International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Netanyahu Declares No Palestinian State if He’s Re-elected
Source:
NYT
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/w ... -campaign-settlement.html?_r=0
Published: Mar 16, 2015
Author: staff
Post Date: 2015-03-16 20:15:13 by cranko
Keywords: None
Views: 8803
Comments: 52
Under pressure on the eve of a surprisingly close election, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Monday doubled down on his appeal to right-wing voters, declaring definitively that if he was returned to office he would never establish a Palestinian state
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-12) not displayed.
.
.
.
#13. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#9)
[misterwhite #7] Israel also signed the 4th Geneva Convention. Article 49, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" [A K A Stone #9] There is no occupied land. Not in the context you say. http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4690652A351277438525634C006DCE10 S/RES/904 (1994) Resolution 904 The Security Council, Shocked by the appalling massacre committed against Palestinian worshippers in the Mosque of Ibrahim in Hebron, on 25 February 1994, during the holy month of Ramadan, Gravely concerned by the consequent Palestinian casualties in the occupied Palestinian territory as a result of the massacre, which underlines the need to provide protection and security for the Palestinian people, Determined to overcome the adverse impact of the massacre on the peace process currently under way, Noting with satisfaction the efforts undertaken to guarantee the smooth proceeding of the peace process and calling upon all concerned to continue their efforts to this end, Noting the condemnation of this massacre by the entire international community, Reaffirming its relevant resolutions, which affirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 5/ to the territories occupied by Israel in June 1967, including Jerusalem, and the Israeli responsibilities thereunder, 1. Strongly condemns the massacre in Hebron and its aftermath which took the lives of more than 50 Palestinian civilians and injured several hundred others; 2. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to continue to take and implement measures, including, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by Israeli settlers; 3. Calls for measures to be taken to guarantee the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians throughout the occupied territory, including, inter alia, a temporary international or foreign presence, which was provided for in the Declaration of Principles (S/26560), within the context of the ongoing peace process; 4. Requests the co-sponsors of the peace process, the United States of America and the Russian Federation, to continue their efforts to invigorate the peace process, and to undertake the necessary support for the implementation of the above-mentioned measures; 5. Reaffirms its support for the peace process currently under way, and calls for the implementation of the Declaration of Principles, signed by the Government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization on 13 September 1993 in Washington, D.C., without delay. Adopted as a whole without a Notes 1/ Resolutions or decisions on this question were also adopted by the Council in 1976, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992. 2/ Official Records of the Security Council, Forty-ninth Year, Supplement for January, February and March 1994. 3/ Document S/1994/232, incorporated in the record of the 3340th meeting. 4/ Document S/1994/227, incorporated in the record of the 3340th meeting. 5/ Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 75, No. 973). 6/ Official Records of the Security Council, Forty-eighth Year, Supplement for October, November and December 1993, document S/26560, annex. 7/ The result of the voting on the second and sixth preambular paragraphs of the draft resolution S/1994/280 was as follows: 14 in favour, none against and 1 abstention (United States of America); all the other paragraphs were approved unanimously.
The following started in the Security Council and passed there unanimously but for the United States veto. The General Assembly took it up and passed what had been previously vetoed in the Security Council. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/51/ares51-223.htm
Don't they pass one of those every year? To no avail, obviously.
What part of fuck the UN do you not understand? Noted that you worship and suck the UN's dick.
Looks like your side lost the election. There is still not Pali state. Are you going to cry?
The f**king U S of f**king A supported those resolutions, so f**k you and the horse you rode in on.
Mr. White wants to ban guns in America. Because he likes sucking the UN off. https://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/English7.pdf
What part of occupied territory do you not understand. The ISRAELI SUPREME COURT wrote, "The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation." The ISRAELI SUPREME COURT ruled that the Fourth Hague Convention rules governing belligerent occupation did apply, since those were recognized as customary international law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories [footnotes omitted, emphasis added] Main article: Status of territories captured by Israel The Israeli government maintains that according to international law the West Bank status is that of disputed territories. The question is important given if the status of "occupied territories" has a bearing on the legal duties and rights of Israel toward those. Hence it has been discussed in various forums including the UN. Israeli judicial decisions In two cases decided shortly after independence, in the Shimshon and Stampfer cases, the Supreme Court of Israel held that the fundamental rules of international law accepted as binding by all "civilized" nations were incorporated in the domestic legal system of Israel. The Nuremberg Military Tribunal determined that the articles annexed to the Hague IV Convention of 1907 were customary law that had been recognized by all civilized nations. In the past, the Supreme Court has argued that the Geneva Convention insofar it is not supported by domestic legislation "does not bind this Court, its enforcement being a matter for the states which are parties to the Convention". They ruled that "Conventional international law does not become part of Israeli law through automatic incorporation, but only if it is adopted or combined with Israeli law by enactment of primary or subsidiary legislation from which it derives its force". However, in the same decision the [Israeli Supreme] Court ruled that the Fourth Hague Convention rules governing belligerent occupation did apply, since those were recognized as customary international law. The settlement Elon Moreh, 2008 A military checkpoint along the route of the forthcoming West Bank Barrier The Israeli High Court of Justice determined in the 1979 Elon Moreh case that the area in question was under occupation and that accordingly only the military commander of the area may requisition land according to Article 52 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague IV Convention. Military necessity had been an after-thought in planning portions of the Elon Moreh settlement. That situation did not fulfill the precise strictures laid down in the articles of the Hague Convention, so the Court ruled the requisition order had been invalid and illegal. In recent decades, the government of Israel has argued before the Supreme Court of Israel that its authority in the territories is based on the international law of "belligerent occupation", in particular the Hague Conventions. The court has confirmed this interpretation many times, for example in its 2004 and 2005 rulings on the separation fence. In its June 2005 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Gaza disengagement, the Court determined that "Judea and Samaria" [West Bank] and the Gaza area are lands seized during warfare, and are not part of Israel: Israeli legal and political views Soon after the 1967 war, Israel issued a military order stating that the Geneva Conventions applied to the recently occupied territories, but this order was rescinded a few months later. For a number of years, Israel argued on various grounds that the Geneva Conventions do not apply. One is the Missing Reversioner theory which argued that the Geneva Conventions apply only to the sovereign territory of a High Contracting Party, and therefore do not apply since Jordan never exercised sovereignty over the region. However, that interpretation is not shared by the international community. The application of Geneva Convention to Occupied Palestinian Territories was further upheld by International Court of Justice, UN General Assembly, UN Security Council and the Israeli Supreme Court. In the cases before the Israeli High Court of Justice the government has agreed that the military commander’s authority is anchored in the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and that the humanitarian rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention apply. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs says that the Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that the Fourth Geneva Convention and certain parts of Additional Protocol I reflect customary international law that is applicable in the occupied territories. Gershom Gorenberg has written that the Israeli government knew at the outset that it was violating the Geneva Convention by creating civilian settlements in the territories under IDF administration. He explained that as the legal counsel of the Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron was the Israeli government's expert on international law. On September 16, 1967 Meron wrote a top secret memo to Mr. Adi Yafeh, Political Secretary of the Prime Minister regarding "Settlement in the Administered Territories" which said "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the Administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention." Moshe Dayan authored a secret memo in 1968 proposing massive settlement in the territories which said “Settling Israelis in administered territory, as is known, contravenes international conventions, but there is nothing essentially new about that.” Various Israeli Cabinets have made political statements and many of Israel's citizens and supporters dispute that the territories are occupied and claim that use of the term "occupied" in relation to Israel's control of the areas has no basis in international law or history, and that it prejudges the outcome of any future or ongoing negotiations. They argue it is more accurate to refer to the territories as "disputed" rather than "occupied" although they agree to apply the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention pending resolution of the dispute. Yoram Dinstein, has dismissed the position that they are not occupied as being “based on dubious legal grounds”. Many Israeli government websites do refer to the areas as being "occupied territories". According to the BBC, "Israel argues that the international conventions relating to occupied land do not apply to the Palestinian territories because they were not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state in the first place." In the Report on the Legal Status of Building in Judea and Samaria, usually referred to as Levy Report, published in July 2012, a three member committee headed by former Israeli Supreme Court justice Edmund Levy which was appointed by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu comes to the conclusion that Israel's presence in the West Bank is not an occupation in the legal sense, and that the Israeli settlements in those territories do not contravene international law. The report has met with both approval and harsh criticism in Israel and outside. As of July 2013, the report was not brought before the Israeli cabinet or any parliamentary or governmental body which would have the power to approve it. The Supreme Court of Israel, as well as the International Court of Justice, have found that the Fourth Hague Convention rules governing belligerent occupation did apply, since those were recognized as customary international law. Recognized customary international law applies to all nations, and such applicability is not dependent upon ratification or being a party. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp Laws of War : Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. Art. 44. A belligerent is forbidden to force the inhabitants of territory occupied by it to furnish information about the army of the other belligerent, or about its means of defense. Art. 45. It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power. Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated. Art. 47. Pillage is formally forbidden. Art. 48. If, in the territory occupied, the occupant collects the taxes, dues, and tolls imposed for the benefit of the State, he shall do so, as far as is possible, in accordance with the rules of assessment and incidence in force, and shall in consequence be bound to defray the expenses of the administration of the occupied territory to the same extent as the legitimate Government was so bound. Art. 49. If, in addition to the taxes mentioned in the above article, the occupant levies other money contributions in the occupied territory, this shall only be for the needs of the army or of the administration of the territory in question. Art. 50. No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible. Art. 51. No contribution shall be collected except under a written order, and on the responsibility of a commander-in-chief. The collection of the said contribution shall only be effected as far as possible in accordance with the rules of assessment and incidence of the taxes in force. For every contribution a receipt shall be given to the contributors. Art. 52. Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country. Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied. Contributions in kind shall as far as possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible. Art. 53. An army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds, and realizable securities which are strictly the property of the State, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all movable property belonging to the State which may be used for military operations. All appliances, whether on land, at sea, or in the air, adapted for the transmission of news, or for the transport of persons or things, exclusive of cases governed by naval law, depots of arms, and, generally, all kinds of munitions of war, may be seized, even if they belong to private individuals, but must be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made. Art. 54. Submarine cables connecting an occupied territory with a neutral territory shall not be seized or destroyed except in the case of absolute necessity. They must likewise be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made. Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct. Art. 56. The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property. All seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings. Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949 Compiled under the direction of Charles I. Bevans LL.B.
Arafat was given the land for a Palestinian state along with other things and he just walked away from it all. They want this to go on forever cause they like the handouts they get from other dumbass countries all over the world. If they had accepted they would have actually went to work and formed their own government and country, and the handouts would have stopped. It's easier being leftwing sleazebags.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Stars and gripes: Declaration of Independence was illegal, claim British lawyers British lawyers state the document amounted to treason Americans said that independence was a 'natural law' movement and had been repeated across the world Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051805/Declaration- Independence-illegal-claim-British-lawyers.html#ixzz3UjoJGoSf Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Israel offered to give back some of the land they stole from the Palestinians. The land was broken into small cantons and a map looked like Swiss cheese. In the words of Shlomo Ben-Ami (then Israel's Minister of Foreign Relations who participated in the talks): "Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well." That says it all.
Those handouts don't hold a candle to the $3 billion the U.S. gives Israel every f**king year.
Your people, the Palestinians. They aren't a nation. Never were, never will be. They are Arabs. They belong in Jordan/Egypt/Iraq etc. Israel is for the Jews not your people Ishmael. You can cry about stolen land while you squat on Indian lands. But it will do you now good.
We should give them more. They can cleanse the Middle East for us.
Yeah, right. Where were they when we liberated Kuwait? The Iraq War? Afghanistan?
Stars and gripes: Declaration of Independence was illegal, claim British lawyers British lawyers state the document amounted to treason Americans said that independence was a 'natural law' movement and had been repeated across the world Of course, the Declaration of Independence was unlawful. It was a bunch of political blather. Thomas Jefferson wrote that all men were created equal while being tended to by his body servant slave Jupiter. Washington, as well as Jefferson, never freed his slaves. The people who issued it had no authority to speak for anyone other than themselves, and the law that applied to them at the time was British law. If the revolution had failed, they may well have been hanged for treason. Unless, of course, the Form of Government is that of the United States, where it is a perpetual union made more perfect, and the union is indissoluble, and any state that tries to secede peacefully... well, you know that story. But, of course, this irrelevancy is but a diversion from Israel being an occupying power of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). The rather silly claim that the OPT is not an occupied territory is like the rather silly Bush administration claim that the United States did not engage in torture; or detainees are neither combatants nor civilians, but some mysterious other, never before known to man, and therefore no law applies, not International Law and not the Constitution. Such claims are based on selected government paid lawyers prostituting themselves to render some absurd legal opinion that their government leader wanted. In the case of Israel, it is the Levy Report. This report has never been approved by the Israeli legislature and it is contrary to the opinions of Israeli courts. From the Levy Report conclusions: In addition, the provisions of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, regarding transfer of populations, cannot be considered applicable, and were never intended to apply to the type of settlement activity carried out by Israel in Judea and Samaria. Therefore and according to international law, Israelis have the lawful right to settle in Judea and Samaria, and consequently, and the establishment of settlements cannot in and of itself be considered to be illegal. That is complete, total, utter bullshit. There is nothing "unique and sui generis" about the Israeli occupation. Sui generis, "Of it own kind or class; i.e., the only one of its own kind; peculiar." (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.) Israel started a war, occupied the territory, and wants what does not belong to it. This is not the first or only time in the recorded history of mankind that this has happened. International law applies; the Israeli government just does not like what it says. As quoted in my #21: The Supreme Court of Israel, as well as the International Court of Justice, have found that the Fourth Hague Convention rules governing belligerent occupation did apply, since those were recognized as customary international law. Adhering to the absurd claim that the OPT is not an occupied territory infers that it, or some ill defined part of it, belongs to Israel. Assuming that it has morphed into the land of Israel, the inescapable result is that Israel is a racist, apartheid state. The Palestinians would be of the land of Israel, but held in capativity as a degraded class of people who are deprived of voting, freedom of movement, freedom of commerce, and generally treated as a class of sub-human beings. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0701/S00070/shulamit-aloni-there-is-apartheid-in-israel.htm Wednesday, 10 January 2007, 3:22 pm Shulamit Aloni: Indeed There Is Apartheid In Israel Middle East News Service [Middle East News Service comments: During the summer holiday season in Australia we are operating in a holiday mode. It is envisaged that later this month several compilations dealing with major issues will be posted out. One of these will deal with the kerfuffle caused by Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine – Peace not Apartheid. Actual comments on Aloni’s and other contributions will be dealt with at that time. But in the meantime, some work needs to be done like this translation of an item from Yediot Acharonot, Israel’s largest circulating newspaper, which appeared in the Hebrew Ynet but not in the English-language Ynetnews. Translator comments are in square brackets. For those unfamiliar with Aloni she is an Israel Prize Laureate who served as Minister for Education under Yitzhak Rabin – Sol Salbe.] Hebrew original: Indeed there is Apartheid in Israel A new order issued by the GOC Central command bans the conveyance of Palestinians in Israeli vehicles. Such a blatant violation of the right to travel joins the long list of humans rights violations carried out by Israel in the [Occupied] Territories. Shulamit Aloni Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what’s right in front of our eyes. It’s simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population. The US Jewish Establishment’s onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the population’s movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians’ land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades. If that were not enough, the generals commanding the region frequently issue further orders, regulations, instructions and rules (let us not forget: they are the lords of the land). By now they have requisitioned further lands for the purpose of constructing “Jewish only” roads. Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at night – all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way. On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. “Why?” I asked the soldier. “It’s an order – this is a Jews-only road”, he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. “It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?” [snip]
The term Palestinian Territory, Occupied was used at the UN until 2013. In 2013 it was changed to Palestinian State. http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_3166-1_newsletter_vi-14_name_change_state_of_palestine.pdf Name change for State of Palestine and other minor corrections . . . PALESTINE, STATE OF / - - - - - http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/19 United Nations A/Res/67/19 Dist: General Sixty-seventh session Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 29 November 2012 [without reference to a Main Committee (A/67/L.28 and Add.1)] 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations The General Assembly, Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and stressing in this regard the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, Recalling its resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970,1 by which it affirmed, inter alia, the duty of every State to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, Stressing the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights, Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, Reaffirming the principle, set out in the Charter, of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, Reaffirming also relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002, 1515 (2003) of 19 November 2003 and 1850 (2008) of 16 December 2008, Reaffirming further the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,2 to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, including with regard to the matter of prisoners, Reaffirming its resolution 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974 and all relevant resolutions, including resolution 66/146 of 19 December 2011, reaffirming the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine, Reaffirming also its resolutions 43/176 of 15 December 1988 and 66/17 of 30 November 2011 and all relevant resolutions regarding the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, which, inter alia, stress the need for the withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent State, a just resolution of the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948 and the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Reaffirming further its resolution 66/18 of 30 November 2011 and all relevant resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem, bearing in mind that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community, and emphasizing the need for a way to be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States, Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004,3 Reaffirming its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004 affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, Recalling its resolutions 3210 (XXIX) of 14 October 1974 and 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, by which, respectively, the Palestine Liberation Organization was invited to participate in the deliberations of the General Assembly as the representative of the Palestinian people and was granted observer status, Recalling also its resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988, by which it, inter alia, acknowledged the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988 and decided that the designation “Palestine” should be used in place of the designation “Palestine Liberation Organization” in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, Taking into consideration that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in accordance with a decision by the Palestine National Council, is entrusted with the powers and responsibilities of the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine,4 Recalling its resolution 52/250 of 7 July 1998, by which additional rights and privileges were accorded to Palestine in its capacity as observer, Recalling also the Arab Peace Initiative adopted in March 2002 by the Council of the League of Arab States,5 Reaffirming its commitment, in accordance with international law, to the two-State solution of an independent, sovereign, democratic, viable and contiguous State of Palestine living side by side with Israel in peace and security on the basis of the pre-1967 borders, Bearing in mind the mutual recognition of 9 September 1993 between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, Affirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders, Commending the Palestinian National Authority’s 2009 plan for constructing the institutions of an independent Palestinian State within a two-year period, and welcoming the positive assessments in this regard about readiness for statehood by the World Bank, the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund and as reflected in the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee Chair conclusions of April 2011 and subsequent Chair conclusions, which determined that the Palestinian Authority is above the threshold for a functioning State in key sectors studied, Recognizing that full membership is enjoyed by Palestine in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia and the Group of Asia-Pacific States and that Palestine is also a full member of the League of Arab States, the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Group of 77 and China, Recognizing also that, to date, 132 States Members of the United Nations have accorded recognition to the State of Palestine, Taking note of the 11 November 2011 report of the Security Council Committee on the Admission of New Members,6 Stressing the permanent responsibility of the United Nations towards the question of Palestine until it is satisfactorily resolved in all its aspects, Reaffirming the principle of universality of membership of the United Nations, 1. Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967; 2. Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice; 3. Expresses the hope that the Security Council will consider favourably the application submitted on 23 September 2011 by the State of Palestine for admission to full membership in the United Nations;7 4. Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders; 5. Expresses the urgent need for the resumption and acceleration of negotiations within the Middle East peace process based on the relevant United Nations resolutions, the terms of reference of the Madrid Conference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative5 and the Quartet road map to a permanent two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict8 for the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement between the Palestinian and Israeli sides that resolves all outstanding core issues, namely the Palestine refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, borders, security and water; 6. Urges all States and the specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system to continue to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their right to self-determination, independence and freedom; 7. Requests the Secretary-General to take the necessary measures to implement the present resolution and to report to the General Assembly within three months on progress made in this regard. 44th plenary meeting __________ 1 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 2 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 75, No. 973. 3 See A/ES-10/273 and Corr.1. 4 See A/43/928, annex. 5 A/56/1026-S/2002/932, annex II, resolution 14/221. 6 S/2011/705. 7 A/66/371-S/2011/592, annex I. 8 S/2003/529, annex.
The Israeli government chafes from the comparison to South Africa as economic shunning would cause lots of grief. While there is a right of return for Jews with no prior connection to the area, the same is denied for Arabs with centuries of ties to the area before they became displaced people. Of course, letting them return as equals, with citizenship in Israel, might give Israel a muslim prime minister.
This is like making believe that during the years that the U.S. did not officially recognize Red China that it did not exist. The State of Palestine has been officially recognized by 135 member nations of the UN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine he international recognition of the State of Palestine has been the objective of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) since the Palestinian Declaration of Independence proclaimed the establishment of the State of Palestine on 15 November 1988 in Algiers, Algeria at an extraordinary session in exile of the Palestinian National Council. The declaration was promptly acknowledged by a range of countries, and by the end of the year the state was recognised by over 80 countries. In February 1989, at the United Nations Security Council, the PLO representative claimed recognition by 94 states. As part of an attempt to resolve the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the Oslo Accords signed between Israel and PLO in September 1993 established the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) as a self-governing interim administration in the Palestinian territories. Israel does not recognise Palestine as a state and maintains de facto military control in all the territories. As of 30 October 2014, 135 (69.9%) of the 193 member states of the United Nations have recognised the State of Palestine. Many of the countries that do not recognise the State of Palestine nevertheless recognise the PLO as the "representative of the Palestinian people". On 29 November 2012, the UN General Assembly passed a motion changing Palestine's "entity" status to "non-member observer state" by a vote of 138 to 9, with 41 abstentions. Israel and a number of other countries do not recognise Palestine, taking the position that the establishment of this state can only be determined through direct negotiations between Israel and the PNA. The main issues currently obstructing an agreement are borders, security, water rights, the status of Jerusalem and freedom of access to religious sites, ongoing Israeli settlement expansion, and legalities concerning Palestinian refugees including their right of return. [snip]
Mr. CHan. I respect what you can come up with as far as documents. To me it doesn't matter. God trumps any man made law. We are seeing it play out just like God told us in his book the Bible. I sincerely hope that you are or become saved. 'To your descendants I have given this land..."' (Genesis 15:18). Mr Chan Israel is in control of the land and will remain so. Despite any pieces of paper where crap nations say the recognize what would be a terrorist state. I say that with confidence. Get back to me when Iran wipes Israel off the map. Or if the Palis do.
To me it doesn't matter. God trumps any man made law. It's all good.
A better question is, "Where is the Israeli state?" That happened because Great Britain carved out a piece of Palestine and gave it to the Jews under UN181. In July 1922, the League of Nations entrusted Great Britain with the Mandate for Palestine. Recognizing "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine," Great Britain was called upon to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine-Eretz Israel (Land of Israel).
The Hebrew people broke that covenant and lost their deed to material territory as a result of their spiritual rebellion, which was consummated by their murder of the Messiah. (see Joshua 23:15-16).
The Jewish right to the land is often attributed to the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It does not grant anything and only "views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." The BALFOUR DECLARATION of 1917 Dear Lord Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Magesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation. Yours sincerely,
UN General Assembly Resolution 47-181, Future Government of Palestine (1947)
The Balfour Declaration is read by Zionists as "the establishment in all of Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ..." Now, that's not what he said, nor what he meant, nor what the UN set up in Resolution 181 ... but it's what the Zionists believe.
Blah, blah, blah... The U.N. can create all of the resolutions it wants, but it doesn't have the capability of ENFORCING anything. So it is inconsequential.
The Palis never 'owned' any of that land. Mostly Jordan did.
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
Jordan is a completely artificial country created by the Brits. The last long term owner of the land was the Ottoman Empire.
Heck, weren't most of the borders in the Middle East were drawn up by oil corporations?
The fallback position is that they are G-d's Chosen People and G-d gave it to them. It's the Abrahamic Covenant; it's G-d's will.
If a few member nations choose to provide the force, the UN could enforce whatever it wants in the Middle East. If Israel was ostracized as was South Africa, it would cause so much hurt that force would not be necessary. I'm not saying such is likely to be done, but the ability exists.
And aren't the majority of those countries Anti-Semetic?
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Almost 8 billion over 3 years, not too shabby and not that far behind the 9 billion the Israelis get over the same period.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Those Brits and French. Once again America the victim of European failed colonialism.
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
Well, you know how it is with "pledges": "According to estimates made by the World Bank, the Palestinian Authority received $525 million of international aid in the first half of 2010, $1.4 billion in 2009 and $1.8 billion in 2008."
The artificial borders in the Middle East were created by the Brits when the Ottoman Empire fell after WWWI.
The artificial borders in the Middle East were created by the Brits when the Ottoman Empire fell after WWWI. The "Oil Companies" as you envision them today didn't really exist,
United Nations
Security Council
18 March 1994
of March 18, 1994
vote at the 3341st meeting,
following a paragraph-by-paragraph vote 7/
#14. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#9)
United Nations
General Assembly
A/RES/51/223
Distr. GENERAL
14 March 1997
ORIGINAL:
ENGLISH
Fifty-first session
Agenda items 33 and 35
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
[without reference to a Main Committee (A/51/L.68 and Add.1)]
51/223. Israeli settlement activities in the
occupied Palestinian territory, in
particular in occupied East Jerusalem
The General Assembly,
Having considered the letters dated 21, 1/ 25 2/ and 27
3/ February 1997 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine on behalf of
the States members of the League of Arab States,
Expressing deep concern at the decision of the Government of
Israel to initiate new settlement activities in the Jebel Abu Ghneim
area in East Jerusalem,
Expressing concern about other recent measures that encourage or
facilitate new settlement activities,
Stressing that such settlements are illegal and a major obstacle
to peace,
Recalling its resolutions on Jerusalem and other relevant General
Assembly and Security Council resolutions,
Confirming that all legislative and administrative measures and
actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of
Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are
invalid and cannot change that status,
Reaffirming its support for the Middle East peace process and all
its achievements, including the recent agreement on Hebron,
Concerned about the difficulties facing the Middle East peace
process, including the impact these have on the living conditions of
the Palestinian people, and urging the parties to fulfil their
obligations, including under the agreements already reached,
Having discussed the situation at its 91st, 92nd and 93rd plenary
meetings on 12 and 13 March 1997,
1. Calls upon the Israeli authorities to refrain from all
actions or measures, including settlement activities, which alter the
facts on the ground, pre-empting the final status negotiations, and
have negative implications for the Middle East peace process;
2. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide
scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in
Time of War of 12 August 1949, 4/ which is applicable to all the
territories occupied by Israel since 1967;
3. Calls upon all parties to continue, in the interests of
peace and security, their negotiations within the Middle East peace
process on its agreed basis and the timely implementation of the
agreements reached;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to bring to the attention of
the Government of Israel the provisions of the present resolution.
93rd plenary meeting
13 March 1997
Notes
1/ A/51/805-S/1997/149; see Official Records of the Security
Council, Fifty-second Year, Supplement for January, February and March
1997, document S/1997/149.
2/ A/51/808-S/1997/157; see Official Records of the Security
Council, Fifty-second Year, Supplement for January, February and March
1997, document S/1997/157.
3/ Official Records of the Security Council, Fifty-second Year,
Supplement for January, February and March 1997, document S/1997/165.
4/ United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 75, Nos. 970 to 973.
#15. To: nolu chan (#14)
#16. To: misterwhite (#11)
#17. To: misterwhite (#15)
#18. To: misterwhite (#15)
#19. To: A K A Stone (#16)
"What part of fuck the UN do you not understand?"
#20. To: misterwhite (#19)
#21. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#16)
What part of fuck the UN do you not understand?
Applicability of the term "occupied"
The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 832). His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been "annexed" to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05 The Gaza Coast Regional Council v. The Knesset et al. (yet unpublished, paragraph 3 of the opinion of the Court; hereinafter – The Gaza Coast Regional Council Case). In the center of this public international law stand the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereinafter – The Hague Regulations). These regulations are a reflection of customary international law. The law of belligerent occupation is also laid out in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949 (hereinafter – the Fourth Geneva Convention).
Art. 42.
Assistant Legal Advisor Department of State
Volume 1 Multilateral 1776-1917
Department of State Publication 8407
Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1968
#22. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite, cranko (#9)
You can mouth off about a pali state all you want. But where is it? It isn't there. It will never exist.
#23. To: nolu chan (#21)
What part of occupied territory do you not understand.
#24. To: CZ82 (#22)
"Arafat was given the land for a Palestinian state along with other things and he just walked away from it all."
#25. To: CZ82 (#22)
"they like the handouts they get from other dumbass countries all over the world."
#26. To: misterwhite (#24)
#27. To: misterwhite (#25)
Those handouts don't hold a candle to the $3 billion the U.S. gives Israel every f**king year.
#28. To: A K A Stone (#27)
"We should give them more. They can cleanse the Middle East for us."
#29. To: A K A Stone (#23)
What part of occupied territory do you not understand.
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Our basic conclusion is that from the point of view of international law, the classical laws of "occupation" as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable to the unique and sui generis historic and legal circumstances of Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria spanning over decades.
In the cases before the Israeli High Court of Justice the government has agreed that the military commander’s authority is anchored in the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and that the humanitarian rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention apply. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs says that the Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that the Fourth Geneva Convention and certain parts of Additional Protocol I reflect customary international law that is applicable in the occupied territories.
Shulamit Aloni: There Is Apartheid In Israel
Opinion: Middle East News Service
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3346283,00.html
#30. To: nolu chan (#29)
"and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?”
#31. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#9)
You can mouth off about a pali state all you want. But where is it? It isn't there. It will never exist.
ISO 3166-1 NEWSLETTER VI-14
Date: 2013-02-06
PALESTINE, ÉTAT DE
General Assembly
4 December 2012
Agenda item 37
29 November 2012
#32. To: misterwhite (#30)
#33. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#9)
You can mouth off about a pali state all you want. But where is it? It isn't there. It will never exist.
International recognition of the State of Palestine
#34. To: nolu chan (#29)
#35. To: A K A Stone (#34)
Mr. CHan. I respect what you can come up with as far as documents.
#36. To: nolu chan (#33)
"You can mouth off about a pali state all you want. But where is it? It isn't there. It will never exist."
#37. To: A K A Stone (#34)
'To your descendants I have given this land..."' (Genesis 15:18).
#38. To: misterwhite (#36)
A better question is, "Where is the Israeli state?" That happened because Great Britain carved out a piece of Palestine and gave it to the Jews under UN181.
Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917. “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, 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”.
/s/ Arthur James Balfour
#39. To: misterwhite (#36)
A better question is, "Where is the Israeli state?" That happened because Great Britain carved out a piece of Palestine and gave it to the Jews under UN181.
#40. To: nolu chan (#38)
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ..."
#41. To: misterwhite (#3)
(Edited)
UN181 set aside...
#42. To: misterwhite (#3)
UN181 set aside land for a Palestinian state, and UN 242 and UN338 called for Israel to get out of that Palestinian land. All of those resolutions were unanimous, meaning the U.S. approved them.
#43. To: redleghunter (#42)
The Palis never 'owned' any of that land. Mostly Jordan did.
#44. To: cranko, redleghunter (#43)
Jordan is a completely artificial country created by the Brits.
#45. To: misterwhite (#40)
Now, that's not what he said, nor what he meant, nor what the UN set up in Resolution 181 ... but it's what the Zionists believe.
#46. To: cranko, misterwhite (#41)
The U.N. can create all of the resolutions it wants, but it doesn't have the capability of ENFORCING anything. So it is inconsequential.
#47. To: nolu chan (#33)
As of 30 October 2014, 135 (69.9%) of the 193 member states of the United Nations have recognized the State of Palestine.
#48. To: misterwhite (#25)
The expectations set at the AHLC in New York were that several developments could trigger a change in the course of the Palestinian economy: not least the Annapolis conference of November 27, 2007, where Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas agreed to resume peace negotiations and resolve core issues by the end of 2008; the progress in bilateral discussions on key issues and the formation of seven Israeli-Palestinian working groups; and the Paris Donor Conference on December 17, 2007, where representatives of 87 states and organizations pledged US$7.7 billion in financial support to the Palestinian Reform and Development Plan (PRDP) for 2008-10.
#49. To: nolu chan (#44)
#50. To: CZ82 (#48)
"where representatives of 87 states and organizations pledged US$7.7 billion ... for 2008-10. "
#51. To: nolu chan (#44)
Heck, weren't most of the borders in the Middle East were drawn up by oil corporations?
#52. To: nolu chan (#44)
Heck, weren't most of the borders in the Middle East were drawn up by oil corporations?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]