International Law: Jerusalem Belongs To Israel

[Kondor3]

Oh now I get it. You see folks, the San Reno conference was 94 years ago so it's no longer valid. Just like the US Constitution of 1787 is no longer valid, right Vic?

The San Remo Conference has been superceded by the UN recognition of the State of Israel, and the UN resolutions calling for the implementation of UN resolution 181, which Israel agreed to.

Israel agreed to UN Resolution 181, which does not recognize Jerusalem as belonging to Israel.

UN Resolution 181 was the original basis for the creation of the State of Israel and provided a rough guideline for land apportionment, tweaked by fighting between the Arabs and Jews, after the Arabs attacked them.

UN Resolution 181 was rejected by the Arab League and by the Palestinians for a very long time, and the aspect of 181 which was supposed to set aside Jerusalem as an international city was itself set aside by Jordan as it annexed the West Bank and much of Jerusalem in 1949-1950 and made the Palestinians into Jordanian citizens.

Those aspects of 181 - negated by the Arabs themselves - were buried once and for all by the Jordanian attack upon Israel in 1967, and Israel's utter defeat of the Jordanians, and Israel's capture of those former Jordanian-held lands.

Had the Arabs played ball regarding 181, as the Jews initially and happily set out to do, then the Arabs would not be dealing now with the consequences of their own foolishness and intransigence.

In truth, the Arabs shot themsevles in the foot, and are now hopping-around on one shoe in this metaphorical context.

 

[Kondor3]

still waiting for someone to name that international law that gives Jerusalem to Israel.

And, on a related note... how is your homework coming along, in substantiating your claim that no Treaty enacted before the ratification of the UN Charter is valid unless that Treaty is 'registered' with the UN?

 

[Victory67]

still waiting for someone to name that international law that gives Jerusalem to Israel.

And, on a related note... how is your homework coming along, in substantiating your claim that no Treaty enacted before the ratification of the UN Charter is valid unless that Treaty is 'registered' with the UN?

Chapter XVI of the United Nations Charter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article 102 bans secret treaties. Under this article, all international treaties must be registered with, and published by, the UN Secretariat. The article also states that secret treaties concluded in violation of this provision are unenforceable before UN bodies. Secret treaties were believed to have played a role in the events leading to World War I. Accordingly, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson had proposed banning them in the 1910s, and the League of Nations had created a special bureau of treaty registration under the League of Nations Secretary-General and had set aside a section of the League of Nations Journal for treaty publication.[1] Article 18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations held that "Every treaty or international engagement entered into hereafter by any Member of the League shall be forthwith registered with the Secretariat and shall as soon as possible be published by it. No such treaty or international engagement shall be binding until so registered," so Article 102 is basically a continuation of this policy.


now, name the international treaty, registered with the UN, that gives Jerusalem to Israel.

 

[Roudy]

the mandate of palestine

which is no longer valid.

the mandate expired decades ago.

Sez who? You? Arabs? IslamoNazis?

LOL GET OVER YOURSELF.

 

[Roudy]

Still waiting for someone, anyone, to name the still in-effect international law that gives Jerusalem to Israel.

Perhaps you'll find someone willing to give you that answer...

Right after you complete your homework assignment from last night...

You know...

The assignment where you substantiate your claim that no Treaty enacted before the ratification of the UN Charter is valid today unless that Treaty has been 'registered' with the UN...

Are you kidding?
I'm still waiting over a month for vic to supply the name of a history book covering the Roman Conquest of Israel.
Vic rejects any and all non-pro Muslim history.

Could it be because he's a Muslim himself? Just throwing out a wild guess here.

 

[Victory67]

Sez who? You? Arabs? IslamoNazis?

LOL GET OVER YOURSELF.

Are you saying the Mandate for Palestine is still active and being administered?

lol!!!!!!!!!

 

[Roudy]

Sez who? You? Arabs? IslamoNazis?

LOL GET OVER YOURSELF.

Are you saying the Mandate for Palestine is still active and being administered?

lol!!!!!!!!!

I am saying the mandate was the initial plan aka AGREEMENT, TREATY created by those who controlled the land, the British, so therefore BY LAW the Arabs violated it by attacking Israel. Which after many hurtful butt kicks doesn't give them the Arabs the land or Jerusalem, BY LAW.

Read all 'bout it. True story.

 

[Victory67]

I am saying the mandate was the initial plan aka AGREEMENT, TREATY created by those who controlled the land, the British, so therefore BY LAW the Arabs violated it by attacking Israel. Which after many hurtful butt kicks doesn't give them the Arabs the land or Jerusalem, BY LAW.

Read all 'bout it. True story.

The Mandate for Palestine was not a treaty, or an agreement, for the future of Palestine.

It was merely a very undetailed, unthorough plan or general idea of what to do with the land.

The White Papers and commissions issued since 1920 elaborated and added to the plan for Palestine, and Jewish control of the entire territory was certainly not the idea.

Clearly, the Jews and Arabs would share Palestine.

 

[Victory67]

The Mandate for Palestine called for a Jewish homeland to be created in Palestine.

But as time went on, it was clear that the Jews could not have all of Palestine, and the land must be either partitioned or shared.

In 1939, the British issued a White Paper, which decided that Palestine would not be partitioned but instead shared by the Arabs and Jews of Palestine.

 

[flacaltenn]

Forget politics ? Who has legal right to Jerusalem? | JPost | Israel News

Gauthier’s thesis is 1200 pages, weighs 10 pounds and contains over 3200 footnotes.Gauthier has presented his findings to the Japanese parliament, the House of Commons in London, the European parliament in Brussels and a congressional committee in Washington. Gauthier, who is Christian, said that he became interested in Jerusalem’s status after traveling to the city in 1982-1983.

Gauthier begins his overview of the issues with Theodore Herzl in 1896-1897 and the Balfour Declara


Gauthier says that the San Remo Conference was the “final hearing” of a “world court,” the council of the five leading nations and victors of World War I. The “case” before the “court” began at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, where both the Jews and the Arabs of the Middle East submitted claims to the council to obtain independence and control of various territories. Gauthier calls April 24-25 in San Remo the “key defining moment in history” on the issue of title to Jerusalem and says that Chaim Weizmann called the decision the “most important moment for the Jewish people since the exile.”

Gauthier is not the first scholar to cite these conferences as supporting Jewish rights to Jerusalem. However, what is distinct about Gauthier’s claim is the argument that the conference is a singular and decisive legal event that wipes out all competing legal events.

So Vic67 --- you got a 1200 page, 10 pound PhD thesis that says different???

 

[Roudy]

I am saying the mandate was the initial plan aka AGREEMENT, TREATY created by those who controlled the land, the British, so therefore BY LAW the Arabs violated it by attacking Israel. Which after many hurtful butt kicks doesn't give them the Arabs the land or Jerusalem, BY LAW.

Read all 'bout it. True story.

The Mandate for Palestine was not a treaty, or an agreement, for the future of Palestine.

It was merely a very undetailed, unthorough plan or general idea of what to do with the land.

The White Papers and commissions issued since 1920 elaborated and added to the plan for Palestine, and Jewish control of the entire territory was certainly not the idea.

Clearly, the Jews and Arabs would share Palestine.

Yes the Jews got their Palestine and the Arabs got their Muslim Palestine. That was the agreement by those who controlled the land, sanctioned by the UN after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The Arabs didn't like there to be any Jewish Palestine whatsoever and attacked and got their butts kicked bad. TOUGH SHI'ITE.

Israel has history and law on its side Arabs have JACK.

Can you read maps?

 

[Roudy]

The Mandate for Palestine called for a Jewish homeland to be created in Palestine.

But as time went on, it was clear that the Jews could not have all of Palestine, and the land must be either partitioned or shared.

In 1939, the British issued a White Paper, which decided that Palestine would not be partitioned but instead shared by the Arabs and Jews of Palestine.

It was partitioned as such, but the greedy Arabs didn't accept it. They wanted all of the Middle East to be Islamic cesspools.

 

[Victory67]

Yes the Jews got their Palestine and the Arabs got their Muslim Palestine.

No part of the Palestine, set aside to be a Jewish homeland, was ever given to the Arabs.

 

[Roudy]

Yes the Jews got their Palestine and the Arabs got their Muslim Palestine.

No part of the Palestine, set aside to be a Jewish homeland, was ever given to the Arabs.

Then what do you Jordan was? And how why and when did Jordan come to be? Jordan IS "ARAB PALESTINE". Ha ha ha.

 

[Roudy]

So to conclude the OP is correct. The British, aka those who controlled the mandate, decided to give the Jews everything east of the Jordan river which included Jerusalem, and the intolerant Arab Muslims everything West.

Arabs violated the law and attacked Israel and got a massive buttkick, from which they are still reeling today.

 

[Victory67]

Yes the Jews got their Palestine and the Arabs got their Muslim Palestine.

No part of the Palestine, set aside to be a Jewish homeland, was ever given to the Arabs.

Then what do you Jordan was? And how why and when did Jordan come to be? Jordan IS "ARAB PALESTINE". Ha ha ha.

The Mandate for Palestine came into affect after Transjordan was created.

And according to the United States, the West Bank is Arab Palestine.

 

[Roudy]

No part of the Palestine, set aside to be a Jewish homeland, was ever given to the Arabs.

Then what do you Jordan was? And how why and when did Jordan come to be? Jordan IS "ARAB PALESTINE". Ha ha ha.

The Mandate for Palestine came into affect after Transjordan was created.

And according to the United States, the West Bank is Arab Palestine.

No siree. The mandate for Palestine included Jordan. You want maps? I got maps. LOL

Defeat 67.

 

[Victory67]

No siree. The mandate for Palestine included Jordan. You want maps? I got maps. LOL

Defeat 67.

Transjordan became an independent protectorate on April 25th, 1923.

The Mandate for Palestine, governed by the UK, came into affect on September 29th, 1923.

 

[aris2chat]

Israel invented E Jerusalem??? **** you're stupid. Its the Palestinians and their leaders and their supporters who mention E Jerusalem whereas many Israelis only recognize it as Jerusalem. Yes Israel did annex it but they didnt invent it.

Israel illegally annexed West Bank land, and now calls it "Jerusalem".

Its not Jerusalem. Its as if D.C. annexed Maryland and called it all Washington, D.C.

No one will ever recognize the eastern and northern parts of the city as belonging to Israel.

Never. No nation will ever put someone's birthplace as "Israel" if they were born outside the Green Line.

Deal with it, little Ms. *****.

Do you not realize that Jerusalem, the old walled city, was divided in half with bared wire, checkpoints, bricked up roads? Jews could see the wall from up stair windows of houses near by, but could not cross over to pray there. Jordanians had destroyed or dessicated synagogues, grave yards and any sites revered. Anything jewish was fouled as toilets or pens for animals. Jews that had lived in the western part of the city or in the WB was forced, often after being tortured or maimed. Property they legally owned was taken from them. Property purchased and registered legally was nullified by the Jordanians. Women and children were often raped and brutalized before they could leave.
The green line was just a ceasefire line. It has left Israel vulnerable in times of arab attacks and wars. It was not intended to be a permanent border line.

 

[MJB12741]

Yep, it is what it is. I guess Vic isn't too happy about that.

So to conclude the OP is correct. The British, aka those who controlled the mandate, decided to give the Jews everything east of the Jordan river which included Jerusalem, and the intolerant Arab Muslims everything West.

Arabs violated the law and attacked Israel and got a massive buttkick, from which they are still reeling today.