The Myth of Occupied Territories

[AgentBond007]

The Myth of Occupied Territories

One of the most misused, misapplied, and misunderstood definitions in the dictionary of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the term "occupied territories." The vast majority of people simply do not know the facts or misinterpret them, thus completely distorting the real picture of the land distribution between the Arabs and the Jews. The truth of the matter is that, according to international law, the Jews have the complete and unquestionable right to settle the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (collectively known as Yesha). Not a single enforceable international document exists that forbids them from settling the lands of Yesha.

On the contrary, the only existing enforceable document actually encourages Jewish settlement. This document was created on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference when the Principal Allied Powers agreed o assign the Mandate for the territory of Palestine to Great Britain. By doing so the League of Nations "recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and established "grounds for econstituting their national home in that country." Article 6 of the Mandate "encouraged close settlement by Jews on the land," including the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha). There is nothing whatsoever in the Mandate that separates Yesha from the rest of the mandated territory. That means that the right of the Jews to settle the land spreads to the whole of Palestine. As a side note it is worth mentioning that the 76% of the territory of Mandated Palestine known today as Jordan, were not permanently exempt from settlement by the Jews either. Article 25 only allowed to "postpone or withhold application of [this] provision."

With the disbanding of the League of Nations, the rights of the Jews to settle the territories of Palestine, including Yesha, were not hurt. When in 1946 the United Nations was created in place of the League of Nations, its Charter included Article 80 specifically to allow the continuation of existing Mandates (including the British Mandate). Article 80 stated that "nothing ... shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties."

Then in November 1947 came time for Resolution 181, which recommended the Partition of Palestine. Like all UN Resolutions pertaining to the Jewish-Arab conflict it was not enforceable. It was simply arecommendation, and the Arab countries rejected it. As the Syrian representative in the General Assembly stated:

"In the first place the recommendations of the General Assembly are not imperative on those to whom they are addressed. The General Assembly only gives advice and the parties to whom advice is addressed accept it when it is rightful and just and when it does not impair their fundamental rights" (1)

If the resolution had been implemented maybe it would be possible to argue that it replaced the San Remo Conference resolution, which had legitimized the rights of the Jews to settle in any place in Palestine. However, it was not only rejected by the Arabs, but in violation of the UN Charter they launched a military aggression against the newly reborn Jewish state thus invalidating the resolution. By the time of the cease-fire at the end of the War of Independence there was still no other enforceable document pertaining to the rights of the Jews to settle Eretz Yisrael - they remained intact.

 

[irosie91]

bond you are skating on thin ice we have already been informed that the war of
1948 NEVER HAPPENED ---there was no fighting by arab muslims against jews by
any arab muslims from any country. There was violence---consisting only of mass
executions and death marches imposed on arab muslims by jews. It was during this time
that the CONCENTRATION CAMP of GAZA was created by THE JEWS I know about'
this INFAMOUS CONCENTRATION CAMP IN ISRAEL because I read about it in 1960---It was
a small magazine style publication complete with pictures of starving people behind
barbed wire. It was PUBLISHED, IT WAS A REAL MAGAZINE LOOKING THING-----and
I believed it-------so it must be true I was a bit young ----but not stupid----I KNEW WHAT
A CONCENTRATION CAMP IS

 

[MJB12741]

I have to disagree. There are indeed occupied territories in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And unless & until Israel finds a way to end it by freeing the Palestinians back to their indigenous homelands, there will be no peace.

The Myth of Occupied Territories

One of the most misused, misapplied, and misunderstood definitions in the dictionary of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the term "occupied territories." The vast majority of people simply do not know the facts or misinterpret them, thus completely distorting the real picture of the land distribution between the Arabs and the Jews. The truth of the matter is that, according to international law, the Jews have the complete and unquestionable right to settle the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (collectively known as Yesha). Not a single enforceable international document exists that forbids them from settling the lands of Yesha.

On the contrary, the only existing enforceable document actually encourages Jewish settlement. This document was created on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference when the Principal Allied Powers agreed o assign the Mandate for the territory of Palestine to Great Britain. By doing so the League of Nations "recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and established "grounds for econstituting their national home in that country." Article 6 of the Mandate "encouraged close settlement by Jews on the land," including the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha). There is nothing whatsoever in the Mandate that separates Yesha from the rest of the mandated territory. That means that the right of the Jews to settle the land spreads to the whole of Palestine. As a side note it is worth mentioning that the 76% of the territory of Mandated Palestine known today as Jordan, were not permanently exempt from settlement by the Jews either. Article 25 only allowed to "postpone or withhold application of [this] provision."

With the disbanding of the League of Nations, the rights of the Jews to settle the territories of Palestine, including Yesha, were not hurt. When in 1946 the United Nations was created in place of the League of Nations, its Charter included Article 80 specifically to allow the continuation of existing Mandates (including the British Mandate). Article 80 stated that "nothing ... shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties."

Then in November 1947 came time for Resolution 181, which recommended the Partition of Palestine. Like all UN Resolutions pertaining to the Jewish-Arab conflict it was not enforceable. It was simply arecommendation, and the Arab countries rejected it. As the Syrian representative in the General Assembly stated:

"In the first place the recommendations of the General Assembly are not imperative on those to whom they are addressed. The General Assembly only gives advice and the parties to whom advice is addressed accept it when it is rightful and just and when it does not impair their fundamental rights" (1)

If the resolution had been implemented maybe it would be possible to argue that it replaced the San Remo Conference resolution, which had legitimized the rights of the Jews to settle in any place in Palestine. However, it was not only rejected by the Arabs, but in violation of the UN Charter they launched a military aggression against the newly reborn Jewish state thus invalidating the resolution. By the time of the cease-fire at the end of the War of Independence there was still no other enforceable document pertaining to the rights of the Jews to settle Eretz Yisrael - they remained intact.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is true that Jewish citizens of Palestine can live anywhere they want. It says so in Palestine's constitution.

 

[DreyfussRan]

The Myth of Occupied Territories

One of the most misused, misapplied, and misunderstood definitions in the dictionary of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the term "occupied territories." The vast majority of people simply do not know the facts or misinterpret them, thus completely distorting the real picture of the land distribution between the Arabs and the Jews. The truth of the matter is that, according to international law, the Jews have the complete and unquestionable right to settle the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (collectively known as Yesha). Not a single enforceable international document exists that forbids them from settling the lands of Yesha.

On the contrary, the only existing enforceable document actually encourages Jewish settlement. This document was created on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference when the Principal Allied Powers agreed o assign the Mandate for the territory of Palestine to Great Britain. By doing so the League of Nations "recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and established "grounds for econstituting their national home in that country." Article 6 of the Mandate "encouraged close settlement by Jews on the land," including the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha). There is nothing whatsoever in the Mandate that separates Yesha from the rest of the mandated territory. That means that the right of the Jews to settle the land spreads to the whole of Palestine. As a side note it is worth mentioning that the 76% of the territory of Mandated Palestine known today as Jordan, were not permanently exempt from settlement by the Jews either. Article 25 only allowed to "postpone or withhold application of [this] provision."

With the disbanding of the League of Nations, the rights of the Jews to settle the territories of Palestine, including Yesha, were not hurt. When in 1946 the United Nations was created in place of the League of Nations, its Charter included Article 80 specifically to allow the continuation of existing Mandates (including the British Mandate). Article 80 stated that "nothing ... shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties."

Then in November 1947 came time for Resolution 181, which recommended the Partition of Palestine. Like all UN Resolutions pertaining to the Jewish-Arab conflict it was not enforceable. It was simply arecommendation, and the Arab countries rejected it. As the Syrian representative in the General Assembly stated:

"In the first place the recommendations of the General Assembly are not imperative on those to whom they are addressed. The General Assembly only gives advice and the parties to whom advice is addressed accept it when it is rightful and just and when it does not impair their fundamental rights" (1)

If the resolution had been implemented maybe it would be possible to argue that it replaced the San Remo Conference resolution, which had legitimized the rights of the Jews to settle in any place in Palestine. However, it was not only rejected by the Arabs, but in violation of the UN Charter they launched a military aggression against the newly reborn Jewish state thus invalidating the resolution. By the time of the cease-fire at the end of the War of Independence there was still no other enforceable document pertaining to the rights of the Jews to settle Eretz Yisrael - they remained intact.

Agentbond...I'm going to take a wild guess that you are a mongoloid...are you familiar with residency rights acquired over a 13 century period? Does the UN Charter ring any cosncious bells in that otherwise vacant space between your ears...it amazes me that you simpleminded agitprop-automotons churn this shit out with nary a clue a to what any of it means...you are a mindless reciter of lies...ask yourself where the term "occupied territories" originated, and the body of the world that acknolwledges it...moron

 

[Billo_Really]

If the resolution had been implemented maybe it would be possible to argue that it replaced the San Remo Conference resolution, which had legitimized the rights of the Jews to settle in any place in Palestine. However, it was not only rejected by the Arabs, but in violation of the UN Charter they launched a military aggression against the newly reborn Jewish state thus invalidating the resolution. By the time of the cease-fire at the end of the War of Independence there was still no other enforceable document pertaining to the rights of the Jews to settle Eretz Yisrael - they remained intact.

You cannot move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there for generations.

 

[Hossfly]

The Myth of Occupied Territories

One of the most misused, misapplied, and misunderstood definitions in the dictionary of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the term "occupied territories." The vast majority of people simply do not know the facts or misinterpret them, thus completely distorting the real picture of the land distribution between the Arabs and the Jews. The truth of the matter is that, according to international law, the Jews have the complete and unquestionable right to settle the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (collectively known as Yesha). Not a single enforceable international document exists that forbids them from settling the lands of Yesha.

On the contrary, the only existing enforceable document actually encourages Jewish settlement. This document was created on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference when the Principal Allied Powers agreed o assign the Mandate for the territory of Palestine to Great Britain. By doing so the League of Nations "recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and established "grounds for econstituting their national home in that country." Article 6 of the Mandate "encouraged close settlement by Jews on the land," including the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha). There is nothing whatsoever in the Mandate that separates Yesha from the rest of the mandated territory. That means that the right of the Jews to settle the land spreads to the whole of Palestine. As a side note it is worth mentioning that the 76% of the territory of Mandated Palestine known today as Jordan, were not permanently exempt from settlement by the Jews either. Article 25 only allowed to "postpone or withhold application of [this] provision."

With the disbanding of the League of Nations, the rights of the Jews to settle the territories of Palestine, including Yesha, were not hurt. When in 1946 the United Nations was created in place of the League of Nations, its Charter included Article 80 specifically to allow the continuation of existing Mandates (including the British Mandate). Article 80 stated that "nothing ... shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties."

Then in November 1947 came time for Resolution 181, which recommended the Partition of Palestine. Like all UN Resolutions pertaining to the Jewish-Arab conflict it was not enforceable. It was simply arecommendation, and the Arab countries rejected it. As the Syrian representative in the General Assembly stated:

"In the first place the recommendations of the General Assembly are not imperative on those to whom they are addressed. The General Assembly only gives advice and the parties to whom advice is addressed accept it when it is rightful and just and when it does not impair their fundamental rights" (1)

If the resolution had been implemented maybe it would be possible to argue that it replaced the San Remo Conference resolution, which had legitimized the rights of the Jews to settle in any place in Palestine. However, it was not only rejected by the Arabs, but in violation of the UN Charter they launched a military aggression against the newly reborn Jewish state thus invalidating the resolution. By the time of the cease-fire at the end of the War of Independence there was still no other enforceable document pertaining to the rights of the Jews to settle Eretz Yisrael - they remained intact.

Agentbond...I'm going to take a wild guess that you are a mongoloid...are you familiar with residency rights acquired over a 13 century period? Does the UN Charter ring any cosncious bells in that otherwise vacant space between your ears...it amazes me that you simpleminded agitprop-automotons churn this shit out with nary a clue a to what any of it means...you are a mindless reciter of lies...ask yourself where the term "occupied territories" originated, and the body of the world that acknolwledges it...moron

How to win friends and influence people: Be a pompous ass and insult strangers. That's how a dickheaded colledge perfesser with a BS in BS does it.

 

[irosie91]

I am trying to understand why arabs can live in Israel -----but somehow ----the idea of jews living in such places as HEBRON seems illegal to some people

 

[Hossfly]

I am trying to understand why arabs can live in Israel -----but somehow ----the idea of jews living in such places as HEBRON seems illegal to some people

Palestinian mentality, as MJB puts it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I am trying to understand why arabs can live in Israel -----but somehow ----the idea of jews living in such places as HEBRON seems illegal to some people

It is perfectly legal for Palestinian Jews to live anywhere in Palestine.

Article 9

Palestinians shall be equal before the law and the judiciary, without distinction based upon race, sex, color, religion, political views or disability.

Article 20

Freedom of residence and movement shall be guaranteed within the limits of the law.

2003 Amended Basic Law | The Palestinian Basic Law

 

[Billo_Really]

The Myth of Occupied Territories

One of the most misused, misapplied, and misunderstood definitions in the dictionary of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the term "occupied territories." The vast majority of people simply do not know the facts or misinterpret them, thus completely distorting the real picture of the land distribution between the Arabs and the Jews. The truth of the matter is that, according to international law, the Jews have the complete and unquestionable right to settle the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (collectively known as Yesha). Not a single enforceable international document exists that forbids them from settling the lands of Yesha.

On the contrary, the only existing enforceable document actually encourages Jewish settlement. This document was created on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference when the Principal Allied Powers agreed o assign the Mandate for the territory of Palestine to Great Britain. By doing so the League of Nations "recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and established "grounds for econstituting their national home in that country." Article 6 of the Mandate "encouraged close settlement by Jews on the land," including the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha). There is nothing whatsoever in the Mandate that separates Yesha from the rest of the mandated territory. That means that the right of the Jews to settle the land spreads to the whole of Palestine. As a side note it is worth mentioning that the 76% of the territory of Mandated Palestine known today as Jordan, were not permanently exempt from settlement by the Jews either. Article 25 only allowed to "postpone or withhold application of [this] provision."

With the disbanding of the League of Nations, the rights of the Jews to settle the territories of Palestine, including Yesha, were not hurt. When in 1946 the United Nations was created in place of the League of Nations, its Charter included Article 80 specifically to allow the continuation of existing Mandates (including the British Mandate). Article 80 stated that "nothing ... shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties."

Then in November 1947 came time for Resolution 181, which recommended the Partition of Palestine. Like all UN Resolutions pertaining to the Jewish-Arab conflict it was not enforceable. It was simply arecommendation, and the Arab countries rejected it. As the Syrian representative in the General Assembly stated:

"In the first place the recommendations of the General Assembly are not imperative on those to whom they are addressed. The General Assembly only gives advice and the parties to whom advice is addressed accept it when it is rightful and just and when it does not impair their fundamental rights" (1)

If the resolution had been implemented maybe it would be possible to argue that it replaced the San Remo Conference resolution, which had legitimized the rights of the Jews to settle in any place in Palestine. However, it was not only rejected by the Arabs, but in violation of the UN Charter they launched a military aggression against the newly reborn Jewish state thus invalidating the resolution. By the time of the cease-fire at the end of the War of Independence there was still no other enforceable document pertaining to the rights of the Jews to settle Eretz Yisrael - they remained intact.

The problem with your argument is that the Mandate also stipulated that Zionists could create the state of Israel in Palestine, provided they did not infringe upon the inalienable rights of the existing non-Jewish population in that area. But Zionists didn't care about the rights of indigenous arabs that had been living there for generations. Zionists migrated in with apartheid racists policies and drove out over 700,000 arab residents with the use of jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.

There are over 100 UN resolutions confirming Israel has no right to that land. Resolution 242 and 338 are UNSC resolutions and are "binding" by law. The "occupation" is not a debatable issue. It's been going on for 47 years and you sure the fuck ain't gonna redefine now.

 

[pbel]

The Myth of Occupied Territories

One of the most misused, misapplied, and misunderstood definitions in the dictionary of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the term "occupied territories." The vast majority of people simply do not know the facts or misinterpret them, thus completely distorting the real picture of the land distribution between the Arabs and the Jews. The truth of the matter is that, according to international law, the Jews have the complete and unquestionable right to settle the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (collectively known as Yesha). Not a single enforceable international document exists that forbids them from settling the lands of Yesha.

On the contrary, the only existing enforceable document actually encourages Jewish settlement. This document was created on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference when the Principal Allied Powers agreed o assign the Mandate for the territory of Palestine to Great Britain. By doing so the League of Nations "recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and established "grounds for econstituting their national home in that country." Article 6 of the Mandate "encouraged close settlement by Jews on the land," including the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha). There is nothing whatsoever in the Mandate that separates Yesha from the rest of the mandated territory. That means that the right of the Jews to settle the land spreads to the whole of Palestine. As a side note it is worth mentioning that the 76% of the territory of Mandated Palestine known today as Jordan, were not permanently exempt from settlement by the Jews either. Article 25 only allowed to "postpone or withhold application of [this] provision."

With the disbanding of the League of Nations, the rights of the Jews to settle the territories of Palestine, including Yesha, were not hurt. When in 1946 the United Nations was created in place of the League of Nations, its Charter included Article 80 specifically to allow the continuation of existing Mandates (including the British Mandate). Article 80 stated that "nothing ... shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties."

Then in November 1947 came time for Resolution 181, which recommended the Partition of Palestine. Like all UN Resolutions pertaining to the Jewish-Arab conflict it was not enforceable. It was simply arecommendation, and the Arab countries rejected it. As the Syrian representative in the General Assembly stated:

"In the first place the recommendations of the General Assembly are not imperative on those to whom they are addressed. The General Assembly only gives advice and the parties to whom advice is addressed accept it when it is rightful and just and when it does not impair their fundamental rights" (1)

If the resolution had been implemented maybe it would be possible to argue that it replaced the San Remo Conference resolution, which had legitimized the rights of the Jews to settle in any place in Palestine. However, it was not only rejected by the Arabs, but in violation of the UN Charter they launched a military aggression against the newly reborn Jewish state thus invalidating the resolution. By the time of the cease-fire at the end of the War of Independence there was still no other enforceable document pertaining to the rights of the Jews to settle Eretz Yisrael - they remained intact.

The problem with your argument is that the Mandate also stipulated that Zionists could create the state of Israel in Palestine, provided they did not infringe upon the inalienable rights of the existing non-Jewish population in that area. But Zionists didn't care about the rights of indigenous arabs that had been living there for generations. Zionists migrated in with apartheid racists policies and drove out over 700,000 arab residents with the use of jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.

There are over 100 UN resolutions confirming Israel has no right to that land. Resolution 242 and 338 are UNSC resolutions and are "binding" by law. The "occupation" is not a debatable issue. It's been going on for 47 years and you sure the fuck ain't gonna redefine now.

What these crazies figure is if they repeat a lie long enough that most of the Western world will forget and adapt and come to their aid...they forget that 1.2 billion Muslims will not...

If a real acceptable peace does not happen then continuous war will, until Israel is exhausted.

 

[docmauser1]

There are indeed occupied territories in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And unless & until Israel finds a way to end it by freeing the Palestinians back to their indigenous homelands, there will be no peace.

"So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population." Winnie Churchill
Very much "indigenous" arabs with "homelands".

 

[docmauser1]

It is true that Jewish citizens of Palestine can live anywhere they want. It says so in Palestine's constitution.

Palestine's no mo, so, what "constitution" are we babbling about?

 

[docmauser1]

...you are a mindless reciter of lies...ask yourself where the term "occupied territories" originated, ...

As John R. Bolton put it "Legal scholars have debated for years whether the Fourth Geneva Convention even applies to the West Bank and Gaza. In fact, Arab diplomats have boasted that one of their key objectives immediately after the Six-Day War was to make the term "occupied territories" the standard nomenclature to describe these lands..."

 

[docmauser1]

You cannot move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there for generations.

What do native americans have to say on that?

 

[docmauser1]

The "occupation" is not a debatable issue.

Indeed, it's an arab bullshitt issue.

 

[RoccoR]

AgentBond007, et al,

Who said it was not "implemented?" Certainly not the UN. (Another Palestinian Myth!)

The text of the General Assembly resolution adopted last Friday night as it refers to the Commission reads:

"The General Assembly,

"Having adopted a resolution providing for the appointment of a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities,

"Resolves to express its full appreciation for the work performed by the Palestine Commission in pursuance of its mandate from the General Assembly."​

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."

In the face of these developments it could not be said that the Partition Plan could not be implemented peacefully or that it was unworkable.

It was not correct to assert that the Security Council had decided not to assume the task entrusted to it by the Assembly. The Council had merely decided to postpone a decision on this matter until the five permanent Members had had an opportunity to confer among themselves concerning the best means of implementing the Assembly resolution of November 29 and of drawing up the recommendations to be given by the Council to the Palestine Commission. This demonstrated clearly that, far from refusing to support the Assembly, the Security Council had every intention of devising a concrete program for implementing the resolution of November 29.

During one of their meetings, the five permanent members of the Security Council had been presented with a nine-point implementation program by the Jewish Agency. Not only had there been no action on that program, but it seemed that it had not even been discussed. The Jewish Agency had been forced to conclude that the decision to thrust aside the Assembly resolution had been arrived at by certain members of the Security Council even before the Council met to consider the matter.

The facts of the situation were simple: confronted with Arab threats and acts of violence, the Security Council had faltered, retreated and, confronted with defiance, capitulated. The proposal to abandon the Partition Plan was, in effect, an invitation to the United Nations as a whole to emulate the example of the Security Council, i.e., to capitulate likewise. Violence was to be appeased, aggression to be rewarded, and law was to yield to terrorism. There was a very real danger that the United Nations might repeat the mistakes of the League of Nations when the latter failed to act in the face of Japanese aggression in China, Fascist Italy's attack upon Ethiopia, and Nazi Germany's subjugation of Czechoslovakia.

Arab reaction to the Assembly's resolution of November 29 was no mere non-compliance, but a violation of the Charter with its ban on recourse to the threat or use of force in international relations, save in the common interest.

The report of the Palestine Commission had clearly established the facts in the situation. Partition had become a reality in Palestine.

SOURCE: 1949.I.13 31 December 1948

SOURCE: PAL/169 17 May 1948

If the resolution had been implemented maybe it would be possible to argue that it replaced the San Remo Conference resolution, which had legitimized the rights of the Jews to settle in any place in Palestine. However, it was not only rejected by the Arabs, but in violation of the UN Charter they launched a military aggression against the newly reborn Jewish state thus invalidating the resolution. By the time of the cease-fire at the end of the War of Independence there was still no other enforceable document pertaining to the rights of the Jews to settle Eretz Yisrael - they remained intact.

(COMMENT)

The rejection by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) and their independent demands, did not stop the implementation of the portion related to the Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

AgentBond007, et al,

Who said it was not "implemented?" Certainly not the UN. (Another Palestinian Myth!)

The text of the General Assembly resolution adopted last Friday night as it refers to the Commission reads:

"The General Assembly,

"Having adopted a resolution providing for the appointment of a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities,

"Resolves to express its full appreciation for the work performed by the Palestine Commission in pursuance of its mandate from the General Assembly."​

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."

In the face of these developments it could not be said that the Partition Plan could not be implemented peacefully or that it was unworkable.

It was not correct to assert that the Security Council had decided not to assume the task entrusted to it by the Assembly. The Council had merely decided to postpone a decision on this matter until the five permanent Members had had an opportunity to confer among themselves concerning the best means of implementing the Assembly resolution of November 29 and of drawing up the recommendations to be given by the Council to the Palestine Commission. This demonstrated clearly that, far from refusing to support the Assembly, the Security Council had every intention of devising a concrete program for implementing the resolution of November 29.

During one of their meetings, the five permanent members of the Security Council had been presented with a nine-point implementation program by the Jewish Agency. Not only had there been no action on that program, but it seemed that it had not even been discussed. The Jewish Agency had been forced to conclude that the decision to thrust aside the Assembly resolution had been arrived at by certain members of the Security Council even before the Council met to consider the matter.

The facts of the situation were simple: confronted with Arab threats and acts of violence, the Security Council had faltered, retreated and, confronted with defiance, capitulated. The proposal to abandon the Partition Plan was, in effect, an invitation to the United Nations as a whole to emulate the example of the Security Council, i.e., to capitulate likewise. Violence was to be appeased, aggression to be rewarded, and law was to yield to terrorism. There was a very real danger that the United Nations might repeat the mistakes of the League of Nations when the latter failed to act in the face of Japanese aggression in China, Fascist Italy's attack upon Ethiopia, and Nazi Germany's subjugation of Czechoslovakia.

Arab reaction to the Assembly's resolution of November 29 was no mere non-compliance, but a violation of the Charter with its ban on recourse to the threat or use of force in international relations, save in the common interest.

The report of the Palestine Commission had clearly established the facts in the situation. Partition had become a reality in Palestine.

SOURCE: 1949.I.13 31 December 1948

SOURCE: PAL/169 17 May 1948

If the resolution had been implemented maybe it would be possible to argue that it replaced the San Remo Conference resolution, which had legitimized the rights of the Jews to settle in any place in Palestine. However, it was not only rejected by the Arabs, but in violation of the UN Charter they launched a military aggression against the newly reborn Jewish state thus invalidating the resolution. By the time of the cease-fire at the end of the War of Independence there was still no other enforceable document pertaining to the rights of the Jews to settle Eretz Yisrael - they remained intact.

(COMMENT)

The rejection by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) and their independent demands, did not stop the implementation of the portion related to the Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes it did. No land was transferred to Israel for its state.

Israel had to put its state inside Palestine.

 

[pbel]

You cannot move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there for generations.

What do native americans have to say on that?

the difference is, the Muslims have the overwhelming manpower to get it back in time.