P F Tinmore, et al,
Ah, we agree on something in a straight forward manner.
Remembering that it is a "self-imposed" limitation that the General Assembly and the Allied Forces need NOT to have impose upon themselves; and could wipe away just as easily. In no way have the Arab contributed to either humanitarian law or principles of international relations in any significant way. Each principle, law, treaty, covention and directive they point to in regards to the "Question of Palestine" is a issue pertaining to Western self-imposed limitations.
I think we agree that on --- established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). Remembering that the State of Israel was an end result of following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" established by the UN General Assembly [A/RES/181(II)].
Nothing was "affirmed" by the UN Armistice accept for the ceasefire lines at the FEBA and the cessation of hostilities between forces.
Having said that, over time the same lines have been used to establish other meaningful reference points.
Most Respectfully,
R
Ah, we agree on something in a straight forward manner.
I do not think you read my comments well. While I do not disagree with your commentary, I do agree that annexation was never adopted as a solution by the League of Nations or the United Nations. However, you would be hard pressed to find an explicit prohibition. In any event, annexation was never used as a means.
Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.
Neither "Treaties" nor the "right of self-determination" was prohibited by law, Covenant, Charter or the Mandate; not then and not now.
(COMMENT)The fact is that neither the LoN nor the Mandate (nor the UN for that matter) had the authority to cede any Palestinian land. Another fact is that none of them did.
Remembering that it is a "self-imposed" limitation that the General Assembly and the Allied Forces need NOT to have impose upon themselves; and could wipe away just as easily. In no way have the Arab contributed to either humanitarian law or principles of international relations in any significant way. Each principle, law, treaty, covention and directive they point to in regards to the "Question of Palestine" is a issue pertaining to Western self-imposed limitations.
I think we agree that on --- established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). Remembering that the State of Israel was an end result of following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" established by the UN General Assembly [A/RES/181(II)].
(COMMENT)This fact was affirmed by the 1949 UN armistice agreements that show that Palestine's land and international borders remained unchanged from when they were legally established in 1924.
Nothing was "affirmed" by the UN Armistice accept for the ceasefire lines at the FEBA and the cessation of hostilities between forces.
Having said that, over time the same lines have been used to establish other meaningful reference points.
Letter to the Secretary-General from the Ambassador -- Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations said:For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process. SOURCE: A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited: