Israeli settlements' legal basis: Opposing view

[shira]

The oft-used term "occupied Palestinian territories" has no basis whatsoever in law or fact. The territories are neither occupied nor are they Palestinian. No legal determination has ever been made as to their sovereignty, and by agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, they are no more than "disputed" pending a negotiated solution, with both sides claiming rights to the territory.

OUR VIEW: A vote for moderation

Israel has solid legal and historic rights to the territory, in light of the undeniable historic fact that the Jewish people are, for more than 3,000 years, the indigenous people in the region, including the source of Christianity there. Add to this the legal rights granted to the Jewish people by the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the 1923 San Remo Declaration, the League of Nations Mandate instrument and the United Nations Charter.

Israel has thus a very well-based claim to sovereignty over the area, more so than any other people, but has nevertheless committed itself to negotiate the fate of the area with the Palestinians.

Further to Israel's solid basis of rights to the territory, the Oslo agreements with the Palestinians contain no prohibition whatsoever on building settlements in those parts of the territory agreed upon as remaining under Israel's control.

more...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01/23/israel-elections-palestine-settlements/1859157/

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

1. Now that you have posted somebody's else's opinion what is your own?

Israel, its supporters, its politicians and OPED writers can dance around the subject of what they believe is theirs or what they have a right to until the cows come home. The year is not 1000 BC, no matter how Israel's supporters, politicians and OPED writers want to try and make the case for colonization of another people.

Israel's borders were drawn and recognized. The UN recognized Israel. The 1 page Balfour Declaration is meaningless, and those that continually jump on it as any proof of a Israel-only state are deluded.

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"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 the 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".

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Arthur James Balfour

1) The establishment in Palestine: not All of Palestine.

2) it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious' rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.

So the comedy gold just keeps on coming from those who continually hold up this letter as some kind of deed for colonization of the Palestinian people. The Balfour Declaration is a sympathetic letter. The San Remo Resolution, April 25, 1920, makes no such case as to where the national home for the Jewish people, in Palestine, will be located. It does reiterate that the national home for the Jewish people, will be in Palestine, but it does not say All of Palestine.

But there will always be less than credible people that hear or read more than what is simply there in black and white. They will continually hold up documents or declarations and state unequivocally that some territory, and everything else that we deem as ours, belongs to us in its entirety. History is full of these types of individuals who, when they finally have what they were after, want more; regardless if the more is land not belonging to the in the modern era.

What happened or who lived where 3,000 years ago doesn't give any one group the authority to systematically destroy, uproot, marginalize, imprison or colonize another people simply because they hold up a piece of paper and demand that it says something different than what is written.

Get over it. The world has moved on. Start treating others like you want others to treat you.

[shira]

2. You're wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=29197

http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/San_Remo_Convention

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

The Zionist Organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate shall be recognized as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

1. Israel's borders were never drawn or recognized by the UN.

2. Where do you find in San Remo where any part of Palestine is closed off to Jewish settlement? Besides present day Jordan (article 25)? It calls for close settlement of Jews on the land.

3. The civil and religious rights of the Arabs there were and still are honored.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/113428945#post77

of course the I/P conflict is rather unique in that the original indigenous peoples and their relatives who survived industrial genocide are considered colonialist while the latter immigrants (muslim arabs from egypt, sudan, syrian etc ) are considered "Indigenous."

so part of the comedy is the redefinition of words to fit the ideology. Even the word colonialist doesnt even fit by its own real definition the situation, unless of course one gets to redefine all of the identities and history and motivations of the groups involved.

using the dictionary to define words is a real killer, it takes out the emotion-ladden words....to be avoided at all costs.
___

and since i find this all rather amusing...how many years does it take for a group to be defined as "indigenous"

seems to me that the settlers just have to hang on for a 9 generations? and then they can be declared indigenous and the Palestenians who want their land will be potential occupiers?
(yes i know, you wont put down a "number" for how long it takes to go from occupier/invader to "indigenous"

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

3. No. You're wrong.

UN Resolution after UN resolution Israel has thumbed its nose at those it deigns stand in its way of a larger nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_181

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a plan for the future government of Palestine. The Plan was described as a Plan of Partition with Economic Union which, after the termination of the British Mandate, would lead to the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II).[2]

The Plan was accepted by the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine, through the Jewish Agency.

The MacDonald White Paper of May 1939 declared that it was "not part of [the British government's] policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State" and sought to eliminate Jewish immigration to Palestine. The Jewish Agency hoped to persuade the British to restore Jewish immigration rights, and cooperated with the British in the war against Fascism. Aliyah Bet was organized to spirit Jews out of Nazi controlled Europe, despite the British prohibitions. The White Paper also led to the formation of Lehi, a small Jewish terrorist organization which opposed the British, and fought on the side of the Axis, throughout the war.

So one one hand you have the Balfour agreement and much later the MacDonald White paper which negates British interest in Palestine from becoming a Jewish state.

I'm just posting facts, Shira. Perhaps MacDonald was a racist bigot, but it looks like at one point that British interest did not lay with a Jewish state in Palestine.

The UN recognized Israel, and it is now recognizing the need for a Palestinian state. You can throw whatever shizzle you want to see what sticks, but this is not about your wants.

The UN will have the final say, and you can either have a good cry over it and stamp your feet, or you can realize that Israel should look towards the future and not 3,000 years in the past.

Get over it.

[shira]

4. I'll give you credit for trying, but you're still wrong....

The Palestine Mandate is protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter. Article 80 stipulates "that nothing in the Charter shall be construed "to alter in any manner rights conferred by existing international instruments".

It was also known as the Palestine Article.

Here's Eugene Rostow:

“‘A trust’ – as in Article 80 of the UN Charter – does not end because the trustee dies ... the Jewish right of settlement in the whole of western Palestine – the area west of the Jordan – survived the British withdrawal in 1948. ... They are parts of the mandate territory, now legally occupied by Israel with the consent of the Security Council.”

“This right is protected by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, which provides that unless a trusteeship agreement is agreed upon (which was not done for the Palestine Mandate), nothing in the chapter shall be construed in and 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.

“The Mandates of the League of Nations have a special status in international law. They are considered to be trusts, indeed ‘sacred trusts.’

“Under international law, neither Jordan nor the Palestinian Arab people of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have a substantial claim to the sovereign possession of the occupied territories.”

“I am indebted to my learned friend Dr. Paul Riebenfeld, who has for many years been my mentor on the history of Zionism, for reminding me of some of the circumstances which led to the adoption of Article 80 of the Charter. Strong Jewish delegations representing differing political tendencies within Jewry attended the San Francisco Conference in 1945. Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, Peter Bergson, Eliahu Elath, Professors Ben-Zion Netanayu and A. S. Yehuda, and Harry Selden were among the Jewish representatives. Their mission was to protect the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine under the mandate against erosion in a world of ambitious states. Article 80 was the result of their efforts.”

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. I see you have have dregged up yet another opinion, again, from mythsandfacts.org.

Is that your best? An opinion piece?




Comedy gold, Shira, comedy gold!

[shira]

6. Can't dispute the facts, so it's logical fallacy time shooting the messenger?

Fail.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

7. Opinions are not facts, Shira, but here's a fact for you to choke on.

Israel is in violation of over 60 UN resolutions, yet remains a member only to thumb its nose at the world body.

Yeah, let's talk about fail now.

[shira]

8. The Palestine Mandate is fact. So is Article 80 which ensures that it is still applicable today.

The Palestine Mandate about a Jewish homeland was passed unanimously in its day. No resolution has superceded it. Nor can that happen according to Article 80.

Those are facts.

Now WRT current resolutions vs. Israel that defy the Palestine Mandate and Article 80, should the UN be held accountable to and comply with its past resolutions? If not, why not?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

9. After I finally stopped laughing at what you wrote I decided to respond.

No, Shira, the The Palestine Mandate or British Mandate of Palestine. (look for Britain...it is a country... if you get any more confused) formalized British rule in the southern part of Ottoman Syria from 1923–1948.

Termination of the mandate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine

When the UK announced the independence of Transjordan in 1946, the final Assembly of the League of Nations and the General Assembly both adopted resolutions welcoming the news.[38] However, the Jewish Agency and many legal scholars raised objections.[citation needed] The Jewish Agency said that Transjordan was an integral part of Palestine, and that according to Article 80 of the UN Charter, the Jewish people had a secured interest in its territory.[39]

So the founders of Israel wanted a bigger slice of the pie from the beginning, but weren't given it?


Oh, there's also this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=29231

Get over it, Shira.

[shira]

10. Let's start with UNGAR 181; Partition Plan

You realize UNGA resolutions are non-binding recommendations only? It becomes law once both parties agree, and the Arabs did not.

So why repeat that nonsense?

=======

Next, the White Paper of 1939....

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

11. Shira, there is no credibility left to you in my opinion.

I believe that you should build a great wall around yourself and hide from the rest of the world.

Have a nice day.