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.