinafter.

"1. The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration and accepting the concept of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine it violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine and their natural rights of independence and self-determination. Palestine was the national home of the Palestinians from time immemorial. The establishment of a national home for an alien people in that country was a violation of the legitimate and fundamental rights of the inhabitants. The League of Nations did not possess the power, any more than the British Government did, to dispose of Palestine, or to grant to the Jews any political or territorial rights in that country. In so far as the Mandate purported to recognize any rights for alien Jews in Palestine, it was null and void.

"2. The second ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that it violated, in spirit and in letter, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, under the authority of which it purported to be made. The Mandate violated Article 22 in three respects:

"(a) The Covenant had envisaged the Mandate as the best method of achieving its basic objective of ensuring the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the Mandated Territories.

"Was the Palestine Mandate conceived for the well-being and development of the inhabitants of Palestine? The answer is found in the provisions of the Mandate itself. The Mandate sought the establishment in Palestine of a national home for another people, contrary to the rights and wishes of the Palestinians ... It required the Mandatory to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as would secure the establishment of a Jewish national home. It required the Mandatory to facilitate Jewish immigration into Palestine. It provided that a foreign body known as the Zionist Organization should be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in matters affecting the establishment of the Jewish national home. It is clear that, although the Mandates System was conceived in the interest of the inhabitants of the Mandated Territory, the Palestine Mandate was conceived in the interest of an alien people originating from outside Palestine, and ran counter to the basic concept of mandates. As Lord Islington observed when he opposed the inclusion of the Balfour Declaration in the Palestine Mandate: "The Palestine Mandate is a real distortion of the mandatory system". The same distinguished Lord added:

"When one sees in Article 22 ... that the well-being and development of such peoples should form a sacred trust of civilization, and when one takes that as the note of the mandatory system, I think your Lordships will see that we are straying down a very far path when we are postponing self-government in Palestine until such time as the population is flooded with an alien race."

"(b) The Palestine Mandate also ran counter to the specific concept of mandates envisaged by Article 22 for countries detached from Turkey at the end of the First World War. In the case of those countries, the intention was to limit the Mandate to the rendering of temporary advice and assistance. It is doubtful whether the people of Palestine, as also other Arab peoples detached from Turkey, were in need of administrative advice and assistance from a Mandatory. Their level of culture was not inferior to that existing at the time in many of the nations that were Members of the League of Nations. Such Arab communities had actively participated with the Turks in the government of their country. Their political maturity and administrative experience were comparable to the political maturity and administrative experience of the Turks, who were left to stand alone.

"Be that as it may, the framers of the Palestine Mandate did not restrict the Mandatory's role to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance, but granted the Mandatory 'full powers of legislation and administration' (Article 1). Such 'full powers of legislation and administration' were not laid down in the interest of the inhabitants, but were intended to be used, and in fact were used, to establish by force the Jewish national home in Palestine. Clearly this was an abuse of the purpose of the Mandate under the Covenant and a perversion of its raison d'être.

"The whole concept of the Palestine Mandate stands in marked contrast to the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon which was given to France on 24 July 1922. This Mandate conformed to Article 22 of the Covenant ...

"... The third ground of invalidity of the Mandate lies in the fact that its endorsement and implementation of the Balfour Declaration conflicted with the assurances and pledges given to the Arabs during the First World War by Great Britain and the Allied Powers. The denial to the Palestine Arabs of their independence and the subjection of their country to the immigration of a foreign people were a breach of those pledges." 63/ - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

You have to start at the beginning not in the middle.

1) No it didn't as that did not exist at that time, and the LoN as the sovereign owners of Palestine had every right to dispose of the land as they saw fit. If you believe they didn't then none of the nations created under the Mandates have any validity

2) The covenant was upheld when the LoN granted the arab Palestinians their share of Palestine and called it trans Jordan. As history has reminded everyone the arab muslims have never been ready for self determination so they don't deserve a nation alongside Jordan, Egypt and Israel.

3) No the Mcmahon letters that were the precursor to the Balfour Declaration very clearly set out the terms and they included part of the Ottoman Empire be set aside and not granted to the arab muslims. This section is what is today Jordan and Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I started where the allegations started on the anti-Israeli site called "ItisApartheid.Org"; with the List of Israeli Violations. So, you want to start at a different place. That is OK with me. Just remember, the official determinations, decisions, orders and decrees made before May 1948, could not have been made by the Jewish People, the Jewish Agency or the State of Israel. The Jewish Immigrants exercised no sovereignty or legislative authority; the Jewish Agency was an Article 4 Mandate Invention for coordination purposes --- a public body (an agency operating as a component of a government process - but not an official government activity itself) for the purpose of providing advise to the Mandatory and fostering cooperation between the Article 6 Jewish Immigrants and the Mandatory on social, economic and issues affecting the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 1917 Balfour Declaration.

I was trying to limit my reply to the parameters of your comment in Posting #82 with regards to "Israeli Crimes." Israeli crimes cannot truly exist prior to mid-night 14/15 May 1948. But I did follow your logic and have no problem with it. It merely expands my commentary.

Thoughtful post. It did, of course, include all of your apologies for Israel. And, of course, much is based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

"The Palestine Mandate was invalid on three grounds set out hereinafter.

• "1. The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration
• "2. The second ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that it violated, in spirit and in letter, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,
• "... The third ground of invalidity of the Mandate lies in the fact that its endorsement and implementation of the Balfour Declaration conflicted with the assurances and pledges given to the Arabs during the First World War by Great Britain and the Allied Powers.

You have to start at the beginning not in the middle.

(COMMENT)

Before I rant on the timeline, and the interpretation of certain events, again I would be remiss if I did not mention the first Palestine Arab Congress (PAC)(AKA: Arab National Congress) (27 January to 10 February 1919), the outcomes of which are not in the on-line archive of the UN Information System on the Question of Palestine (UNISPAL) listing. (I'm sure they have it, I just don't see it in the white or dark side of the net.) The importance of the PAC is that it concluded in time to make the Paris Peace Conference. The PAC did submit it through quasi- Diplomatic channels by Cable to the Paris Peace Conference. I can only speculate why it was not presented at the same time as the Jewish Presentation (or maybe it was and just was not taken seriously). In any event --- you can hardly find any reference to the PAC Cable relative to the Paris Peace Conference, yet quite clearly see the Jewish presentation. The Paris Peace Conference was heavily influenced by the presence of the BIG FOUR:

• President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson;
• Prime Minister of Great Britain, David Lloyd George;
• Prime Minister of France, Georges Clemenceau;
• Prime Minister of Italy, Vittorio Emanuele Orlando.

The BIG FOUR were not the only Principle Allied Powers, but they were the backbone behind the leadership of the Allied Powers and the Council for the League of Nations. And that may be the key behind the reason the PAC Cable was so easily dismissed. The PAC (viewed as composed of characters that were less then helpful to the allies during the war) send what was interpreted as "demands" to the Allied Powers. Included in these demands were items that simply could not be considered:

• That the Allied Powers renounce the Balfour Declaration.
• The recognition of a Regional "Arab Union."
• The independence of a greater Syria that would include the Mandate for Palestine.

This was, of course, impossible as it would abrogate the Sykes-Picot Accords and interfere with the promises made to Arab-Bedouin Princes that did provide active combat assistance to the Allied Powers during the War. Additionally, the Arab-Ottoman included a demand that All foreign treaties (meaning those treaties concluded by the Allied Powers) affecting the entire region were to be set aside and voided. This was framed as if the PAC had been victorious in the War against the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Army of the Central Powers. One can only imagine what the BIG FOUR must have thought when reviewing the PAC Demands (no wonder the Arabs sent it by cable). The entire purpose of The Paris Peace Conference was to allow the Allied victors to set the peace terms for the defeated Central Powers; not to acquiesce to the PAC.

The important sequence of events that are relevant to the challenge that: --- --- The Mandate for Palestine was invalid: (Short Answer: It was not.)

• 08/10/1922
  
  The Palestine Order in Council
  • Definition of boundaries, formation of districts,
  • Grant of pardon & Remission of fines,
  • Judicial and Legislative Authority --- creation of Ordinances,
  • Nationality, Citizenship, voting and elections, etc.
• 07/24/1922
  
  Mandate for Palestine
  • Approved by LoN
  • Political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home,
  • Development of self-governing institutions,
  • Safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine.
  • Establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine.
• 04/25/1920
  
  (1) Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine mandates ---- (2) San Remo Convention
  • The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.
  • Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.
• 04/28/1919
  
  League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference
  • Provisional Recognition to Certain Communities
  • Administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
• 02/03/1919 Paris peace conference
  • Five individual Treaties are made:
    • A. Each treaty is named for districts around Paris.
    • B. Germany = Versailles
    • C. Austria = St. Germain
    • D. Hungary = Trianon
    • E. Bulgaria = Neuilly
    • 
      F. Ottoman Empire = Sevres: 08/10/1920
      
      Treaty of Peace Between the Allied and the Associate Powers and Turkey
• 01/03/1919 Faisal-Weizmann Agreement
  • Arabs and the Jewish people working out the consummation of their national aspirations,
  • Established and maintained in their respective territories.
• 11/02/1917
  
  Balfour Declaration
  • Declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations,
  • Intent to establish in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people
• 05/16/1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement
  • That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab states or a confederation of Arab states, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief.

The Balfour Declaration, while not a specific topic, was discussed in the reference frame of "national aspirations" of both the Arab and the Jewish in what culminated into a Arab-Jewish Treaty know as the Faisal (Arab)-Weizmann (Jewish) Agreement. The first official Arab rejection of the Balfour Declaration comes with the feeder arrangements into the Paris Peace Agreement, in that same year (JAN) 1919; just over a month later --- February 1919. As the Ottoman Empire had unconditionally surrendered
[Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918)], the matter was then placed in the hands of the Allied Powers.

It was for the BIG FOUR and the Allied Powers to decide what the best course of action was to take; and not the PAC. The decision on the course of action to take relative to the Jewish Homeland Issue and Palestine, were essentially made before the Covenant. The Mandate was approved by the Council of the League of Nations. It did not require review and approval of the PAC. The Actions taken by the Mandatory, appointed by the Council of the League of Nations, were reported to and reviewed by the Council. The Council had the authority to alter or amend the Mandate, or to approve such changes to the course of action as they may find necessary. The Mandate was not a stone table that could not be altered. Remembering that in the beginning, the intent was to establish a Jewish National Home. The protection to the former enemy indigenous population was in the area of civil and religious rights --- nothing more. At that time, they had not other special protections that were expressly articulated. The establishment of the Jewish National Home (a concept) was a principle goal expressly mandated.

• "1. The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration
  • The San Remo Convention approved the outline to the Mandate. It was approved by the Council of the League of Nations. That makes it valid.
• "2. The second ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that it violated, in spirit and in letter, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,
  • The spirit and intent of the Article 22 Clauses is defined by the authors and NOT the PAC or and derivative Arab organization. There is no specific reference to Palestine in Article 22. It is more likely that if there was a specific terrirtory in mind -- it would have been Trans-Jordan, a carve-out and set aside for the promises made the the Bedouin Chiefs.
• "... The third ground of invalidity of the Mandate lies in the fact that its endorsement and implementation of the Balfour Declaration conflicted with the assurances and pledges given to the Arabs during the First World War by Great Britain and the Allied Powers.
  • The pledges made to the Arab Chiefs were (eventually) engaged and rendered in the form of two Kingdoms that because independent. There was not other specific promises made to the Arabs. Prince Faisal and Prince Abdullah each received their independent Kingdoms as promised. What pledges were made --- were made to the Arabs on the side of the allies. NOT Arabs like:
• President All Palestine Government
  

  Hajj Amin al-Husseini A Commission Officer in the Ottoman Army​

  Prime Minister All Palestine Government
  

  Ahmed Hilmi Pasha A General Officer in the Ottoman Army​

(PERSONALLY)

I think the Arab and the PAC did not do the Palestinian Arab any good in the very beginning by attempting to make demands of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

MJB12741, P F Tinmore, et al,

In any conflict that has lasted as long as the Arab-Israeli conflict, there will be claims and counter-claims. In the end, the terminator is usually a war between the belligerents that settles the matter.

In the 20th Century, the more civilized nations of the world have attempted to intervene in these unsuccessful conflicts that have started as minor squabbles and evolved into Regional conflicts; interventions that usually have negative or imperfect outcomes. In the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the hostilities were almost like spontaneous ignition --- a type of cultural conflict that occurs by itself (exothermic internal reactions of mixing volatile elements and conditions); followed by a gradual development until a thermal runaway occurs (on both sides Arab and Jewish) which rapidly accelerates to high political confrontation, --- and zoom --- a war starts. They have been locked in conflict for so long that they cannot even agree on the triggering event. Like any fire (cultural feud), the point of origin is often hard to pinpoint. Clearly, the Jewish and the Muslims do not mix well in the Mediterranean climate.

Where both sides innocent at all times? No --- clearly not so. There were uncontrolled hot heads on both sides. But the accusations are not being soundly addressed.

So, when are you going to give us a list of Israel's crimes?
You look biased and one sided when you only do the Palestinian thing.

Great point. Just look what those Zionists have done to the Palestinians with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concerssions so the Palestinians can remain in Israel. Face it you Zionists, not even once has Israel tried to help free them back to their indigenous homelands. Shame on you people for that.

(COMMENT)

In the case of the Israelis (I'm accused of not mentioning the "Israeli Crimes"), my perspective is different. And that is because a clear and concise accusation is seldom made. But Since the point was raised (supra P F Tinmore) and seconded (supra by MJB'), I thought I would attempt to address them (one-by-one). In the absence of a member accusation, I used the "LIST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW VIOLATIONS BY THE STATE OF ISREAL" found by the search of that same name - post by "ItisApartheid.Org":

• ISRAELI OCCUPATION IS ILLEGAL: Laws Violated: U.N. Charter, Article 2(4) & 51 (1945); Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations…, Principle 1 (1970). Israeli Actions: It is illegal under international law to acquire land by force: Israel annexed land occupied by force during 1948 and 1967 wars (lands other than those given by the UN 1947-48 partition plan) ILRC article. Military action and occupations are legal only if they are for self-defense, or to directly benefit the native population. But studies show Israel is not just defending itself as it develops de-facto annexation with its settlements and separation barrier on occupied land, as it takes over most of the occupied territories (over 70%) and its natural resources for its own use and economic benefit, at the expense of the native population. ILRC article on why the Occupation is illegal.
  • Israel did not occupy any territory under Arab sovereignty in 1948. It accepted the offering under General Assembly Resolution 181(II), pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," in the establishment of a "Jewish State." Thus, it is not a Violation of Article 2(4) & 51 (1945).
  • Israel did not take the territory by force, rather it defended its right of self-determination and the accepted offering by the General Assembly, and was immediately attacked by a coalition of Arab Forces (Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon - Arab High Committee's Holy War Army - volunteers from the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and the Sudan) on the day of Independence.
  • The conflict between Israel and the Coalition of Arab Forces ended in a UN negotiated ceasefire and Armistice --- with Armistice agreements concluded between Israel and the four adjacent Arab States (the major waring parties) in 1949; with Armistice Lines forged along the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA). In certain areas, the FEBA exceeded the "lands other than those given by the UN 1947-48 partition plan." These territories did not come under the control of Israel by an act of aggression on the part of Israel, but rather, were lost to Israel through an act of aggression on the part of the Coalition of Arab Forces. Chapter I, Article 2(4) stipulates that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
    • POINTS TO REMEMBER:
      • Israel was defending its rights to Independence and its territorial integrity from the use of force by the Coalition of Arab Forces; not the other way around.
      • The member nation fostering the Coalition of Arab Forces were member nations of the UN and subject to the charter; where as Israel was not yet a mamber of the UN and not subject to the Charter.
      • For achieving the 1949 Armistice Agreements, Dr. Ralph Bunche received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1950. He served as assistant to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, and thereafter as the principal secretary of the UN Palestine Commission. In 1948, was appointed by the UN to mediate the conflict; after the Count Bernadotte was assassinated. The UN Security Council was intimately involved with the Armistice Negotiations on the Island of Rhodes. The Armistice Lines, and the territory included, were negotiated and approved by the all four major parties to the conflict. Israel was not in violation of any Charter, Treaty, Resolution or international law.
  • Relative to the 1967 War (AKA: The Six-Day War), The 1967 War did not start in the Sinai (while all the events are connected), the critical events that trigger the renewed opening of Hostilities, revolved around:
    • Between January and April 1967: 63 Arab attacks (Syrian tank fire, mines, more than 200 mortar shells, Palestinian terror attacks) heighten anxiety in Israel.
    • 16-19 May 1967: Egypt moves 100,000 troops into the Sinai, demands ALL United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) withdraw.
    • 22 May 1967: Egypt commits an Act of War; Egypt closes the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. The Egyptian government asserted that because of a continuing state of war between Egypt and Israel, Egypt was entitled to take measures to prevent the passage of belligerent ships. The Egyptian government argued that the Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement had not legally ended the state of war between the two nations. Thus by blockading the Strait of Tiran to the Freedom of Navigation by Israeli shipping, Egypt essentially reopened hostilities. Under customary international law, a body of water with the geography of the Gulf of Aqaba is non-territorial. International law recognizes a gulf bordered by more than one littoral state as being part of the high seas (international waters). Ships from Elath and Aqaba has freedom of navigation through the Straits for more than 2000 years.
      • NOTE: The Gulf of Aqaba, bordered by the states of Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, is approximately 100 miles in length. Its width varies from three miles at the narrowest point to seventeen miles at the widest point. The only navigable entrance to the Gulf is the Strait of Tiran, which is located at the southern tip of the Gulf, between Tiran Island and the Sinai Peninsula. Two ports - Elath (Israel) and Aqaba (Oordan) - are located at the northern tip of the Gulf. Egypt has no commercial shipping ports in the Gulf. The blockade was purposefully done to provoke the conflict, after having pre-positioned the Egyptian Army in the Sinai. At the time of the 1967 War Field Marshal Abdul Hakim Amir had deployed a force of four infantry divisions, one armored division and a Mechanized division and an additional armored task force (4 reinforced Armor Battalions) in the Sinai.
    • At the time of the 1967 War, the West Bank was sovereign Jordanian territory. The 1967 War was not an engagement with a Palestinian sovereignty, but with Jordan which became involved as a consequence of a mutual defense agreement with Egypt.
    • The Gaza Strip was a military governorship and occupied by Egyptian Forces. It was not sovereign Palestine.
    • Since the Arab States agreed that the 1948-49 Armistice Arrangements did not end the 1948 War, in which the Coalition of Arab Forces were the aggressor, and since Egypt closed the shipping lane through the Strait of Tiran, Israel is not the aggressor in the 1967 War.

• ILLEGAL ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS ON OCCUPIED LAND: Laws Violated: Geneva Conventions IV, Article 49(6) (1949). It is illegal to colonize occupied land or transfer non-indigenous population to that land. Israeli Actions: Immediately following the 1967 war, Israel began building Israeli civilian settlements on Palestinian lands, eventually building over 200 settlements throughout the occupied territories, and settling over 450,000 Israeli civilians in them, displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians from their own legally owned lands. In addition, Israeli citizens live in hundreds of Israeli settlements on occupied land not originally given to them in the UN Partition Plan, displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. ILRC article.
  • Is it really a violation? What does the Geneva Convention actually say?
    • Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
    • Deportations, transfers, evacuations
      • ARTICLE 49 [ Link ]

• • • • • Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
        • Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
        • The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
        • The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
        • The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
        • The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
    • This 1949 GCIV Protection was to prevent, in the future, any such action as the Jewish endured in the forced transfers to concentration camps. It had nothing to do with settlements by migrating settlers.
    • Hostilities between the HoAP and the Occupation Forces have not ceased. Both halves of the Unity Government still cling to the belief that Jihad is the solution and that the establishment of Israel is illegal.
    • The Oslo Accords between the Israeli Government and the Arab League recognized sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, established Areas "A" "B" and "C" which permitted Israel to allow settlers into Area "C" territory.
    • NOTE: I would be remiss if I did not mention that Article 22(2)(b) of the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind considers “the establishment of settlers in an occupied territory and changes to the demographic composition of an occupied territory” as an “exceptionally serious war crime”. However, it is important to point-out that the intent by the Israeli is not to alter the "demographic composition."

• ILLEGAL ISRAELI PRACTICE OF ETHNIC CLEANSING: Laws Violated: Forbidding civilian populations the right to return to their homes following the end of armed conflict is in direct violation of international law and UN resolutions. Geneva Convention IV, Articles 45, 46 & 49 (1949), UN resolutions 194 (III) (General Assembly; 1948) & 237 (Security Council; 1967). Israeli Actions: Since 1910, in different ways, the Zionists and then Israel have taken Palestinian lands, forced native populations from their land, and then refused the Palestinian landowners or tenants’ residency or employment on them. Following fighting in 1948 and then again in 1967, Palestinian civilians who wished to return to their homes in Israel and the Occupied Territories were forbidden re-entry (“right of return”), confining them to increasingly smaller areas of Israel and Occupied Territories. The Israeli government enacts laws, and employs its military to keep approximately 750,000 Palestinian Arab civilians from returning to their homes following the end of fighting both in 1948 and in the occupied territories in 1967. Israel then violates UN resolutions ordering them to respect Palestinians’ right to return to their homes. See the ILRC article on Right of Return and ILRC article on Ethnic Cleansing.
  • There is no treaty that ends the conflict between the State of Israel and the HoAP either in the Gaza government or the West Bank Government. Again, by the standards set by the HAMAS and Fatah halves of the government, Israel has no right to exist anywhere south of Lebanon and north of the Sinai --- from the Jordan River to the Sea. This is Palestine, exclusively for the Palestinians. The Liberation of Palestine is a national duty; it is the responsibility of the Palestinian people and the Arab and Islamic nation, it is also a humanitarian responsibility in accordance with the requirements of truth and justice. Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine.
  • Prior to 1948 there was no Israel. Therefore, the idea that Israel took part in some sort of Ethnic Cleansing, prior to 1948 with the establishment of the Jewish States is impossible. As stated in the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Customary International Humanitarian Law Study, the biggest challenge for legal scholars when dealing with the term of ethnic cleansing is the fact that “it consists of a combination of a number of war crimes." Legal theory has also placed ethnic cleansing among crimes against humanity and has declared it a form of genocide, so to this end there is still eternal controversy.
    • For the purpose of this Statute (Part II - Article 6 - ICC Rome Statutes), "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• 
  
  (a) Killing members of the group;
  (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.​
• ISRAELI APARTHEID SYSTEM IS ILLEGAL: Laws Violated: International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1976). Link to our fact sheets on Israeli Apartheid. Israeli Actions: The State of Israel has a formal system of legalized discrimination against Palestinian Arabs which technically fits the official UN definition of Apartheid. ILRC article. Israel’s society-wide system of discrimination and isolation of the Palestinian people within Israel, and its system of exploitation, oppression and isolation in the occupied territories, fits exactly the official, legal UN definition of apartheid, which is considered to be a crime against humanity. The practice of passing laws which give special favor throughout Israeli society to the Jewish people over all other people, and especially the native Palestinian Arab people, embodies the UN definition of apartheid, which is giving special favor to one group of people above all other groups based on criteria like what religion they are. Another example is in 2003, the Israeli legislature (Knesset) passed legislation that forbade spouses of Arab-Israeli citizens who are in the occupied territories from joining their families in Israel (with some exceptions). The reason for this legislation is to help maintain the Jewish demographic majority family unification. The racist nature is evident in that only Palestinians (no other ethnic groups) are not forbidden to live in Israel after marrying an Israeli. ILRC article. General article. Amnesty International argues that this law violates fundamental principles of equity, human dignity and personal freedom enshrined in basic law as well as the rights of the child to live with both parents and other fundamental rights enshrined in human rights treaties in which Israel is a signer.
  • "The crime of apartheid" means (Part II - Article 7 - ICC Rome Statutes) inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.
  • There is no oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups. Israel is a multiracial and multicultural society to a much greater extent than the State of Palestine. And Israel has within it every racial group that the State of Palestine has; greater cultural and racial diversity.
  • Israel security countermeasure are instituted to protect or maintaining a regime within the State of Palestine. All security countermeasures and the quarantine of Palestinians are to protect the sovereign integrity of Israel and to maintain the security and safety for its citizenry against a regime that has dedicated itself to Jihad and the destruction of Israel as a State.
• MASSIVE VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS (HR):

Laws Violated: U.N. Charter, Article 1 (1945); Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations…, Principle 5 (1970)​

• COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT IS ILLEGAL:

Laws Violated: Geneva Conventions IV, Article 33 (1949); Geneva Conventions (Protocol I), Article 75(2d) (1977).​

• ILLEGAL MASSIVE TRANSFORMATION OF LOCAL LAWS:

Laws Violated: Hague Regulations IV, Article 43 (1907).​

• SEPARATION BARRIER RULED ILLEGAL

Laws Violated: International Court of Justice of 2004, Advisory Opinion,​

• • Relative to Massive HR Violations, this is merely a grab bag for the Palestinians. The Palestinians have hurt themselves many more times than the Israeli could do intentionally. Since there is no specific allegation here, there is no real response to be made. The world in general understands that this is a belligerent occupation of a parasitic failed government, unable to meet Article 22 (LoN Covenant) requirements to be able to stand on their own, and lead by a conglomeration of Jihadist and Fedayeen that are dedicated to disrupting regional security. Even the adjacent Arab nations don't really want to help them and would prefer that Israel maintain the quarantine.
  • There is no Collective Punishment. Israel is not standing up Arab Palestinian against the wall and shooting them on mass; or punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed.
  • The transformation of local laws would have transferred any way. At the time of the original occupation, the territory was sovereign Jordanian territory. When it became territory occupied by Israel, the local laws were Jordanian. In July 1988, Jordan relinquished sovereignty; and the territory was orphaned (nor legitimate government --- not Palestinian and not Jordanian); by UN Security Council Mandate and under the Geneva Convention the governance fell upon the Occupation Power. The only law at that point was what was enforced by the Occupying Power.
  • Relative to the Separation Barrier --- as P F Tinmore so often reminds us all, the Armistice Line between Israel and the State of Palestine is NOT a border. The State of Palestine has not treaty in respect to borders. As P F Tinmore often asks, where is the treaty or other legal instrument that delineates the border of Palestine? The principle purpose of the Security Barrier is to maintain the security and safety of the citizens of Israel from those hostile elements on the West Bank and Gaza Strip side of the Barriers, which would (given the opportunity) do the Israelis harm. So strong is the need for the Hostile Arab Palestine that the dig tunnels to defeat the purpose of the barriers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thoughtful post. It did, of course, include all of your apologies for Israel. And, of course, much is based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

"The Palestine Mandate was invalid on three grounds set out hereinafter.

"1. The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration and accepting the concept of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine it violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine and their natural rights of independence and self-determination. Palestine was the national home of the Palestinians from time immemorial. The establishment of a national home for an alien people in that country was a violation of the legitimate and fundamental rights of the inhabitants. The League of Nations did not possess the power, any more than the British Government did, to dispose of Palestine, or to grant to the Jews any political or territorial rights in that country. In so far as the Mandate purported to recognize any rights for alien Jews in Palestine, it was null and void.

"2. The second ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that it violated, in spirit and in letter, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, under the authority of which it purported to be made. The Mandate violated Article 22 in three respects:

"(a) The Covenant had envisaged the Mandate as the best method of achieving its basic objective of ensuring the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the Mandated Territories.

"Was the Palestine Mandate conceived for the well-being and development of the inhabitants of Palestine? The answer is found in the provisions of the Mandate itself. The Mandate sought the establishment in Palestine of a national home for another people, contrary to the rights and wishes of the Palestinians ... It required the Mandatory to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as would secure the establishment of a Jewish national home. It required the Mandatory to facilitate Jewish immigration into Palestine. It provided that a foreign body known as the Zionist Organization should be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in matters affecting the establishment of the Jewish national home. It is clear that, although the Mandates System was conceived in the interest of the inhabitants of the Mandated Territory, the Palestine Mandate was conceived in the interest of an alien people originating from outside Palestine, and ran counter to the basic concept of mandates. As Lord Islington observed when he opposed the inclusion of the Balfour Declaration in the Palestine Mandate: "The Palestine Mandate is a real distortion of the mandatory system". The same distinguished Lord added:

"When one sees in Article 22 ... that the well-being and development of such peoples should form a sacred trust of civilization, and when one takes that as the note of the mandatory system, I think your Lordships will see that we are straying down a very far path when we are postponing self-government in Palestine until such time as the population is flooded with an alien race."

"(b) The Palestine Mandate also ran counter to the specific concept of mandates envisaged by Article 22 for countries detached from Turkey at the end of the First World War. In the case of those countries, the intention was to limit the Mandate to the rendering of temporary advice and assistance. It is doubtful whether the people of Palestine, as also other Arab peoples detached from Turkey, were in need of administrative advice and assistance from a Mandatory. Their level of culture was not inferior to that existing at the time in many of the nations that were Members of the League of Nations. Such Arab communities had actively participated with the Turks in the government of their country. Their political maturity and administrative experience were comparable to the political maturity and administrative experience of the Turks, who were left to stand alone.

"Be that as it may, the framers of the Palestine Mandate did not restrict the Mandatory's role to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance, but granted the Mandatory 'full powers of legislation and administration' (Article 1). Such 'full powers of legislation and administration' were not laid down in the interest of the inhabitants, but were intended to be used, and in fact were used, to establish by force the Jewish national home in Palestine. Clearly this was an abuse of the purpose of the Mandate under the Covenant and a perversion of its raison d'être.

"The whole concept of the Palestine Mandate stands in marked contrast to the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon which was given to France on 24 July 1922. This Mandate conformed to Article 22 of the Covenant ...

"... The third ground of invalidity of the Mandate lies in the fact that its endorsement and implementation of the Balfour Declaration conflicted with the assurances and pledges given to the Arabs during the First World War by Great Britain and the Allied Powers. The denial to the Palestine Arabs of their independence and the subjection of their country to the immigration of a foreign people were a breach of those pledges." 63/ - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

You have to start at the beginning not in the middle.

"include all of your apologies for Israel. And, of course, much is based on unsubstantiated assumptions."

Pot calling the kettle black.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I started where the allegations started on the anti-Israeli site called "ItisApartheid.Org"; with the List of Israeli Violations. So, you want to start at a different place. That is OK with me. Just remember, the official determinations, decisions, orders and decrees made before May 1948, could not have been made by the Jewish People, the Jewish Agency or the State of Israel. The Jewish Immigrants exercised no sovereignty or legislative authority; the Jewish Agency was an Article 4 Mandate Invention for coordination purposes --- a public body (an agency operating as a component of a government process - but not an official government activity itself) for the purpose of providing advise to the Mandatory and fostering cooperation between the Article 6 Jewish Immigrants and the Mandatory on social, economic and issues affecting the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 1917 Balfour Declaration.

I was trying to limit my reply to the parameters of your comment in Posting #82 with regards to "Israeli Crimes." Israeli crimes cannot truly exist prior to mid-night 14/15 May 1948. But I did follow your logic and have no problem with it. It merely expands my commentary.

Thoughtful post. It did, of course, include all of your apologies for Israel. And, of course, much is based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

"The Palestine Mandate was invalid on three grounds set out hereinafter.

• "1. The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration
• "2. The second ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that it violated, in spirit and in letter, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,
• "... The third ground of invalidity of the Mandate lies in the fact that its endorsement and implementation of the Balfour Declaration conflicted with the assurances and pledges given to the Arabs during the First World War by Great Britain and the Allied Powers.

You have to start at the beginning not in the middle.

(COMMENT)

Before I rant on the timeline, and the interpretation of certain events, again I would be remiss if I did not mention the first Palestine Arab Congress (PAC)(AKA: Arab National Congress) (27 January to 10 February 1919), the outcomes of which are not in the on-line archive of the UN Information System on the Question of Palestine (UNISPAL) listing. (I'm sure they have it, I just don't see it in the white or dark side of the net.) The importance of the PAC is that it concluded in time to make the Paris Peace Conference. The PAC did submit it through quasi- Diplomatic channels by Cable to the Paris Peace Conference. I can only speculate why it was not presented at the same time as the Jewish Presentation (or maybe it was and just was not taken seriously). In any event --- you can hardly find any reference to the PAC Cable relative to the Paris Peace Conference, yet quite clearly see the Jewish presentation. The Paris Peace Conference was heavily influenced by the presence of the BIG FOUR:

• President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson;
• Prime Minister of Great Britain, David Lloyd George;
• Prime Minister of France, Georges Clemenceau;
• Prime Minister of Italy, Vittorio Emanuele Orlando.

The BIG FOUR were not the only Principle Allied Powers, but they were the backbone behind the leadership of the Allied Powers and the Council for the League of Nations. And that may be the key behind the reason the PAC Cable was so easily dismissed. The PAC (viewed as composed of characters that were less then helpful to the allies during the war) send what was interpreted as "demands" to the Allied Powers. Included in these demands were items that simply could not be considered:

• That the Allied Powers renounce the Balfour Declaration.
• The recognition of a Regional "Arab Union."
• The independence of a greater Syria that would include the Mandate for Palestine.

This was, of course, impossible as it would abrogate the Sykes-Picot Accords and interfere with the promises made to Arab-Bedouin Princes that did provide active combat assistance to the Allied Powers during the War. Additionally, the Arab-Ottoman included a demand that All foreign treaties (meaning those treaties concluded by the Allied Powers) affecting the entire region were to be set aside and voided. This was framed as if the PAC had been victorious in the War against the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Army of the Central Powers. One can only imagine what the BIG FOUR must have thought when reviewing the PAC Demands (no wonder the Arabs sent it by cable). The entire purpose of The Paris Peace Conference was to allow the Allied victors to set the peace terms for the defeated Central Powers; not to acquiesce to the PAC.

The important sequence of events that are relevant to the challenge that: --- --- The Mandate for Palestine was invalid: (Short Answer: It was not.)

• 08/10/1922
  
  The Palestine Order in Council
  • Definition of boundaries, formation of districts,
  • Grant of pardon & Remission of fines,
  • Judicial and Legislative Authority --- creation of Ordinances,
  • Nationality, Citizenship, voting and elections, etc.
• 07/24/1922
  
  Mandate for Palestine
  • Approved by LoN
  • Political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home,
  • Development of self-governing institutions,
  • Safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine.
  • Establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine.
• 04/25/1920
  
  (1) Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine mandates ---- (2) San Remo Convention
  • The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.
  • Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.
• 04/28/1919
  
  League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference
  • Provisional Recognition to Certain Communities
  • Administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
• 02/03/1919 Paris peace conference
  • Five individual Treaties are made:
    • A. Each treaty is named for districts around Paris.
    • B. Germany = Versailles
    • C. Austria = St. Germain
    • D. Hungary = Trianon
    • E. Bulgaria = Neuilly
    • 
      F. Ottoman Empire = Sevres: 08/10/1920
      
      Treaty of Peace Between the Allied and the Associate Powers and Turkey
• 01/03/1919 Faisal-Weizmann Agreement
  • Arabs and the Jewish people working out the consummation of their national aspirations,
  • Established and maintained in their respective territories.
• 11/02/1917
  
  Balfour Declaration
  • Declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations,
  • Intent to establish in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people
• 05/16/1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement
  • That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab states or a confederation of Arab states, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief.

The Balfour Declaration, while not a specific topic, was discussed in the reference frame of "national aspirations" of both the Arab and the Jewish in what culminated into a Arab-Jewish Treaty know as the Faisal (Arab)-Weizmann (Jewish) Agreement. The first official Arab rejection of the Balfour Declaration comes with the feeder arrangements into the Paris Peace Agreement, in that same year (JAN) 1919; just over a month later --- February 1919. As the Ottoman Empire had unconditionally surrendered
[Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918)], the matter was then placed in the hands of the Allied Powers.

It was for the BIG FOUR and the Allied Powers to decide what the best course of action was to take; and not the PAC. The decision on the course of action to take relative to the Jewish Homeland Issue and Palestine, were essentially made before the Covenant. The Mandate was approved by the Council of the League of Nations. It did not require review and approval of the PAC. The Actions taken by the Mandatory, appointed by the Council of the League of Nations, were reported to and reviewed by the Council. The Council had the authority to alter or amend the Mandate, or to approve such changes to the course of action as they may find necessary. The Mandate was not a stone table that could not be altered. Remembering that in the beginning, the intent was to establish a Jewish National Home. The protection to the former enemy indigenous population was in the area of civil and religious rights --- nothing more. At that time, they had not other special protections that were expressly articulated. The establishment of the Jewish National Home (a concept) was a principle goal expressly mandated.

• "1. The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration
  • The San Remo Convention approved the outline to the Mandate. It was approved by the Council of the League of Nations. That makes it valid.
• "2. The second ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that it violated, in spirit and in letter, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,
  • The spirit and intent of the Article 22 Clauses is defined by the authors and NOT the PAC or and derivative Arab organization. There is no specific reference to Palestine in Article 22. It is more likely that if there was a specific terrirtory in mind -- it would have been Trans-Jordan, a carve-out and set aside for the promises made the the Bedouin Chiefs.
• "... The third ground of invalidity of the Mandate lies in the fact that its endorsement and implementation of the Balfour Declaration conflicted with the assurances and pledges given to the Arabs during the First World War by Great Britain and the Allied Powers.
  • The pledges made to the Arab Chiefs were (eventually) engaged and rendered in the form of two Kingdoms that because independent. There was not other specific promises made to the Arabs. Prince Faisal and Prince Abdullah each received their independent Kingdoms as promised. What pledges were made --- were made to the Arabs on the side of the allies. NOT Arabs like:
• President All Palestine Government
  

  Hajj Amin al-Husseini A Commission Officer in the Ottoman Army​

  Prime Minister All Palestine Government
  

  Ahmed Hilmi Pasha A General Officer in the Ottoman Army​

(PERSONALLY)

I think the Arab and the PAC did not do the Palestinian Arab any good in the very beginning by attempting to make demands of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is OK with me. Just remember, the official determinations, decisions, orders and decrees made before May 1948, could not have been made by the Jewish People, the Jewish Agency or the State of Israel.​

Of course that is not true.

Following rejection by the Ottoman authorities of his ideas, Herzl approached the British, German, Belgian and Italian Governments and such far-flung locations as Cyprus, East Africa and the Congo were considered, but did not materialize. The creation of a Jewish State in Palestine became the avowed aim of zionism, zealously pressed by Dr. Chaim Weizmann when he came to head the movement. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

The Zionists were all over the place trying to sell their colonial project.

Similarly, a number of Jewish organizations such as the Colonisation Department of the Zionist Organization, financed by the Keren ha-Yesod, were actively engaged in acquisition of land both for individual immigrant families as well as for the Yishuv or Jewish settlements. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I started where the allegations started on the anti-Israeli site called "ItisApartheid.Org"; with the List of Israeli Violations. So, you want to start at a different place. That is OK with me. Just remember, the official determinations, decisions, orders and decrees made before May 1948, could not have been made by the Jewish People, the Jewish Agency or the State of Israel. The Jewish Immigrants exercised no sovereignty or legislative authority; the Jewish Agency was an Article 4 Mandate Invention for coordination purposes --- a public body (an agency operating as a component of a government process - but not an official government activity itself) for the purpose of providing advise to the Mandatory and fostering cooperation between the Article 6 Jewish Immigrants and the Mandatory on social, economic and issues affecting the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 1917 Balfour Declaration.

I was trying to limit my reply to the parameters of your comment in Posting #82 with regards to "Israeli Crimes." Israeli crimes cannot truly exist prior to mid-night 14/15 May 1948. But I did follow your logic and have no problem with it. It merely expands my commentary.

Thoughtful post. It did, of course, include all of your apologies for Israel. And, of course, much is based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

"The Palestine Mandate was invalid on three grounds set out hereinafter.

• "1. The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration
• "2. The second ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that it violated, in spirit and in letter, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,
• "... The third ground of invalidity of the Mandate lies in the fact that its endorsement and implementation of the Balfour Declaration conflicted with the assurances and pledges given to the Arabs during the First World War by Great Britain and the Allied Powers.

You have to start at the beginning not in the middle.

(COMMENT)

Before I rant on the timeline, and the interpretation of certain events, again I would be remiss if I did not mention the first Palestine Arab Congress (PAC)(AKA: Arab National Congress) (27 January to 10 February 1919), the outcomes of which are not in the on-line archive of the UN Information System on the Question of Palestine (UNISPAL) listing. (I'm sure they have it, I just don't see it in the white or dark side of the net.) The importance of the PAC is that it concluded in time to make the Paris Peace Conference. The PAC did submit it through quasi- Diplomatic channels by Cable to the Paris Peace Conference. I can only speculate why it was not presented at the same time as the Jewish Presentation (or maybe it was and just was not taken seriously). In any event --- you can hardly find any reference to the PAC Cable relative to the Paris Peace Conference, yet quite clearly see the Jewish presentation. The Paris Peace Conference was heavily influenced by the presence of the BIG FOUR:

• President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson;
• Prime Minister of Great Britain, David Lloyd George;
• Prime Minister of France, Georges Clemenceau;
• Prime Minister of Italy, Vittorio Emanuele Orlando.

The BIG FOUR were not the only Principle Allied Powers, but they were the backbone behind the leadership of the Allied Powers and the Council for the League of Nations. And that may be the key behind the reason the PAC Cable was so easily dismissed. The PAC (viewed as composed of characters that were less then helpful to the allies during the war) send what was interpreted as "demands" to the Allied Powers. Included in these demands were items that simply could not be considered:

• That the Allied Powers renounce the Balfour Declaration.
• The recognition of a Regional "Arab Union."
• The independence of a greater Syria that would include the Mandate for Palestine.

This was, of course, impossible as it would abrogate the Sykes-Picot Accords and interfere with the promises made to Arab-Bedouin Princes that did provide active combat assistance to the Allied Powers during the War. Additionally, the Arab-Ottoman included a demand that All foreign treaties (meaning those treaties concluded by the Allied Powers) affecting the entire region were to be set aside and voided. This was framed as if the PAC had been victorious in the War against the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Army of the Central Powers. One can only imagine what the BIG FOUR must have thought when reviewing the PAC Demands (no wonder the Arabs sent it by cable). The entire purpose of The Paris Peace Conference was to allow the Allied victors to set the peace terms for the defeated Central Powers; not to acquiesce to the PAC.

The important sequence of events that are relevant to the challenge that: --- --- The Mandate for Palestine was invalid: (Short Answer: It was not.)

• 08/10/1922
  
  The Palestine Order in Council
  • Definition of boundaries, formation of districts,
  • Grant of pardon & Remission of fines,
  • Judicial and Legislative Authority --- creation of Ordinances,
  • Nationality, Citizenship, voting and elections, etc.
• 07/24/1922
  
  Mandate for Palestine
  • Approved by LoN
  • Political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home,
  • Development of self-governing institutions,
  • Safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine.
  • Establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine.
• 04/25/1920
  
  (1) Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine mandates ---- (2) San Remo Convention
  • The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.
  • Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.
• 04/28/1919
  
  League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference
  • Provisional Recognition to Certain Communities
  • Administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
• 02/03/1919 Paris peace conference
  • Five individual Treaties are made:
    • A. Each treaty is named for districts around Paris.
    • B. Germany = Versailles
    • C. Austria = St. Germain
    • D. Hungary = Trianon
    • E. Bulgaria = Neuilly
    • 
      F. Ottoman Empire = Sevres: 08/10/1920
      
      Treaty of Peace Between the Allied and the Associate Powers and Turkey
• 01/03/1919 Faisal-Weizmann Agreement
  • Arabs and the Jewish people working out the consummation of their national aspirations,
  • Established and maintained in their respective territories.
• 11/02/1917
  
  Balfour Declaration
  • Declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations,
  • Intent to establish in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people
• 05/16/1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement
  • That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab states or a confederation of Arab states, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief.

The Balfour Declaration, while not a specific topic, was discussed in the reference frame of "national aspirations" of both the Arab and the Jewish in what culminated into a Arab-Jewish Treaty know as the Faisal (Arab)-Weizmann (Jewish) Agreement. The first official Arab rejection of the Balfour Declaration comes with the feeder arrangements into the Paris Peace Agreement, in that same year (JAN) 1919; just over a month later --- February 1919. As the Ottoman Empire had unconditionally surrendered
[Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918)], the matter was then placed in the hands of the Allied Powers.

It was for the BIG FOUR and the Allied Powers to decide what the best course of action was to take; and not the PAC. The decision on the course of action to take relative to the Jewish Homeland Issue and Palestine, were essentially made before the Covenant. The Mandate was approved by the Council of the League of Nations. It did not require review and approval of the PAC. The Actions taken by the Mandatory, appointed by the Council of the League of Nations, were reported to and reviewed by the Council. The Council had the authority to alter or amend the Mandate, or to approve such changes to the course of action as they may find necessary. The Mandate was not a stone table that could not be altered. Remembering that in the beginning, the intent was to establish a Jewish National Home. The protection to the former enemy indigenous population was in the area of civil and religious rights --- nothing more. At that time, they had not other special protections that were expressly articulated. The establishment of the Jewish National Home (a concept) was a principle goal expressly mandated.

• "1. The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration
  • The San Remo Convention approved the outline to the Mandate. It was approved by the Council of the League of Nations. That makes it valid.
• "2. The second ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that it violated, in spirit and in letter, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,
  • The spirit and intent of the Article 22 Clauses is defined by the authors and NOT the PAC or and derivative Arab organization. There is no specific reference to Palestine in Article 22. It is more likely that if there was a specific terrirtory in mind -- it would have been Trans-Jordan, a carve-out and set aside for the promises made the the Bedouin Chiefs.
• "... The third ground of invalidity of the Mandate lies in the fact that its endorsement and implementation of the Balfour Declaration conflicted with the assurances and pledges given to the Arabs during the First World War by Great Britain and the Allied Powers.
  • The pledges made to the Arab Chiefs were (eventually) engaged and rendered in the form of two Kingdoms that because independent. There was not other specific promises made to the Arabs. Prince Faisal and Prince Abdullah each received their independent Kingdoms as promised. What pledges were made --- were made to the Arabs on the side of the allies. NOT Arabs like:
• President All Palestine Government
  

  Hajj Amin al-Husseini A Commission Officer in the Ottoman Army​

  Prime Minister All Palestine Government
  

  Ahmed Hilmi Pasha A General Officer in the Ottoman Army​

(PERSONALLY)

I think the Arab and the PAC did not do the Palestinian Arab any good in the very beginning by attempting to make demands of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Jewish Immigrants exercised no sovereignty or legislative authority; the Jewish Agency was an Article 4 Mandate Invention for coordination purposes --- a public body (an agency operating as a component of a government process - but not an official government activity itself) for the purpose of providing advise to the Mandatory and fostering cooperation between the Article 6 Jewish Immigrants and the Mandatory on social, economic and issues affecting the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 1917 Balfour Declaration.​

Like I say, the Jewish Agency was part of the Mandate. After the mandate folded the Jewish Agency had no legitimacy in Palestine.