Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Third response to Talknic

Just when you were giving up on a response...

LOL. It’s a representation of the situation.

What do you suppose someone visiting your site for the first time will think your photo represents? To me, the scream captured in the photo says you harbor a deep and disturbing hatred, a negative emotion that drives humans to kill and destroy each other. The photo tells me there is no room for reason, no pretense of fairness, and no sense of compassion for the subject of your rage. Your overwhelming hatred for Israel is captured in the image and it prefaces the sophistry that follows.

Anyway, I am disappointed at the lack of response. I had many questions you left unanswered, which is exactly as I expected. I have been quite nomadic in my search for someone...anyone at all, to defend their assertions with a grain of honesty, and I feel let down, considering the bold challenge on your website claiming you will change anything proven to be false. Proven by what standard is the issue now. Your responses so far have turned out to be a weak attempt at ego preservation instead of reaction to the truth. I claim responsibility for some of that though, I am a weak writer and have failed in my effort to elucidate the points.

Perhaps the problem is that I am being too promiscuous with your time? I think I will attempt to focus on just one issue. On your site you begin with some propaganda about, what you feel is the "biggest lie" of all. In your response you claim that all the evidence for your assertions are there and that your evidence is "irrefutable." Lets examine that....

Your first claim is that UN 181 has relevance and according to you defines Israel's borders. This is what I would like to focus on since this is the beginning of your propaganda. Lets call it a test to see if you are susceptible to reason. From the photo and what you have written so far, I am not hopeful, but I will not give up on you for my part just yet.

What is the UN 181 resolution? It is a non-binding Chapter VI resolution that resolved,
"The Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution;"

In layman's terms, if the document had value, any entity initiating "force" to change the suggested terms of the resolution was supposed to be referred to the Security Council as a threat to peace. Before the ink had even dried on the document, Arabs launched a race war to exterminate the Jews, leaving 7 dead and dozens wounded the day after the results of the vote were made public, shooting, stoning, rioting, attacking the Polish and Swedish consulates, bombing cafes, throwing Molotov cocktails at shops, and setting synagogues on fire. The Security Council should have been notified, but it wasn't. Why? Did the Jews being murdered and attacked have no advocate? The British refused to impliment the resolution because it was REJECTED by Muslim Arabs that refused to share power with dhimmi peoples. The Grand Mufti had called for jihad and the Arabs responded, on December 3, a large mob heeded the call and ransacked the new Jewish commercial center in Jerusalem, they looted and burned Jewish shops and stabbed and stoned any Jew too feeble to run away, some of the victims recent Holocaust survivors. The next day, an armed mob attempted to storm Kibbutz Efal, the first large scale attempt to overrun an entire Jewish community since the massacre at Hebron years earlier. At this point in the conflict NO Arab village had been depopulated and no Jewish defenders had gone on the offensive to protect the defenseless Jewish community from Arab deprivations. The only village depopulated at this point was Hebron, depopulated of its JEWS from previous Arab rioting, which every Jew in the region was keenly aware of.

The Arab upper class had been leaving for months anticipating a potential impending conflict, but when the Muslim fanatics declared war on the Jews, they hastened their departure. The escalating violence was the start of the Arab flight of the middle class and the Fellahin as well. This chaos was the start of the Arab refugee problem caused by ARAB INITIATED VIOLENCE, which should have been reported to the security Council. When the Arab states and the non-State entity of East Palestine called transJordan later invaded, they should have also been reported to the Security Council if the resolution was going to have any relevance. No such action was taken, because the resolution was inert and completely irrelevant to the world at the time. This attitude is confirmed by a secret memo sent to the US Secretary of State declaring that the Security Council refused to pass a resolution which would have accepted the partition plan as a basis for Security Council action. Since none of this transpired, the resolution could have been burned or used for toilet tissue, it had no value regardless of who referred to it further.

With British refusal to maintain order, and sometimes British instigation, the Arabs had decided to settle the matter with blood, but what about the "suggested" boundary itself? Were the border delineations written in the resolution itself set in stone and clear enough to stand a challenge in a court of law? Were they clear and unambiguous enough to define a State solely on what was presented? No, if you take the time to actually read the resolution you will find that it states that the actual border would first be clarified in legal terms AFTER a survey,
On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in Part II of this Plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.

Did the commission complete its survey of the "suggested" borders, were the borders defined clearly enough to hold up in a court of law, and did any pressing reasons arise to change them before they were surveyed and precisely defined? The Arabs initiated a race war against the Jewish community the day the vote was announced, rejecting the very premise of the division, but not only did this prevent the final and official lines of the "frontier" between the two illegally proposed states from being finalized, this also left the final proposed border undetermined, even if we were suspend all logic and assume that any party would have been bound to them even had the survey been completed. The Power legally responsible for maintaining order (Britain) stood by and did next to nothing about Arab atrocities making the survey impossible to complete on the grounds of security and a lack of consensus over the acceptability of the resolution itself. Not only were there no survey teams to define in legal terms the proposed border, the entire demography changed from the consequences of Arab initiated violence from the moment the plan was voted on. Further, the language used in the resolution is that the borders are "general guidelines" with a clear mechanism of maintaining community cohesion. Even if we erroneously accept that the non-state, Jewish Agency had any legal authority or the power to bind the potential future state of Israel to its unilateral declarations prior to the reconstitution of the state of Israel, the resolution itself allows for border changes if pressing needs arose, making any assertion of maximal demands by Talknic or any other anti-Israeli partisan pure hateful fantasy. No reasonable and competent court on earth has or can adjudicate to the contrary.

Are states bound by UN resolutions and did the Arabs accept the UN 181 suggestion? No. Chapter VI resolutions are suggestions for two parties to use as a negotiating basis. No Arab statesman accepted Jewish self determination so there was no partner to even begin negotiations with. The Muslim Jewish relationship had long been that of master and oppressed, and as long as this dichotomy was maintained there was something that looked like peace...abject humiliation on the part of the oppressed Jew sometimes earned lack of violence on the part of the Muslim. Islam teaches supremacism. Muslims are unwilling to accept a Jew as an equal, let alone as a potential ruler, because the Muslim faith demands that Muslims rule over waqf lands. There was no negotiations based on pluralism, nor can there ever be, there were only Arab demands based on traditional intolerance, and nothing will ever change that because the conflict has nothing to do with land. The conflict has always been about Muslim dominance and power over dhimmi people and the free world has gone along with this because of our dependence on the oil these bigots have. The land issue is secondary. What the issue of a woman born in freedom and living in a country where the rights of minorities and women were preserved by the blood sacrifice of predominantly Christian soldiers a mystery.

Is a unilateral declaration by a non-state actor, ie.. a declaration of independence, binding on the future state? Is a declaration of independence even required to form a nation? No to both. A declaration is just that, it is a public proclamation and not an authentic legislative act that represents organic law. It is incredible that your "irrefutable" evidence is a simple letter and a non-binding proclamation, and that you also presume to know more than The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, which I have already pointed out clearly states,
lawyers generally and the Supreme Court in particular, have been reluctant to treat the Declaration as part of American Organic Law, or even to accord it the restricted status of the Preamble to the constitution.
American law derives its authority from the Constitution and ratified legislative acts, not the Declaration of Independence. In order for an act of legislation to be binding it must have power, authority, and force. Israel was recognized de facto on May 15, 1948, but it wasn't until January 31, 1949 until the US recognized Israel de jure, because Israel until then had been a PROVISIONAL STATE led by a Provisional State Council. The word "provisional" in matters of state mean subject to change. Further, even with de jure recognition, borders can and are disputed. Israel's frontiers are just one of many borders not recognized. For reasons of Antisemitism and aggressive propaganda Israel is just the subject of scrutiny far above what it is deserving.

Not only did you avoid questions, you avoided some critical ones that must be answered... 1) If the undefined border of UN 181 is somehow binding on the state of Israel, what would have been the consequence had the Arabs won? Unilateral declarations are non-binding without consent and ratification. So what power does a non-state unilateral declaration have? 2) Had the Arabs been able to massacre the Jews as they had intended what would have been the punishment for violating the undefined border suggestion of UN 181 and under what authority would the non-state declaration by the Jewish Agency have been enforced? Please note and address the fact that even in a legal declaration, if you write in a provision describing a self executing obligation, it is fine, but it is not binding as part of the international legal obligation, so what consequence could there have been on the Arabs for violating a Jewish non-state unilateral declaration? 3) Most importantly we can put the whole matter to rest if you can show any body of law that defines the principle of "binding unilateral declarations"? The request is straight forward, Talknic should be able to produce at least one international or even national document where this principle is legally supported. Should Talknic be unable to produce such evidence, then Talknic should have the integrity to take down the ridiculous claim that UN 181 has any relevance. None will be forth coming though, because none exists in any relevant body of public law. In order to be bound by statute there must be an enforcement mechanism and an authority that specifically enabled the declaration. Representatives of a future state that may or may not have come into existence do not provide that authority and if we are to argue that the authority came from the will of the people, then the will of the people was to claim more of their homeland as allocated in the binding contract of the Mandate for Palestine. Bear in mind the declaration was made BEFORE the end of the Mandate and that the resultant entity was PROVISIONAL, or de facto, not de jure. If you understood the difference you would understand that your assertion has no validity based on recognition of Israel by other nations.

Was the intent of the Provisional State Council that drafted the declaration to either imply or incorporate the undefined UN 181 border suggestions in the declaration? No. We can turn to statements by the author of the declaration to see plainly that the border was not being defined in the declaration, nor was it defined in precise legal terms. Everyone but Talknic seems to understand this implicitly. Ben Gurion drafted the Declaration of Independence. Recorded in the minutes of the People's Council meeting on the eve of independence he stated:

"Regarding borders, we have decided to evade the issue...We neither reject nor accept the United Nations proposals. The issue has been left open for developments."

After the Arabs lost their struggle to annhilate the Jewish community with violence and later turned to embarrassing, attempts (after the fact) to revive the rejected resolution for political reasons only, much as Talknic does, Ben Gurion responded in regards to the Partition Plan:

"I told my colleagues that it was unnecessary to demarcate the borders. The state would not come into existence through power of the United Nations' authority, and the Partition Plan would not decide our permanent borders."

It seems your key mistake, among many, on this issue is that you fail to understand that a non-state or even pre-state unilateral declaration is not binding on anyone. Israel's Declaration of Independence was made BEFORE the Mandate ended, is not a legislative act in and of itself, nor did the People's Council that drafted it have the legal authority to delineate borders of a nonexistent, future state, nor did the authors of the declaration explicitly accept or define future borders in the text itself when it referred to the non-defined border suggestions of UN 181. You also fail to understand that a de facto recognition of a Provisional Government is not the same as recognizing a state de jure or that even de jure recognition might preclude border disputes. It doesn't. Borders are disputed all over the world between recognized states. Provisional is a temporary situation subject to change, subject to legislation and ratification, which in Israel's case came after it survived an attempt to commit genocide by the Arab Muslims surrounding the tiny Jewish community. Your bizarre sophistry about annexation and UN 181 is amusing, but it is not based on the facts or on accepted law. If you dug a little deeper into how law actually works you would understand this yourself. As of now though you are simply embarrassing yourself by tilting at windmills with the full fury of your inner convictions.

As to some of the other amusing vignettes:

The peace agreements and armistice agreements with Israel have all been with the Arab States and the state of Israel, not Israel and the Palestinians.

This confirms nicely that there was no political entity called "the Palestinians" recognized when the events were unfolding. If such an entity existed it would have been represented in legal documents at the time. Every time you mention the fact that the Arab nations were in the Jewish homeland as belligerent aggressors you reaffirm the fact that there were no people calling themselves Palestinians until AFTER all means of violence were utilized and lost. They are a political entity that were created out of thin air to oppose Jews coming to power of Muslims and nothing else. Land has little to do with it.

The Arab States have been the High Contracting Power in the wars with Israel, which is why the UNSC deems the Occupied Territories OCCUPIED and the the Geneva Conventions applicable.

The Geneva Conventions do not apply because there is no High Contracting Party, who's sovereignty has been violated. The UN mislabels it an "occupation" for political purposes only, the same as it defines so called "Palestinian" refugees differently than all other refugees ever formed in history, the reasons of which can be listed, but are beyond the scope of this current response. Claiming the Arab states are the High Contracting Party is like claiming Britain, Canada, and the US are the High Contracting Parties representing France after WWII. It just doesn't work that way. France is its own High Contracting Party because it is a state with territorial continuity, whether portions of the state are disputed or not is irrelevant, the critical factor being that France had de jure and de facto recognition before the provisions of the Geneva Convention needed to be applied (Geneva 4 came after WWII, but the point is an example), the Arabs suddenly calling themselves Palestinians did not, nor have they ever had a recognized status until now, for political reasons only.

The Convention on the Laws of War existed before Israel Declared.

Which is far different from saying a beleaguered minority group under the direct authority of the British government, who were refused protection by the British authorities, are bound by state conventions they have not ratified as a nation, nor have the authority to enforce, don't you agree? Did the Jews of Mandatory Palestine have the right to take and hold prisoners of war, for example? No. When some Arab villages were destroyed to prevent the imminent arrival of fully trained and outfitted armed forces of Arab state actors from having a place to resupply and stage attacks from there was no place to keep prisoners, but they did have a right to defend themselves under the rules of war, including the right to seize and destroy materials and property that could be used against them.

Jordan’s borders were defined BEFORE Israel Declared, BEFORE their Peace agreement.

Very good, since TransJordan invaded the remaining 25% of the Jewish homeland AFTER it had been established on 75% of the Jewish homeland you agree with me that TransJordan occupied land west of its "defined" border illegally and that it is not the High Contracting party responsible for jurisdiction or of representation in any way of people living west of said border.

Jordan’s occupation of the West Bank was in AGREEMENT with Israel. (read the armistice) Jordan’s legal annexation was not unilateral, but on the request of the Palestinians, as a temporary trustee, according to the UN’s notions of protecting a non-state entity. (The sources are on these pages)

I read the armistice and it says that the armistice line will not prejudice future border negotiations, that hardly accounts for "agreement". The war the Jews just fought for their very lives was what, Talknic's version of a consensus? Now refer to the peace treaty...which is where the acquisition of land through war is LEGAL. You will note that the center of the Jordan river is the accepted border between the two nations confirming that the right for Jews to live in the remaining 25% of their historic homeland is acceptable to the belligerent that had illegally occupied the land for 19 years. The land is now contested only because a terrorist organization, the PLO, had come into existence 3 years before it was liberated in a war of self defense. Read the PLO Charter, article 25, where the PLO did not recognize authority over the disputed land. As an aside, I am left baffled today how the West accepted the sudden twist in the narrative, the PLO rewrote it's Charter and suddenly discovered its long lost homeland on previously unwanted land. The clearest case of blatant racism and bigotry in modern history has been accepted by much of the world, for political purposes only, much of it Cold War politics, much of it dependence on oil, all of it outside the scope of this response, and all of it confusing to someone that demands legitimacy before supporting a cause.

I could devote thousands of words to challenging this one paragraph, but I will be brief and simply ask you to further document with minutes of official meetings, formal letters, unilateral declarations, legislation, anything besides empty assertions by Talknic that; 1) Jordan's annexation was "legal". 2) Jordan's annexation was consensual by an established representative of the people. (More than just saying, 'no intifada followed'. Something a bit more formal that can be read and archived for the record will do nicely.) 3) Show me something in 1949 where a group calling themselves Palestinians even existed, please be precise, hundreds of very, very vague references to "Palestinians" have been written, none of them distinguish the Jews from the Arabs that have suddenly adopted the term for political purposes only though. I am asking for something very defined and official that shows legitimacy beyond question. UN 242, for example never mentions Palestinians, the Mandate for Palestine never mentions Palestinians, the White Papers do not mention Palestinians. The lack of legitimacy is conspicuous to someone seeking a sign that there is more to the Arab war than Jew hatred and Arab racism. 4) Document the "request" that Jordan annex the land. From who? On what authority? Where is the formal request archived now? All Jewish Agency official documents are stored, this should be a simple task to prove you are not just making things up in desperation. 5) And be very, very clear in showing that it was going to be a "temporary trustee" as you claim. Your sources are not on your pages, your wrong assumptions are all over your pages though, and little else.

It was impossible for Israel to have Declared before the British Mandate ended. In order to Declare Sovereignty an entity must have full control over the territories they intend to claim. Same for East Timor, Indonesia had to end it’s occupation.

Now you are catching on. There was no Israel to be bound by the declaration, yet the declaration was in fact made BEFORE the Mandate ended. So where does that leave the cornerstone of your straw house argument? Are you beating yourself in your own rebuttal, or just confused? Can you show me the hard and fast rules of declaring sovereignty? No? There are rules in recognizing sovereignty though, which include provisions for de facto recognitions oddly enough, just as I have been saying, but there are none in making unilateral declarations binding. For your own integrity, I suggest you take a step back and make sure you understand the time line of the events and the definitions of law better.

“The transfer of authority over the Mandate went to Israel a few hours before it ended with a declaration of independence.”

Impossible. Israel didn’t exist until it Declared.

I misspoke. I write fast because I never have time for this sort of thing. I drafted my response and posted it without proof reading it. Once it was posted I read it over and caught the mistake but did not feel like changing it. I appreciate you actually reading what I write. This adds weight, though to my growing suspicion that you are avoiding tough questions to preserve your own ego, which is uncool, since I am willing to change any portion of my own assumptions in favor of facts and I never avoid ANY question, because to do so is cowardly and dishonest. At any rate, I am lazy and I am not a lucid writer. I offer no apologies for that which I freely and upfront admit. What I meant to say was that a few hours before the Mandate ended the authorities accepted without complaint that the long suppressed state of Israel was going to be reborn at one minute past midnight and that a provisional government would form. This was common knowledge BEFORE the Mandate ended and the majority of the free world (the only part of the world that counts) accepted it. The authority was in the will of the Jewish people, many of which were Holocaust survivors and refugees from Arab pogroms in need of a sanctuary to escape from worldwide hatred and envy from, something Talknic represents in her photo that for me casts a malevolent shadow over her blog.

“A letter is not a binding contract or an authentic legislative act”

The letter to the US signaled that Israel had Declared, accepting the territories recommended by UNGS res 181, no more, no less. The US responded with recognition.

No. You need to back up to your own statement. "Israel" had not declared anything. There was no Israel at the time of the declaration. These are your own words even as you insist Israel be bound by vague statements by a non-state council. Your hate is getting in the way of reason and you are attempting to bring the cart before the horse when it looks better for your fragile case. You can't have it both ways.

The UN/UNSC say the settlements are illegal, because unilateral annexation is illegal and it is also illegal to acquire territory by war.

The UNSC is irrelevant, there was no unilateral annexation, and it is legal to acquire land through war, especially in a defensive war, or there would be no risk to waging war after war by states that do not care about international laws until the objective is met. Tibet anyone? Besides, practically every border on earth was formed through war, peace treaties after wars decide borders. Whether they are recognized by the international community or not is irrelevant. No nation must recognize the boundaries of another, but lack of recognition has no bearing on legality, likewise recognition has no bearing on legality either.

A) Who was the treaty with? Fact is, the British Mandate wasn’t a treaty, it was formulated on the UN premise of trusteeship over a non-state entity (benevolent occupation). It ended 1948.

Who was the treaty with? The former High Contracting Party, the Ottomans. The Mandates were derived from the signed Treaty of Sevres, ratified at Lausanne. The authority of the Mandate system was codified in the Treaty of Versailles, article 22. Are you challenging every border in the ME and some in Africa, since you claim the Mandates were not treaties? You do understand that to single the Jews out for a set of standards no other peoples on earth are subject to is clearly Antisemitism?

B) From the fall of the Ottoman Empire there was a non-state entity of Palestine. It was administered under the British Mandate over Palestine. When TransJordan was carved off, what remained of the non-state entity of Palestine under the British Mandate over Palestine, was Palestine. After Israel was carved off, what remained was a non-state entity of Palestine. What remains today is called Palestine. The name has never been changed. It’s people are Palestinians.

First, history does not start "from the fall of the Ottoman Empire", there has been a Jewish entity there for 4 thousand years and since the Roman genocide, longing for freedom and autonomy, separate, unique, and defined in all respects by characteristics that set a people apart amongst the multitudes of peoples inhabiting the earth. The unique Jewish character of the land is confined to a small place that was mislabeled Palestine, it does not stretch from India to West Africa and it never had any cultural significance to the Arabs. No Arab entity existed, a small and forgotten portion of a larger Arab entity did, but that portion of a larger Arab entity never adopted characteristics of a separate people until hatred of the Jews united the portion of the group, (which for reasons of racism and religious bigotry had the backing and support of the larger group, even transcending borders and minor schisms between the whole). There has never been a people called Palestinians until a tool to maintain the war against the Jews was needed, most of the propaganda you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker was driven and funded by anti-Americanism Marxists. Without Soviet propaganda and the Cold War, there likely never would have been a Palestinian people that we recognize today. I have asked hundreds of Arabs calling themselves Palestinians to name just one single unique characteristic that sets them apart and have been universally met with blank stares or easily destroyed sophistry. The only identifying aspect of the modern usage of the term "Palestinian" is opposition to where the Jews are. In 1964 the Palestinians did not want any land other Arabs occupied, illegally or not, they were after the land Jews held, in 1967 Jews held more land and Palestinian desires shifted to accommodate this. Oddly the world accepts this blatant bigotry, racism, and aggression.

“The Israeli Declaration of Independence explicitly mentions the entirety of Eretz Yisrael as the Homeland of the Jewish people. “

It does not say that. It says “IN Eretz Israel”. Furthermore, it accepts and enshrines UNGA res 181, which did not give Israel the right to Declare Sovereignty over the entirety of Eretz Israel.

Have you any sense of shame at all? Here is a perfect example of your shoddy research, inattention to details, and misunderstanding. I suggest you go back and either in Hebrew or in English show me where you read "in Eretz Israel". It says nothing of the sort. Nor does it enshrine UN 181 or its undefined border suggestions, it refers to it as support for the concept of the future state and nothing else.

“And as to your spurious charge of annexation, it is redundant. The Franco-British Boundary Convention of December 23, 1920……”

The UNSC resolutions condemning Israel’s illegal annexation are all POST 1967! I believe post 1967 is AFTER 1920.

Nothing gets by you, huh? The Franco-British Boundary Convention of December 23, 1920 defined the potential Jewish state and the areas Jews were allowed to immigrate to. This was set in stone before an irrelevant politicized body came into being. You are giving my argument reinforcement by pointing out that the binding and defined borders were there first, the non-binding suggestions of the UN came later and those drafting non-binding suggestions ignored international law when making them.

“Recognition of borders. Your original lie was that the world recognized the provisional state of Israel’s borders. “

‘provisional’ statehood is for non-sovereign states. Israel is a Sovereignty. It was recognized as such, by the borders of Res 181, by the majority of the International Community of States, over riding the Arab States objections.

That is not true. The US did not recognize Israel de jure for almost a year. Provisional statehood is simply a temporary recognition subject to legislative acts, ratification, and include border clarifications oddly enough. Check your sources, better yet, ask a real lawyer instead of gleaning your suppositions from frustrated Jew haters and Marxist generated propaganda.

A Declaration of Sovereignty is unilateral. Not dependent on anyone else. Read UNGA res 181. If it was a contract with the Arab States, they’d've had to have signed or Declared simultaneously. There is no such requirement.

I have read UNGA 181, what I question is, have you? You don't seem to grasp all of its details such as the fact that the border is not clarified in 181 and that the mechanism to clarify them was never implemented, leaving them open to interpretation even if anyone were to accept even the least bit of relevance to them. Can you point to any other authoritative organ that agrees with you on this anyway? Didn't think so.

As to my insults, I disburse them where I feel they are owed. The further I see a departure from honesty the more I feel that ridicule is all I have left to offer.

Sunday, November 8, 2009

second response

Sorry for the delay, I do not live in the electronic world. Life imposes and anyone reading will have to take it as is. Here is a late response...

"I don’t get angry. It is a waste of energy."

You have your readers fooled with the rather angry looking photo of yourself, or perhaps the moon was full when that one was taken?

"Geneva conventions - The Arab States, representing the remainder of the non-state entity of Palestine (after Jordan and Israel declared Sovereignty over parts of it), the other Contracting Power, attested to by the ceasefire agreements, armistice agreements and Peace Treaties."

The Arab signatories of the armistice agreements were inside the borders of the Jewish National Home as belligerent aggressors, not as legitimate representatives of the local Arab people. None of the Arab states had legal jurisdiction over any portion of the territory of Palestine nor can they represent the people living there now. A High Contracting Party is defined as The representatives of states who have signed or ratified a treaty. Palestine is not a state, nor has it ever been a state. In situations where a State entity does not exist, a territory cannot legitimately be represented by a foreign or outer intervention, without a legal contract such as the Mandate for Palestine. Can you point to any contract to support your claim? Yes no? Further, can you cite case history where two or more High Contracting Parties share responsibility for the actions of individuals residing in an single amorphous territorial area? Can the hostile belligerents Egypt, Iraq, or Syria, for example, be held jointly libel for war crimes committed by the Arabs formerly residing in the territory mislabeled Palestine? Yes no? If not, and as you claim they are the High Contracting Party, aside from fanciful and confused imagination, why not?

"You cite a mandate that ended May 14th 1948."

You cite a Convention that did not exist on May 14th, 1948. I have stated that the rights established in the Mandate do not expire upon termination of the Mandate, perhaps you can explain what legal mechanism existed to show how the Convention you cling to is retroactive?

The transfer of authority over the Mandate went to Israel a few hours before it ended with a declaration of independence. It came into effect exactly at the moment the Mandate ended, one minute after midnight. The Mandatory authority accepted it without contest. Israel was born with a provisional government and provisional borders. The Arabs immediately launched an attempted genocide. The cease fire agreements from that genocide attempt ended with the illegal theft of a portion of the Jewish state. None of the Arab states objected to this situation for 19 years. Can you speculate as to why Arab Muslims had no problems with the land being held by Arab Muslims, but changed their tune when Jews properly liberated the occupied land in 1967 and gave those same oppressed Muslims freedoms they had never experienced in their lives such as a vote in municipal elections for women? If you think hard enough even you can recognize that the people you have deemed the victims are guilty of bigotry...hardly a cause rational people should reward.

"Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15, 1948"

A letter is not a binding contract or an authentic legislative act. It is a letter and nothing more. The letter only refers to UN 181, it does not claim UN 181 is the sole basis for the declaration, nor was the provisional state bound by a contract that was voided by the Arab belligerents. Is this clear? Even if we suspend belief for a moment and pretend it was a legitimate contract, it would have still been made null and void the moment when the Arabs refused to sign on. You dragging it up now is laughable and pathetic. I almost feel sorry for you clinging to this straw as your fragile argument is swept out to sea.

"On September 21 2006, the Israeli Ministry of Housing and Construction issued tenders to construct 164 new housing units in 3 Israeli settlements in the West Bank? Yes? No?"

A tender is a permit and a bid for work. Private contractors built the units with the approval of the Ministry of Housing. This is different from a government housing project built by the government. But the argument has no merit, because Jews have the legal right to settle there without prejudice.

"If it has no ’sovereign’. Then it is NOT Israeli either, because Israel is a SOVEREIGN state."

Not quite, the Mandate for Palestine established the legal right for Jews to settle in the land that was mislabeled Palestine. Attorney Howard Grief explains:

"Under the principle of acquired legal rights, though the international instrument upon which those rights were founded did indeed expire, the rights themselves conferred on the Jewish People remained in force. This principle of international law is now codified in Article 70(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties"

Article 70
Consequences of the termination of a treaty

1. Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the
termination of a treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the
present Convention:

(a) releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the
(b) does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the
parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its

"Apart from illegal outposts, the issue is ISRAELI citizens, in territory which has not been legally annexed to Israel, in illegal settlements constructed under contracts issued by the Israeli Government which has illegally instituted it’s own Civil Law in a territory it has never legally annexed."

The Israeli Declaration of Independence explicitly mentions the entirety of Eretz Yisrael as the Homeland of the Jewish people. Eretz Israel means 'land' of Israel as determined by the Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia, not Medinat or 'state' of Israel. This fact is confirmed in the Law of Return, where the word Palestine is replaced with the word Israel, where Palestine appears in the language of the Mandate.

And as to your spurious charge of annexation, it is redundant. The Franco-British Boundary Convention of December 23, 1920 defined the Jewish homeland. The legal boundary was accepted and confirmed into law with the binding obligation of the Mandate for Palestine on July 24, 1922. The General Assembly of the United Nations had no authority to alter the terms of the treaty and no 'suggestion' it made can be misconstrued as being binding or legal. Under Article 80 of the UN Charter and the doctrine of estoppal, the UN was bound to uphold the terms of the Mandate, the UN had no authority to change the terms or steal the rights of Jews to immigrate to their homeland.
"...nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties."
In other words, member states were bound to respect the terms of the Mandate of Palestine, and upon its termination the right of Jews to immigrate until another binding agreement removes that right.

D)The territory of a non-sovereign and/or non-state entity, belongs to the entity.

Unless a state has a better claim and no functioning government exists in the territory. Can you show where jurisdictional ownership of a territory is defaulted to an ambiguous group of people based on race? And can you reference any legal process to redraw state boundaries according to the will of peoples based on race, this foundational document, for example, mentions the "Arab" race over 30 times. Does it upset you that your efforts are aimed at supporting racists? Didn't think so.

E) Geneva Conventions. The non-state entity of Palestine, is represented by the Arab states who are the other Contracting Power, attested to by the ceasefire agreements, armistice agreements and Peace Treaties.

Which you can show in unambiguous legal terms, yes no? Jordan and Israel set the international border between the two countries as the center of the Jordan river, is Jordan a High Contracting Party as you claim or not? What vehicle exists for the other Parties to agree on jurisdictional matters of a single territory? Do these multiple Parties have a council? Meetings? What foolishness, and you claim I am ignorant?

Japanese companies own land in Australia, they hold title to it. However, it is NOT Sovereign Japanese territory, it belongs equally (under Sovereignty) to every citizen of Australia, even if they are a homeless bum living under a bridge.

Thank you for reinforcing my point. Arabs may own some small amount of private property in Judea and Samaria, but it is NOT Sovereign Palestine territory. Did you give this much thought before you shot yourself in the foot?

The ‘title’ to territory of a Sovereign state is it’s Declaration of Sovereignty.

It is not that simple. I can get a hundred of my biker friends and declare sovereignty over the club house, but how far do you think that will go for us in court when we decide to legalize pot there? Northern Ireland still belongs to Britain regardless of the identity or sentiments of the majority of locals. Unlike the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians, the Kurds are even a unique people with a cultural identity that is tied to a geographic area, but they do not have a right to declare that parts of four countries be turned into a new sovereign nation.

As for possession, it is ILLEGAL to acquire territory by war/force. The only way a state may acquire more territory is by LEGAL annexation.

That is incorrect, but once again thank you for strengthening my case. A state may acquire more land as the result of a peace treaty. The propaganda mantra you are parroting is taken from UN 242, which inserted there to make it clear that Jordan held land west of the Jordan river illegally, not Israel. Nor are any fictitious peoples calling themselves Palestinians mentioned in the resolution, I would like to point out. However, you may be surprised to note that Jordan and Israel have concluded a peace treaty. The center of the Jordan river is the international border between the two states. Egypt and Israel have also concluded a peace treaty and the border is clear also, it lies south of Gaza. These are your High Contracting Parties legally representing the territory, no yes? You can explain the rejection of sovereignty by the PLO and the peace treaties establishing the international border betwen the two High Contracting Parties. Yes no?

The Arab States are (collectively) the other Contracting Party, attested to by the ceasefire agreements, armistice agreements and Peace Treaties. As a UN Member State, Israel is automatically obliged to the UN Charter & Laws of War (Both mandatory & without exception). The Geneva Conventions are extensions to the Laws of War.

Of course, you will be providing clear legal precedent establishing "collective" representation over a single territory that has an existing solid claim on it, in light of clear PLO rejection of sovereignty.

Israel is also obliged to the Geneva Conventions it ratified as a UN Member state, thereby obliging it to uphold those conventions from the moment it ratified them, “in all circumstances”.

And so it has as of 1951, long after the so called refugees were formed...

Art. 2. ….
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

The relevant portion you seem to have forgotten to share from Article 2 is this...
"the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them."
You will be pointing out the other High Contracting Party since it clearly requires two or more of them for this Convention to apply to, yes no? Or will you be fabricating another elaborate case built of straw that the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians were somehow recognized as a unique people in 1948, or as a State there after, or even as a political entity in 1967 after the Geneva Conventions applied?

The Arab states representing the non-state entity of Palestine were the other High Contracting Parties, attested to by the ceasefire agreements, armistice agreements and Peace Treaties.

And you will be forthwith on clarifying the issues I have mentioned above, yes no? How many times have you mentioned this fallacy now? We can boil the majority of your argument down to just a few false assumptions I think.

A declaration of Sovereignty IS binding and READ what ISRAEL SAID

I hereby declare sovereignty over the club house. I base this on Talknic's interpretation of the way things work.

Everything you have written about the British Mandate over Palestine is irrelevant. I shan’t address any more of your ‘Mandate’ assertions other than to say the Mandate ENDED BEFORE Israel Declared Sovereignty.

Shan't you? You apparently do not wish to be taken seriously then. You have your facts wrong even on a minor detail above though. Israel declared independence BEFORE the Mandate ended. WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948)

Their ’stated goal’ is in the Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine May 15, 1948.

Of course. The Arab League declaration of war. Lip service so as not to provoke the world into trying to prevent the genocide that was intended. No doubt a Brit had a heavy hand in the drafting as a Brit was leading the Arab army on a "war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

A) Israel had the Mediterranean.

Yes, they could have been thrown into the sea. This genocidal sentiment you share with your support of racist bigots that have created a society of Jew murderers not seen since the 1930s is exactly why Jews need a sanctuary called Israel today more than ever. And it is exactly why I am here ridiculing your pathetic propaganda that only gives comfort to genocidal criminals needing a smoke screen to hide their true desires. You should be ashamed of yourself instead of being irrationally angry at the Jews.

B)The Mandate ENDED BEFORE Israel Declared Sovereignty.

Check your sources.

The Arab States representing the Palestinians are the other High Contracting Parties.

Another reference to multiple representation, hmmm. Because you say it is so? How does multiple jurisdiction work any way? How often do they convene to hash out their internal differences?

They are an obligation voluntarily accepted by the ratifier/signatory. They’re not signed between countries. If they were signed between countries, they’d have to be signed simultaneously and contain the other country/ies names and signatures. They don’t.

True, but non signatories and illegal militiamen are not afforded full protections. There are basic human rights for terrorists, but no more. Nor has Israel ratified the additional protocols that give terrorists an advantage and politicize some mythical "right of return".

The Palestinians are represented by the Arab STATES. This is attested to by ALL the ceasefire, armistice agreements and Peace Treaties.

You sound like a broken record stuck on something inaudible. This seems to be the bed rock (straw) of much of your argument. I am giddy with excitement hoping you will attempt to define this representation in legal terms.

In one part it says only area. In the other part it differentiates, they cannot be permanently displaced outside the territory.

If the Convention applied they could be displaced until they cease their aggression. The Convention does not apply though. That is clear.

“Further, upon the breach of contract that terminated the Mandate, the Geneva Convention of 1949 was not in effect and can not be applied retroactively.”
A) The Laws of War were in effect, applicable un-conditionally to ALL states, without exception.

Israel was a provisional state with provisional borders. What body of law prevented the Jews from defending themselves from being murdered by your Arab friends, though? The point of applying the Geneva Convention is to somehow discriminate against Jews by criminalizing the act of living in their own homeland. If you say they violated a law, point to it. The Geneva Convention was not applicable in 1948. You will have to do much better than waving your hand and pretending to know something you are actually quite ignorant of. Nor has Israel even ratified the Hague Resolutions, so please point to what Law of War the State of Israel violated, let alone the pre-state of Israel under British authority? The territory passed from Britain to Israel when Britain failed in its duty to create a functioning Jewish state.

B) Furthermore Israel agreed to the Geneva Conventions Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Israel Signature 08.12.1949

Great, but it wasn't ratified until 1951, what is your point? There is no right of return that applies to the hostile Arabs of 1948, most of which left of their own free will and have no right of invading the state of Israel. There is a demand to do so, now that they have failed in massacring the Jews there, and nothing more. Nor were the Arabs citizens of a State of their own to be returned to. Choosing violence has consequences. How many refugees would have been formed if the Arabs had chosen peace? If you think about it hard enough, even you might see that the number would have been much smaller, say So who is responsible for their predicament?

“The last binding document before the Mandate was the San Remo Resolution, which established that all of Palestine territory was to become a Jewish National home.”
A) Where does it say “all of Palestine territory was to become a Jewish National home” You CAN quote it? Yes?

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

You CAN quote the area excluded to Jews? Yes? If not, then it means ALL of Palestine, including Arab Palestine east of the Jordan.

A) It is not necessary for states to recognize annexation, because it is between two parties, the annexing party and the annexed party. Only they need agree. This is usually done via a treaty or agreement. It is illegal to unilaterally annex territory.

Then you will quote the treaty between either Britain or Israel and Jordan that allowed the unilateral annexation of this portion of the Jewish homeland?

B) Show me the UNSC resolution calling Jordan’s annexation, as a trustee per the UN Charter, at the request of the Palestinians, illegal.

The UNSC has no authority to create international law nor to make any resolution binding on any nation. All participation at the UN and its decisions is voluntary. If you are wishing to claim Jordan has legal title over any land west of the Jordan river then I would like to point your attention to the treaty that established the international border between Israel and Jordan as the center of the river. Jordan did not annex the land as a trustee either. It annexed the land unilaterally, which coincidentally you just mentioned is illegal.

C) The annexation of East Jerusalem was declared illegal by UNSC Resolution 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 UNSC Resolution 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969 UNSC Resolution 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, UNSC Resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, UNSC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, UNSC Resolution 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980

A UN resolution does not make it legal or not, nor was it even a formal annexation. None is needed. Civil law was extended there only. Nothing else.

D) Israel’s ILLEGAL annexation is not even recognized by two countries.

What annexation? And what happened to your grand statement that "It is not necessary for states to recognize annexation," even if it were? Would you agree with me that Jew hatred warps a person's mind? Applying a double standard is a clear sign of bigotry, not that I am surprised since you champion bigots, mind you.

A) Not ISRAELI settlement.

See Vienna Convention on Treaties

B) the Mandate ENDED BEFORE Israel Declared Sovereignty.

Check your sources, the declaration clearly refers to the ending of the Mandate, which confirms you are a liar or ignorant even on small details, as usual. Since you are being shown to be categorically wrong I have to assume the former.

C) Israeli Sovereignty is per the borders of UNGA res 181 which it accepted when it Declared Sovereignty and anything it might have LEGALLY annexed. Israel has never legally annexed ANY territory.

No annexation is necessary and UN 181 is a non-binding irrelevance.

They’re YOUR words. Their words are a statement in which they recognize the fact: that the Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.

Then we agree that the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians have no vested interest in trying to create a state there now. Or was it OK when Arab Muslims held the land, but somehow different now that Jews are there? We call that bigotry and racism where I come from, and sane people do not reward bigots or racists by bending rules, fabricating histories, entertaining nonsensical fantasy, and creating straw arguments to support their racist views. Are you denying that the PLO, which has been recognized as the representative of the Arabs suddenly calling themselves Palestinians, clearly states they do not recognize "territorial sovereignty" over the land you (years later) claim is occupied? Doesn't this strike directly at the heart of your argument? The Arab locals, in their own words do not claim the territory, and the annexation by Jordan was illegal. Meanwhile, Israel's claim to the land has remained unchanged. A rational observer, which you are obviously not, demands consistency and legitimacy. I publicly challenged one of the best Arab spokesmen, Afif Safieh, on this very issue and all he could stammer on about was that "aspirations change, politics are fluid"...sure, Safieh, and reasonable men understand that killing over a border should have legitimacy that transcends race and religion. Obviously in the case of the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians this simple test of legitimacy has been failed and discarded by the pseudo-intelligentsia in favor of political expediency.

They’re not the borders between Israel and the non-state entity of Palestine. It’s the border between Israel and Jordan, which of course followed Jordan’s pre-Israel border. The peace agreement is between Jordan and Israel. Not Israel and the non-state Palestinian entity.

Either Jordan is the High Contracting Party or not. You seem confused. And what about the thousands of Arabs that were born between 1948 and 1967 with Jordanian birth certificates? If the borders of a country shift shouldn't the citizens of that country shift with them?

The UNSC says otherwise. It is illegal to acquire territory by war/force. Unilateral annexation is illegal.

The UN does not create international law. And the resolution you are referring to is UN 242, which states that land can not be acquired by force. This is a caution to Jordan and Egypt that invaded the Jewish homeland and took part of it by force then unilaterally annexed it, as you point out is illegal, (can you cite relevant law for this statement anyway, the UNSC is not good enough?).

“In order to define an occupation you must be able to define where it starts and stops.”
At actual Sovereign borders. In Israel’s case, the borders it accepted when it declared Sovereignty! READ what ISRAEL SAID

I did, and it said nothing of where its provisional borders were other than to reference a non-binding agreement in the vaguest of terms. Obviously your murderous Arab friends did not agree to ANY Jews living on Muslim claimed land so the contract was voided to all except you and whatever ridiculous Arab propaganda you have been parroting.

A) I didn’t say a political entity. The Ottomans called it Palestine. The British Mandate over Palestine contains the name PALESTINE.

Can you reference an "official" Ottoman map calling it Palestine? They held it for 400 years. Didn't think so.

B) Whether it was a political entity or not is irrelevant. No political entity called Israel existed before May 14th 1948.

Really? Jerusalem has been a Jewish capital for 3,300 years. What were the Israelites, Judea, the kingdom of Israel and all the thousands of years old connection stuff? Is it a myth designed to just steal some random plot of land that the oh so unfortunate Arabs happen to be the victim of? You make it sound as if a cabal of Jews threw a dart at a world map and decided to steal wherever the dart struck home. The Jewish people confine their homeland to one very small place on earth, they have thousands of years of customs, culture, and a unique language that is tied directly to their homeland. The Arabs are invaders from Arabia and the center of their religion is Mecca. Jews looked to their homeland and prayed every day for two thousand years of exile because people like you deny them their rights as a people.

It was renamed Palestina by the Romans in an attempt…etc etc etc..blah blah blah…..”
That was not the question. Try answering the question.

Blah, blah, blah? That just about sums up your intellectual capacity. First of all the syntax of your question leads me to believe a 10 year old wrote it. You may rephrase it or try understanding the answer, even someone as confused and full of hate like yourself can see what happened in history and the relevance to today. Blah, blah blah is aptly applied to the Talknic web site along with a heavy dose of ha ha ha.

Even as late as the UN 242 language there is no mention of the so called “Palestinians”.”
Why would it. UNSC resolution was between the Arab STATES and the STATE of Israel.

UN 242 was a suggestion on what to do with the land. It stands to reason that if the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians were a legitimate political entity at the time they would have been mentioned. Very pointedly they are not. Unbiased, rational people question this ommission in light of the Arabs that are murdering Jews supposedly over land. If this mythical people existed as a political entity or had a legitimate legal claim they would have been mentioned as they suddenly are now for political purposes only. It is very clear that the Arabs have murdered, hijacked, bombed, and destroyed their way into the spot light. Without Munich, the Achille Lauro, the Dolphinarium, and places like the Sabarro Pizzeria they would not have any recognition. Obviously their legal claim was not enough to stand on its own and it is relevant in light of the foundational document of the PLO denying territorial jurisdiction over the current disputed land and the back drop of head line grabbing terror. Stooges such as yourself are a relatively new phenomenon born of desperation, ignorance, and Jew hatred.

From the fall of the Ottoman Empire it has been known as Palestine. The British Mandate over PALESTINE seems to have PALESTINE in the name of the Mandate over Palestine (can you spot it?)

Calling Judea or Israel 'Palestine' was a political move designed to appease racist Arabs. The name hadn't been used since the fall of the Roman empire. Christian crusaders and others used the Anglican version of the Latin Palestina informally, but the land was not known as Palestine in any official capacity until a Brit revived it for political purposes.

As to your maps, what are you showing? A few dots to represent where the Jews owned private property..etc etc etc etc…”
Private, corporate and institutionally owned land is NOT Sovereignty.

Correct, so the 6% of the land privately owned by the Arabs is what? I don't see the dot map for their sparse homes. Was that intentional lying? Wouldn't it be accurate to show a dot map with the 6% of the territory owned by the Arabs alongside the one showing the 8% owned by Jews? tsk, tsk, tsk. And actually, who is concerned about a racial majority except for racists?

“Perhaps you can tell me where Israel’s declared and internationally recognized sovereignty legally exists. Yes?”
The fact is you spout nonsense. READ what ISRAEL SAID

That was not what I asked. Try answering the question.

A declaration of Sovereignty IS binding.

Can you point to the exact border clarification in the declaration? A vague reference to a non-binding, worthless suggestion does not cut it, unless you can present precedence or case history to support your idiotic claim?

I didn’t say “give”, save your bullshite for somewhere else. Israel accepted the conditions and declared Sovereignty under the conditions, therefore the conditions are bound by Israel’s Declaration of Sovereignty.

You can cite exactly what these conditions were with boundary references in the document itself then? Yes no? The declaration itself was not a legislative act. It was also drafted BEFORE the state of Israel was formed. How can a country be bound by something created before the country was constituted? It was an announcement to the world by the Jewish people listing reasons for renouncing its ties to the Mandatory Power, nothing else and no force of law can be enacted on its text. It should be viewed as a preamble to a body of laws, which were drafted later under the PROVISIONAL government, but understand that a preamble has no power, no authority, and no force. For example, what would have been the consequence had the Arabs won? What would have been their punishment and under what authority?

The US Declaration of Independence is not a body of law either. It is a statement of the will of the people before a functioning government or legislative body was created.
"lawyers generally and the Supreme Court in particular, have been reluctant to treat the Declaration as part of American Organic Law, or even to accord it the restricted status of the Preamble to the constitution."

SOURCE: The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, Kermit Hall, editor (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 223.

A) Only if an entity was a state at the time of the League of Nations. Israel wasn’t.

You are obviously way over your head. The resolution was in 1947, Israel was reconstituted in 1948, but the Mandate for Palestine was binding in 1947. The UN had no legal authority to change its terms. The defunct suggestion had no weight of law behind it whatsoever. Forget the resolution, it is of no bearing legally on anything. You are clinging to it because if you let go your entire argument crumbles like a house of cards, and you realize this. That makes you a liar and a desperate one at that.

UNGA adopted to put forward a set of recommendations, Res 181, which, if accepted by either party, bound them to their Declaration of Sovereignty, IF they chose to make one. Their Declaration, if they made one, is the contract.

That is bullshit. It would not hold up in any court. There are three parts of a contract: offer, acceptance and consideration. Think hard and let me know if the Arabs got past the second part. If they did not there was no contract and you can not return 60 years later after you have gone to war and lost saying, oh yeah, we want to agree with the terms since you were willing to agree to them before we tried to annihilate you. All the referencing in the world to 181 well not make it enforceable or binding under any legal system I have ever studied. Unless you can cite litigation I can review? Yes no? Further, the UN had no authority to alter the Mandate for Palestine or to stand in as a party to a contract between either the Arabs or the Jews. Capiche? The UN is not a party to what would have been the contract.

A) You’ve not refute one part of my alleged ‘fragile narrative’. All you have done is repeat the common fallacies and propaganda, providing no substantiation.

I await the proofs I have requested then. I am laughing and giddy with excitement as I type.

B) It is not my cornerstone. It is actually the cornerstone of ISRAEL’s Declaration of Sovereignty. Which is why there are so many UNSC resolutions against Israel.

That is more bullshit. The many UN reolutions against the Jews are because there are 55 members of the OIC, they dominate 2 of the 5 regional groups, and they have most of the oil. Any more questions on the number of hostile resolutions against the only Jewish state in the world, a state with zero natural resources to offer?

C) READ! and save your stupid accusations.

I would like to READ you explaining your stupid assumptions, but I won't hold my breath.

It isn’t disputed. It’s supported by both British White papers, the League of Nations Charter and the United Nations Charter.

When I quote someone I am prepared to authenticate the words. Can you authenticate the words you claim Balfour wrote? It would be hard to dispute something nonexistent, yes no? For example, see above where I quote source, book, and page number, common practice.

All citizens of British Mandate Palestine were Palestinian. ALL their papers were stamped PALESTINE!

Does that mean the Arabs were a unique people with unique customs, language, and history? In the early Mandate period a Palestinian was understood to be a Jew in discussion. The Arabs did not wish to be known as Palestinian until they adopted the name as a fig leaf to hide their naked hatred and aggression against the Jews with.

“The White Paper you site also contains language that offers the Arabs a state of their own”
Put it up. Should be easy to QUOTE.

"This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty's Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir Henry McMahon's pledge."
IE., the whole of Palestine east of the Jordan will be an Arab state and we will steal this portion from the Jews whether they like it or not, which is exactly what the British did within a few weeks when 2000 armed Arabs invaded and took over (The British had about 50 police officers to oppose this). Arab Palestine was created and Jews were barred from purchasing land, even in existing Jewish communities east of the Jordan.

Tch tch tch. There is no need to LIE here. This is what you said, verbatim…..” The Arab side rejected the document and chose war over a peaceful resolution. So there was no “international recognition” as you claim.”

Recognition of borders. Your original lie was that the world recognized the provisional state of Israel's borders. I realize you have low comprehension, but I said clearly..."I am not referring to the Arab rejection of Israel. I am referring to your false claim that the world recognized a border". A fixed border bound to the voided suggestion, UN 181.

” Maybe you think you are clever or have an iron clad argument. Yes? Something tells me you are in for frustration in the coming days.”
See all of the above.

Yes, see all of the above, must of the above you wrote is a pile of shit. Multiple Powers representing a single territory, pre-state declarations being binding law, being held to unsigned contracts years later, UN having jurisdictional authority as if we live in the new world order, misunderstanding basic principles of law, etc..

Most likely they walk away shaking their head in dis-appointment that a grown man’s thinking has been permeated with a whole mess of hogwash. Your parrot like propaganda, foolish lies and false accusations, just doen’t cut the mustard. They only show folk how stubborn you are.

Since you have yet to prove a single word I have written is a lie, you sound pretty bitter mumbling under your breath while wearing egg on your face.

How sad that you can waste so much effort promoting propaganda and never learning anything. Even more of a pity, that like so many whose whole premise is based on propaganda and fallacies, it would ALL crumble if you were to admit to anything.

It is cheap to charge that I am basing on propaganda when you know so little of law and history.

Even more of a pity, that your stubborn refusal to accept facts only makes the problem even more irretractable.

The shame is that stooges such as yourself support racism, bigotry, and blind ignorance instead of standing on principles of decency and justice.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

a rebutal that would not post

Note to self: I am tempted to retreive the entire debate. I found a really neat bit of sophistry at talknic, but I will wait and see if she wishes to move the discussion here or fix the problem there. I tried 5 times to make my post smaller and smaller on her site to no avail. Had the same trouble to the point of critical melt down at Realistic Dove, there was no response at my offer to move the debate off site...I am not passing judgment, the person I was debating is not someone I feel deserves the full weight of ridicule like the dim bulbs groveling at the feet of Phillip Weiss over at Mondweiss, for example. Of course I should actually be happy when someone at least responds to me without throwing me off the site like IndyMedia, Tayyar, ScottishFriendsofPalestine, and dozens of Islamic sites have. Such as it is, here is my quick response without breaking out the books to her.

Thank you for responding, most run from me, I have a feeling I will enjoy this...

"The Israeli Government is building the settlements, yes?"

No. Individual Jews are building on land that has no sovereign, because they have the right to do so. Further they are not building on "occupied land", the Geneva Convention does not apply, every legal settlement was established with proximity to existing Arab communities taken into effect. Since the land has no title, the empty places are not considered as being occupied under precise and accepted terms. An entity can not claim a portion of land based on a desire for it only, there are acceptable criteria for recognizing de jure or de facto control over an area and the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians have not done so. For political purposes only, you and others have filled in the blanks and awarded the Arabs all land in between the places they reside as having some de jure legal status, this recognition is unfounded in international law and flies in the face of the fact that the border has not been fixed. I can claim the moon, but if I do not live on the moon and can not exert political authority over the moon my claim has no relevance to anyone else's claim to the moon. Further, even proximity to the moon, say I was orbiting in a space ship and had been doing so for a century before anyone else arrived would not strengthen my claim on the moon.

As I tried to explain above, the termination of a treaty does not terminate a right granted by a treaty upon its closure. Another binding treaty or document must remove the acquired right and it must survive the test of legality and of a day in court. None has.

Further, though you point out that the Mandate for Palestine ended 14th May 1948, property has two characteristics, possession and title, the lands that the Jewish communities were built on had neither where the Arabs are concerned. In addition, where the Mandate ended on the 14th, Israeli law as the only High Contracting Party began on the 15th. Jurisdiction was not confined to the defunct boundaries as outlined in the non binding resolution 181, jurisdiction was applied anywhere within the boundary of the Mandate, including property illegally stripped from the Jewish people and given to the Arabs east of the Jordan against the dictates of the Mandate...."No Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed
under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power,
"... Further the termination was in breach of the treaty in as much as..."The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home"... A Jewish National Home was to be established. The chaos and war, the impending doom of well armed Arab armies on the march with genocide as their stated goal, and the abandonment and naval blockade of the Jewish people on the 14th was a clear breach of treaty obligation in establishing a Jewish National Home.

Further, you site the Geneva Conventions as proof that the settlements are illegal. This is problematic on several levels. First the Geneva Conventions apply to "High Contracting Parties", which the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians are not. The Geneva Conventions are an agreement between countries, not between a country and an illegal militia. In fact, in as much as the Geneva Convention applies to non state actors..."Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it."

Article 4 describes non state actors as...."4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:

* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

On all accounts the Arabs fail even if we pervert the meaning of the Convention and apply it to them.

Also, if we were to apply Article 49 you site, you left out a relevant portion of it that would allow Israel to depopulate the entire region..."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." I would say with the genocidal rhetoric used in schools, mosques, and in legal documents Israel is more than justified in removing all of the Arab population for its own security. However, the Convention does not apply, so I am not supporting this action.

Further, upon the breach of contract that terminated the Mandate, the Geneva Convention of 1949 was not in effect and can not be applied retroactively. The last binding document before the Mandate was the San Remo Resolution, which established that all of Palestine territory was to become a Jewish National home.

Further, the residents of Judea and Samaria that remained after the total ethnic cleansing of all Jews after 1948 accepted de facto that they were a part of Transjordan, which became simply the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan hence. Though Arab Palestine (Jordan) annexed the land, it was not accepted by the world community. The land was legally in dispute and technically available for Jewish settlement. So complete was the take over I would like to draw your attention to the PLO Observer to the UN website where the Palestine National Charter is kept as a founding document of the Arabs suddenly calling themselves Palestinians..."Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area."... In their own words they did not want Judea and Samaria.

Further if you accept as the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians did that Jordan was the legal sovereign over the disputed land, Jordan has signed a peace treaty with Israel and the legal border between the two High Contracting Parties is set to the center of the Jordan River. Peace Treaties are an accepted and long recognized way of establishing borders. In the case of Jordan and Israel establishing a border, it is only complicated by Arab intransigence and the question of Jordan's previous 19 year occupation. The political wiggling now, long after the fact, has no merit or place in fair conduct and initial PLO declarations are substantive to the final disposition of the land in future negotiations.

As to occupation, there are multiple complications there as well. According to Hersch Lauterpacht, Oppenheim's International Law (7th Ed. 1952) Vol.2 §263, pp.598-599..."The majority of writers correctly maintain that the status which exists at the time of cessation of hostilities becomes the basis of the future relations of the parties. This question is one of the greatest importance, regarding enemy territory militarily occupied by a belligerent at the time hostilities cease. According to the correct opinion it can be annexed by the occupier, on the ground that his adversary, through the cessation of hostilities, has abandoned all rights he possessed over it."... I would like to reaffirm that Jordan and Israel signed a peace treaty establishing the recognized border between the two countries as being the center of the Jordan, the PLO stated that they had no claim to the land in 1964, the Arab people accepted Jordanian rule de jure and de facto for the 19 years Arab Palestine occupied the land, and the right to settle anywhere in the previous territory of Palestine did not cease between the brief time of the end of the Mandate and the establishment of the state of Israel with its unsettled borders.

In order to define an occupation you must be able to define where it starts and stops. Since the the demarcation line is not a legal border and the resolution 181 you continually site is not a legal document or the basis for anything to do with the conflict it is not possible to claim with certainty where an alleged occupation exists outside of the fanciful imagination of Jew hating bigots.

As to Ottomans calling the Sanjuk of Jerusalem "Palestine", can you source this? I couldn't find it in the Cambridge Palestine Boundaries 1833–1947, instead it said..."In Ottoman times, no political entity called Palestine existed."

"Who prior to the Ottomans, who had legal right to name it?"

It was renamed Palestina by the Romans in an attempt to destroy the Jewish connection to the land (ethnic cleansing). Obviously Hadrian failed. It was called the Kingdom of Jerusalem at one point as well. It has not been called Palestine in centuries, so a Brit had to chose what to label it. he resurrected the ethnic cleansing term of 'Palestine' instead of correctly labeling it Israel or Judea. This ambiguity allowed the Arabs to hijack a name they couldn't even pronounce. Even so, no Arab used the term until propagandists adopted it. A Palestinian in 1930 was assumed to be Jewish. Even as late as the UN 242 language there is no mention of the so called "Palestinians". A search was done a number of years ago and it was discovered that the first public usage of the term "Palestinian" as we know it today was in a New York Times article in 1963. Hardly a term that trumps almost four thousand years of the use of Eretz Israel, yes?

As to your maps, what are you showing? A few dots to represent where the Jews owned private property? Are you aware that the vast majority of Arabs lived as tenants on miri (state owned) land? Would it be more accurate to show that Arabs owned precious little mulk (private) land? Wouldn't it tell the whole story if you represent this sparse land ownership instead of deceiving your readers with sophistry over what land Jews owned? You don't fill in the dots between all Arab land and make a nebulous claim that Jews stole it from them. And who is concerned about a racial make up except racists anyway? Several American states are being changed demographically with the influx of illegal Mexican immigration. If the millions were arriving legally as the Jews did would you point to this as something sinister? Further, I am part Kiowa, if my people were banned from the US and had a chance to return to our homeland after a long absence would you oppose our return if we built our homes on empty state lands or bought them from Americans willing to sell them to us? Say not on the entirety of America but on just a small defined portion of Western Texas? (This is all hypothetical, of course, we ranged from Montana to Mexico and in our case land tenure would be a bit problematic, unlike in the case of the Jews who are not asking for vast swathes of Arab land, are not asking to usurp the whole of an existing unique people, and who have a very narrowly defined geographic location with an ancient Jewish character fixed to it).

"Perhaps you can tell me where Israel's declared and internationally recognized sovereignty legally exists. Yes?"

The fact is there is no internationally accepted border, so the question is invalid sophistry. Israel does not have to annex its own land, so until those borders are set no such annexation is possible. The extension of the administrative boundary of Jerusalem is another matter. In my opinion it was redundant, premature, and predicated on the false logic that Israel has a defined border to start with or that it needs to do anything at all from this point forward. None in the international community have recognized it anyway.

"A declaration of Sovereignty IS binding. UNGA resolution 181 gave the conditions under which either party could, if they wished, declare sovereignty."

Your point? A non binding agreement is just that. Resolution 181 has no legal standing in any court in the world. It did not "give" any condition to anyone, it had no legal authority to do so. Contrary it violated the Charter of the UN under the doctrine of estoppal, which stated clearly that all states were bound by treaties under the League of Nations. The General Assembly had legal right to change the Mandate for Palestine, nor is there any mechanism to enforce the application of only a portion of UN 181 even if this were not true. Nor would it be admissible to bind Israel to UN 181 since it was adopted before Israel even became a nation. Your reliance on it as a cornerstone to your fragile narrative may support your anti-Israel biased stance, but it is nothing more than a grasp for straws.

As to your quoting of Balfour, I presume it is valid? You are reinforcing my argument and undermining your own. A Palestinian was a Jew back then. There was no Arab nationalist movement to refer to. Anti Jewish violence manifested from cultural bigotry and Arab racism. There was no people to compete with at the time, because they did not exist until the arrival of Jews. Hardly a legitimate cause to support. Any division of the territory was in breach of the terms of the treaty, just as termination of it before a functioning Jewish government was a violation.

The White Paper you site also contains language that offers the Arabs a state of their own, but they rejected that as well. It also offers a mechanism to deport all the Arabs to the east bank, but the Jews rejected that.

"The Arab States did not make up the majority of the International Community of States at the time. Their objections were over ridden. If as you claim, there was no International recognition, what did the US do? the USSR? The UK? Australia? Even Iran! If there was no International recognition, how was Israel accepted into the UN?"

I am not referring to the Arab rejection of Israel. I am referring to your false claim that the world recognized a border, let alone one based on the toilet tissue of the defunct UN 181. Much of the fallacy of what you present is predicated on this nonsense, which is why we need to start here to knock your house of cards down. That said, you may have a case of the legality of recognizing a nation without borders, but that is not what you chose to present and the fact remains that the recognition of Israel was de jure and is today awaiting Arab intransigence to finalize.

Maybe you think you are clever or have an iron clad argument. Yes? Something tells me you are in for frustration in the coming days.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

"Gone" Barack Obama

Barack Obama Countdown widget brought
to you by

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Boycott Israel

Some of the statements in this video are inaccurate (there is no Palestinian 'state' for example), but it is amusing none the less.

Friday, January 16, 2009

A 7th grader's assignment

The following was a term project for my 12 year old daughter. She spent a lot of hours putting this effort together and I am quite proud of how it turned out. I helped her with the bare bones framework and final proof reading. Enjoy.

My letter is R for religion and my country is Israel. In five minutes, I have no way of covering this complex issue, so I have decided to focus on the religious history, the conflict, and some unique problems Israelis face as the only Jewish country on earth.

Why is the land of Israel important to the Jews?

Jews have had an unbroken connection with the land of Israel and their Holy Temple in Jerusalem for thousands of years. It has been the core of Jewish identity since the time of Solomon, when the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem was built. This Temple had been the center of Jewish worship for a thousand years until 70 AD when the Roman emperor Caligula tried to force the Jews to accept the Roman gods. Rather than abandon their religion the Jews revolted against the Romans. Infuriated, Emperor Caligula ordered the Roman army to crush the Jewish people and erase any Jewish connection to the land. According to the eyewitness historian Josephus in his book, "The Jewish War", the Romans burned and destroyed the Jewish Temple, killed over a million Jews, enslaved most of the survivors, scattered the rest into hiding, renamed the country to Palestine, and outlawed all things Jewish. Some Jews that had escaped the destruction of Jerusalem fled to a fortress called Masada, where they held out for three years. But when Rome's 10th Legion finally broke the walls down, they were horrified to learn that the Jews inside had all killed themselves. According to Josephus, two women and five children managed to hide and tell what had happened. Since it's against Jewish custom to commit suicide, the men killed their own families, then each other, until the last few alive drew straws to decide who would be the only one to kill himself. Nine hundred and sixty Jews chose to die in Israel instead of being taken away in chains to Rome. Just before they killed themselves, the Jewish leader, Elazar ben Yair, gave a powerful final speech, listen closely to his words..."Since we long ago resolved never to be servants to the Romans, nor to any other than to God Himself, Who alone is the true and just Lord of mankind, the time is now come that obliges us to make that resolution true in practice...We were the very first that revolted, and we are the last to fight against them; and I cannot but esteem it as a favor that God has granted us, that it is still in our power to die bravely, and in a state of freedom." What makes Jewish history intresting is that even though they were exiled from their own land and kept away for two thousand years they did not disappear. Caligula attempted to erase Judaism from the world and break the Jewish bond to the land of Israel, but he failed.

Now that the Jews have returned to their homeland why can't they rebuild their Holy Temple?

After the destruction of the Jewish Temple and the exile of the Jews, the region was ruled by the Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Egyptians, the Crusaders, Mamelukes, the Turks, the British and then once again by the Jews in 1948. None of these invaders bothered to make a Nation of their own in the land of Israel, EXCEPT the Jews. However, it has been a common Islamic custom to build mosques on the sites of other peoples holy places, and today, the ruined site of the Jewish Temple is occupied by a Muslim shrine called the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque. All Muslims believe that Muhammad flew to heaven on the back of a winged horse one night at a place they call the "far mosque", or "Al-Aqsa". This creates a problem for Jews since some Muslims believe this far mosque is the one built on top of the ruins of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. Oddly the idea seems to only become popular with Muslims when non-Muslims control the land, like it did when the Christian Crusaders captured the Holy Land. Many scholars point out that Jerusalem is not mentioned even once in the Quran and the Al-Aqsa mosque was not built until decades after Muhammad died. If it was that important to Muslims it is reasonable to expect to see it mentioned in their Holy book. Jerusalem is mentioned hundreds of times in the Torah, for example. Today, for political reasons, the site is once again the center of an Islamic call to wage jihad. This time against Jews returning to their homeland. Many Jews believe that a third temple will be rebuilt there someday, but since any attempt to replace these structures would lead to an all out Muslim holy war the Temple cannot be rebuilt in the foreseeable future. Oddly enough, if the Iranians are successful in destroying Israel with nuclear weapons, there might not be anything to prevent surviving Jews from returning and rebuilding the Temple on the ashes of destruction. Like the Romans, the Mullahs in Iran seem to underestimate the bond between the Jews and the land of Israel.

Why do Muslim nations hate Israel?

Many people think that the conflict in Israel between the Jews and the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians is about land, but that is not true. The Middle East has plenty of land, miles and miles of it. It is a religious conflict with a tiny Jewish country facing hatred from the entire Muslim world. One huge religious challenge Israel faces is the fact that there are 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Conference. These Muslim nations routinely condemn, boycott, and attack everything that Israel does. Many of them don't even think Israel has a right to exist and refuse to have diplomatic relations with Israel. Over 25% of the UN are Muslim countries and only one is Jewish. This means it is usually 56 against 1, which is bad enough, but unfortunately for Israel, the Muslim countries were also blessed with a resource that would cripple the modern world if it were cut off, oil. Knowing that your economy could be devastated, it would take a powerful country to stand up to the threats of the oil lobby, a country that puts principle above convenience, a country that champions the rights of free people everywhere, and a country that won't let a friend fall. That country has always been America, and this is why we are hated. Ask any Muslim leader why his people hate America and he will likely say it is our support for the Israel. Much of the world would prefer that Israel would just quietly disappear and they are angry with America for supporting and helping the Jews.

Does Israel allow other religions freedom?

Israel is a land of tolerance surrounded by intolerance. In Israel, Most of the people are Jews, but Muslims, Christians, Druse, Bahai, Buddhists, Hindus, and all other religions are able to worship in complete freedom. The same can not be said of Israels enemies. Even in America we have some people that hate Jews, like the skin heads, neo-Nazis, and many others, but these people are usually looked down on here as being ignorant or hateful. But in places like Jordan, there are laws against Jews becoming citizens. In Saudi Arabia and other places, Jews aren't even allowed in the country, even if it is just for a visit. A passport stamped by Israel is enough to bar you entry to many Muslim countries. There are no Jews in Gaza either and if one were to be found hiding there, the Muslim Arabs would most likely kill him on the spot with no consequences at all. In fact, they'd probably be celebrated as heroes if they did. Sadly, Israel exists in a part of the world where graffiti covers every wall glorifying the names of Jew hating terrorists, and where parks, hospitals, schools, sports teams, and even city streets are named after suicide bombers and cold blooded murderers. What's worse is that many Israeli Arabs openly identify themselves as allies to these people.

Why should we support the Jewish people?

Israelis are just like Americans, many people in both countries are obsessed with trying not to offend anyone or their religious beliefs. These are American and Israeli values. But it's hard to face the ugly reality of religious intolerance with this limitation. Nobody wants to insult a religion or someones beliefs, but it is both accurate and fair to point out that Muslims have divided the world into what they call "Dar al-Islam" and "Dar al-Harb". In Arabic this means the house of submission or the house of peace, and the house of war. If you are not a Muslim, you have been labeled as being at war with Islam and this can only end when Islam has absolute control over the world. Muslims themselves created this division, and no matter how tolerant we and our Jewish friends in Israel are, there is nothing a non-Muslim can do to change the situation. Since Muslims once held control over the land of Israel they believe that a Jewish state there is an abomination. According to the Muslim clerics, from Tehran to Mecca, it is a religious obligation to wage war against and oppose the Jews of Israel. How can the Jews ever have peace when war is mandated as being something Holy? One of the most respected voices in the Islamic world, Yusuf al-Qaradhawi, author of the "Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam", states that "The most honorable form of jihad nowadays is fighting for the liberation of Muslim land from the domination of unbelievers", this is why Israel is the main focus of religious hatred. Muslims feel that the Jews have no rights over land that has previously been conquered by Islam and no amount of land the Jews can offer to them will be enough to make them happy. Until our leaders face this truth and reject intolerance the Jews of Israel will be in danger of being wiped off the map and thrown into the sea. Hitler massacred six million of them in the Holocaust. Shouldn't "never again" really mean never again?

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." these are the words spoken by Imam Hassan el-Banna, founder of the so called moderate Muslim Brotherhood, and it is written into the Charter of Hamas, a people bent on the destruction of the nation of Israel.

Felicia LeFavour