Inventing history

had you done so, you would be aware that while UNGA resolution was indeed nonbinding when it was written, it did become a binding agreement later when israel agreed to abide by the conditions of that resolution. in fact, the very fact that israel has failed and continues to fail to abide by the conditions set forth in UNGA resolution 181 might actually call into question this much touted "right to exist", at least as a member state of the UN, into question. you might also find the paragraph that virtually exonertes the arab states for rejecting UNGA assembly 181.
Excuses, of course.


Deach does not want to acknowlege the fact that a WAR intervened between resolution 181 and the establishment of the armistice line He also fails to acknowlege the fact the NEITHER SIDE agreed to the details of the UN non binding resolutions Somehow he decided that ONLY ISRAEL MUST bad news deach I am no lawyer but the system had been explained to me regarding "agreements" thus ----it is always a good idea to fullfill you side of the bargain at first------but if the other side persists in NOT DOING SO----the agreement is can be nullified " bad news Deach----the war did nullify not only overt agreements but even more so the IMPLIED agreements you claim are UNILATERALLY Israel's responsiblity to fulfill But you have underscored the FACT that borders were never actually defined. The way you describe things DEACH-----a new war could mean WINNER TAKES ALL which ---of course is the outcome you had in mind all along ----along with your hero GAMAL ABDUL NASSER-------did you cry June 1967? I recall one of the arab diplomats did ------was that you?

Resolution 181 had to be approved by both sides. Implementing the partition without the approval of the Palestinians would have violated their right to self determination. That is why it was rejected by the Security Council.
 
Resolution 181 was rendered MOOT by virtue of the war of 1948 why cite it now? OH I forgot the arab league kinda decided---fairly recently that it was ok -----sorta ---almost maybe if it could be used to make the results of the 1967 NASSER ---BAATHIST WAR TO ESTABLISH THE CALIPHATE OF THE MIDDLE EAST -------null and void------since the wrong side won
 
had you done so, you would be aware that while UNGA resolution was indeed nonbinding when it was written, it did become a binding agreement later when israel agreed to abide by the conditions of that resolution. in fact, the very fact that israel has failed and continues to fail to abide by the conditions set forth in UNGA resolution 181 might actually call into question this much touted "right to exist", at least as a member state of the UN, into question. you might also find the paragraph that virtually exonertes the arab states for rejecting UNGA assembly 181.
Excuses, of course.



What an exceptionally tepid response...the poster reabhloideach is correct---with the notable exception that any component of GA 181 is 'binding'...none of it is legally binding, but the Israeli claim is quite intriguing: they typically cite the Arab rejection of 181 as an excuse for their own flagrant violation of it...Zionist logic par excellecne

UNGA resolution became a legally binding agreement with israel's acceptance of UNGA resolution 273, which stipulated that, if israel wanted to become and accepted membership status as a state of the united nations, that they would adhere to the conditions set forth in UNGA resolution 181. by itself, UNGA 181 is a non-binding resolution, but coupled with UNGA 273 it becomes a legally binding contractual agreement.
 
Oh ok both "sides" violated the resolution -----but its ok for arabs to do so but not ok for jews Well----this is not a new concept It is the theme song of the JIHADISTS
 
UNGA resolution became a legally binding agreement with israel's acceptance of UNGA resolution 273, which stipulated that, if israel wanted to become and accepted membership status as a state of the united nations, that they would adhere to the conditions set forth in UNGA resolution 181. by itself, UNGA 181 is a non-binding resolution, but coupled with UNGA 273 it becomes a legally binding contractual agreement.
Whatever wishful thinking may be, the UN laid a big one on it as Israel is in the UN, of course.
 
Resolution 181 was rendered MOOT by virtue of the war of 1948 why cite it now? OH I forgot the arab league kinda decided---fairly recently that it was ok -----sorta ---almost maybe if it could be used to make the results of the 1967 NASSER ---BAATHIST WAR TO ESTABLISH THE CALIPHATE OF THE MIDDLE EAST -------null and void------since the wrong side won

on 11 may, 1949, almost exactly a year after the end of the first arab-israeli war, was when israel explicity accepted and agreed to live by the conditions and borders set forth in the text of UNGA resolution 181.

i cannot believe you people try to ridicule me for my ignorance when all this very basic knowledge is there at your fingertips. read resolution 273, which as a resolution is, yes, i know, nonbinding, but as a contract between international bodies is binding legally as a contract according to unternational law.
 
on 11 may, 1949, almost exactly a year after the end of the first arab-israeli war, was when israel explicity accepted and agreed to live by the conditions and borders set forth in the text of UNGA resolution 181.
Ah, virtual reality.
 
UNGA resolution became a legally binding agreement with israel's acceptance of UNGA resolution 273, which stipulated that, if israel wanted to become and accepted membership status as a state of the united nations, that they would adhere to the conditions set forth in UNGA resolution 181. by itself, UNGA 181 is a non-binding resolution, but coupled with UNGA 273 it becomes a legally binding contractual agreement.
Whatever wishful thinking may be, the UN laid a big one on it as Israel is in the UN, of course.

what you are saying, essentially, is that the UN and her member states at the time made a huge mistake by trusting israel, the jewish state. don't worry. many of those member states, as well as many new member states, have learned not to trust isreal, the jewish state, under any circumstances as they have established an historical track record of deceptive behaviour and out right lying.

the USA has always been an incredibly loyal state to those she believes are her allies. one only need to look at the frustration and disappointment in faces and non-scripted words of the secretaries of state from at least madeline albright on in their dealings with israel to understand the true nature of the relationship.

i cannot believe you are bragging about israel being, what a french diplomat reerred to as, "a shitty little state."
 
Excuses, of course.



What an exceptionally tepid response...the poster reabhloideach is correct---with the notable exception that any component of GA 181 is 'binding'...none of it is legally binding, but the Israeli claim is quite intriguing: they typically cite the Arab rejection of 181 as an excuse for their own flagrant violation of it...Zionist logic par excellecne

UNGA resolution became a legally binding agreement with israel's acceptance of UNGA resolution 273, which stipulated that, if israel wanted to become and accepted membership status as a state of the united nations, that they would adhere to the conditions set forth in UNGA resolution 181. by itself, UNGA 181 is a non-binding resolution, but coupled with UNGA 273 it becomes a legally binding contractual agreement.


My good fellow, GA res 181 was never legally binding---either amended by 273 or alone...#181 was a recommendation for partition---the precise details of the partition egregiously granting advantage to the Jewish minority of Palestine. The paradox is that legally Israel did not violate it becasue it was void of legal force---what Israel violated was the central pillar of the UN charter which upholds the residency rights of native populations...the Jews fail to understand both the limitations of 181, and the body of rights they arbitrarily infuse it with: it amounted to a parition recommendation that was profoundly unjust to the Arab majority...the specific language contained in 181 is irrelevant...if the document carried the force of law, Israel would be in gross violation of its design. Resolution 273 was simply an expression of coordinated western pressure for the UN to recongize Israel...said recognition stands in stark violation of the UN charter...even the language contained in 273 is ridiculous:
" in the judgement of the Security Council, Israel is a ( peace-loving state ) and is able to carry out the obligations contained in the charter"

"The state of Israel unresevably accepts the obligations of the UN charter, and undertakes to honor them from the day it becomes a member'

The absurdity of this language is obvious...the very creation of the state of Israel violated the UN charter Israel swore to observe and honor...why was the state recognized, and why was it not expelled for basically flouting these obligations from its inception?
 
What an exceptionally tepid response...the poster reabhloideach is correct---with the notable exception that any component of GA 181 is 'binding'...none of it is legally binding, but the Israeli claim is quite intriguing: they typically cite the Arab rejection of 181 as an excuse for their own flagrant violation of it...Zionist logic par excellecne

UNGA resolution became a legally binding agreement with israel's acceptance of UNGA resolution 273, which stipulated that, if israel wanted to become and accepted membership status as a state of the united nations, that they would adhere to the conditions set forth in UNGA resolution 181. by itself, UNGA 181 is a non-binding resolution, but coupled with UNGA 273 it becomes a legally binding contractual agreement.


My good fellow, GA res 181 was never legally binding---either amended by 273 or alone...#181 was a recommendation for partition---the precise details of the partition egregiously granting advantage to the Jewish minority of Palestine. The paradox is that legally Israel did not violate it becasue it was void of legal force---what Israel violated was the central pillar of the UN charter which upholds the residency rights of native populations...the Jews fail to understand both the limitations of 181, and the body of rights they arbitrarily infuse it with: it amounted to a parition recommendation that was profoundly unjust to the Arab majority...the specific language contained in 181 is irrelevant...if the document carried the force of law, Israel would be in gross violation of its design. Resolution 273 was simply an expression of coordinated western pressure for the UN to recongize Israel...said recognition stands in stark violation of the UN charter...even the language contained in 273 is ridiculous:
" in the judgement of the Security Council, Israel is a ( peace-loving state ) and is able to carry out the obligations contained in the charter"

"The state of Israel unresevably accepts the obligations of the UN charter, and undertakes to honor them from the day it becomes a member'

The absurdity of this language is obvious...the very creation of the state of Israel violated the UN charter Israel swore to observe and honor...why was the state recognized, and why was it not expelled for basically flouting these obligations from its inception?

when israel agreed, as a condition of becoming a member state to the UN by virtue of the also non-binding UNGA resolution 273, to abide by the conditions of the non-binding UNGA resolution 181, it effectively changed the status of 181 from that of a non-binding resolution to that of a quid pro quo legal contract.

i think the confusion arises rom the fact that, as resolutions, neither 181 nor 273 carry any legal weight whatsoever. however, two parties can agree to abide by the exact wording of a resolution and while that resolution also remains a resolution, it also becomes part of a legally binding contractual agreement.

as to whether israel should not exist because the UN violated its own charter, that is an entirely different argument.
 
on 11 may, 1949, almost exactly a year after the end of the first arab-israeli war, was when israel explicity accepted and agreed to live by the conditions and borders set forth in the text of UNGA resolution 181.
Ah, virtual reality.
and historical reality as well, thank you.
It's a virtual reality, of course. Armistice agreements had been signed with Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon by that time. And israeli application was passed by 37 votes pro, 12 contra and 9 fence-sitters - "Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948 and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representatives of the Government of Israel before the Ad Hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions, ... 1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations; 2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.".
No amount of creative spinning-weaving can change that.
 
Oh ok both "sides" violated the resolution -----but its ok for arabs to do so but not ok for jews Well----this is not a new concept It is the theme song of the JIHADISTS

The Palestinians did not violate resolution 181. It was their right to reject the plan.
 
The Palestinians did not violate resolution 181. It was their right to reject the plan.
Palistanians didn't exist back then, of course. Let's say that happy-camping arabs dissed the resolution and have been sitting in an outhouse ever since regardless of the name-change in about 1964.
 
The Palestinians did not violate resolution 181. It was their right to reject the plan.
Palistanians didn't exist back then, of course. Let's say that happy-camping arabs dissed the resolution and have been sitting in an outhouse ever since regardless of the name-change in about 1964.


Leave Tinny alone----he is very helpful He remarks on the jihado-nazi revisionist history in a casual manner as if it made sense
 
UNGA resolution became a legally binding agreement with israel's acceptance of UNGA resolution 273, which stipulated that, if israel wanted to become and accepted membership status as a state of the united nations, that they would adhere to the conditions set forth in UNGA resolution 181. by itself, UNGA 181 is a non-binding resolution, but coupled with UNGA 273 it becomes a legally binding contractual agreement.


My good fellow, GA res 181 was never legally binding---either amended by 273 or alone...#181 was a recommendation for partition---the precise details of the partition egregiously granting advantage to the Jewish minority of Palestine. The paradox is that legally Israel did not violate it becasue it was void of legal force---what Israel violated was the central pillar of the UN charter which upholds the residency rights of native populations...the Jews fail to understand both the limitations of 181, and the body of rights they arbitrarily infuse it with: it amounted to a parition recommendation that was profoundly unjust to the Arab majority...the specific language contained in 181 is irrelevant...if the document carried the force of law, Israel would be in gross violation of its design. Resolution 273 was simply an expression of coordinated western pressure for the UN to recongize Israel...said recognition stands in stark violation of the UN charter...even the language contained in 273 is ridiculous:
" in the judgement of the Security Council, Israel is a ( peace-loving state ) and is able to carry out the obligations contained in the charter"

"The state of Israel unresevably accepts the obligations of the UN charter, and undertakes to honor them from the day it becomes a member'

The absurdity of this language is obvious...the very creation of the state of Israel violated the UN charter Israel swore to observe and honor...why was the state recognized, and why was it not expelled for basically flouting these obligations from its inception?

when israel agreed, as a condition of becoming a member state to the UN by virtue of the also non-binding UNGA resolution 273, to abide by the conditions of the non-binding UNGA resolution 181, it effectively changed the status of 181 from that of a non-binding resolution to that of a quid pro quo legal contract.

i think the confusion arises rom the fact that, as resolutions, neither 181 nor 273 carry any legal weight whatsoever. however, two parties can agree to abide by the exact wording of a resolution and while that resolution also remains a resolution, it also becomes part of a legally binding contractual agreement.

as to whether israel should not exist because the UN violated its own charter, that is an entirely different argument.


We are obviously laboring under different definitions of law: for either resolution to carry legal authority the language of the UN charter would require dramatic revisions--or complete abandonment. To argue over the pretense of legal weight in this respect is pure folly...within the organization the dictates of the charter cannot remain at odds with resolutions that are drafter under its authority...there is no meaneuverability on this specific issue...the legal grounds for a contractual committment between the UN and Israel are not satisfied---in fact just the opposite...recognition of Israel came about through applications of western political pressure...from a legal point of view it is pure farce...
 
for the record---according to dreyfuss-----contractural law as applied to Israel is entirely different as that applied to "arab" countries He has now stated that ISRAEL has the unique responsibility of abiding by the details of NON BINDING resolutions passed by arab member states of the UN ------however arab member states have no obligation to abide by UN resolutions
 
for the record---according to dreyfuss-----contractural law as applied to Israel is entirely different as that applied to "arab" countries He has now stated that ISRAEL has the unique responsibility of abiding by the details of NON BINDING resolutions passed by arab member states of the UN ------however arab member states have no obligation to abide by UN resolutions



As previously observed Madam, you are most assuredly a dull bulb: either learn how to read content with even modest powers of retension, or simply discontinue posting comment, if a resolution is "non-binding" it cannot be applied to any party...I am somewhat amazed by your charge that "arab states are excused from an obligation to abide by UN resolutions"---kindly point one out, after you've done that you might casually inspect the hundreds of GA and SC resolutions spit on by Israel...or examine the language of the Charter that Israel signed with no intention of honoring...the issue of legal fealty to non-binding resolutions is irrelevant, so for the Jews to claim that Israel accepted the dictates of 181---and Arabs did not is meaningless
 
again dreyfuss-----you are engaging is absurd sophisty. agreements broken are broken You cannot put them back together by claiming---"but you signed-----it does not matter what I did.....no matter how impossible I have made it ___YOU MUST DO IT"
 
again dreyfuss-----you are engaging is absurd sophisty. agreements broken are broken You cannot put them back together by claiming---"but you signed-----it does not matter what I did.....no matter how impossible I have made it ___YOU MUST DO IT"


What a novel legal precedent, but certainly you can de-mystify the select language by adding: Israel reserves the right to abrogate any document it signs"...dare we examine the precedents here? This is not complex stuff, as a pre-condition of acceptance in the UN Israel signed the UN charter, this signature equates to a legal obligation to abide by the dictates of the Charter...something Israel has yet to satisfy
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top