International Law: Jerusalem Belongs To Israel

[aris2chat]

There is no international law making "East Jerusalem" part of Jerusalem.

That's why all nations should boycott all Israeli products and academics from these areas.

US congress is already planning to move the embassy to Jerusalem.
Canada, Czech, Costa Rica are building or remodeling buildings to use for their embassies.

 

[Roudy]

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.

Bullshat! Jordan became part of the mandate and was broken off into it's own Arab country even though it was designated as Arab Palestine. The greedy Arabs who had no say in any of the mandate of Palestine because it was not owned by the Arabs prior to the British mandate as it was Ottoman territory for 600 years, took Jordan as an Arab Muslim entity and then attacked the remainder which was designated to be Jewish territory.

Buttkicked in 48 + 67.

True story.

Your LEGAL document:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)

The British Mandate for Palestine, or simply the Mandate for Palestine, was a legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Empire sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros. The draft of the Mandate was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, amended via the 16 September 1922 Transjordan memorandum and which came into effect on 29 September 1923 following the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne. The mandate ended at midnight on 14 May 1948.
The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War. The mandate formalised British rule in the southern part of Ottoman Syria from 1923–1948.
The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone." The mandate document formalised the division of Palestine, to include a national home for the Jewish people under direct British rule, and Transjordan, an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain under the rule of the Hashemite family.

In March 1921 the Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, convened the Cairo Conference which endorsed an arrangement whereby Transjordan would be added to the Palestine mandate, with Abdullah as the emir under the authority of the High Commissioner, and with the condition that the Jewish National Home provisions of the Palestine mandate would not apply there.

On submission of the memorandum to the Council of the League of Nations, Balfour explained the background as recorded in the minutes: "Lord Balfour reminded his colleagues that Article 25 of the mandate for Palestine as approved by the Council in London on July 24th, 1922, provides that the territories in Palestine which lie east of the Jordan should be under a somewhat different regime from the rest of Palestine. ... The British Government now merely proposed to carry out this article. It had always been part of the policy contemplated by the League and accepted by the British Government, and the latter now desired to carry it into effect. In pursuance of the policy, embodied in Article 25, Lord Balfour invited the Council to pass a series of resolutions which modified the mandate as regards those territories. The object of these resolutions was to withdraw from Trans-Jordania the special provisions which were intended to provide a national home for the Jews west of the Jordan."

Now run along, Abdul. You just got owned.

 

[aris2chat]

Most people grow up with 2 sides of their families'--father's and mother's. I never knew my dad's side of the family. The more I read of the Holocaust, the more unbelievable it becomes. Netanyahu was right when he said that if the state of Israel had existed in the 1930's-40's, the Holocaust would never have happened.

And here lies the big irony (and tragedy) behind the creation of the state of Israel:

One would imagine that the victims of the worst supremacist state in recent History would be the last ones to impose a supremacist state on others.

Impose? Its those others who sold the land to the Jews, its those others who migrated to Israel because Israel offered freedom to everyone. Those others, the Arabs, the majority migrated to Israel because that was the only place to make money, money that Christians were spending building Israel.

You have your history backwards. Freedom is not imposed, it is sought and migrated too.

Arab population more than doubled in 8 yrs during the mandate mostly due to immigration.
British put quotas on the number of jews that could enter.

 

[Roudy]

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.

There's a lot of Muslim barbarism and intolerance that Defeat67+48 ignores. I wonder why?

 

[Roudy]

There is no international law making "East Jerusalem" part of Jerusalem.

That's why all nations should boycott all Israeli products and academics from these areas.

US congress is already planning to move the embassy to Jerusalem.
Canada, Czech, Costa Rica are building or remodeling buildings to use for their embassies.

Praise be to the Allah!

 

[Billo_Really]

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???

A 10 pound sack of shit!

Jackyboy is wrong on several points.

First off, the "Balfour Declaration" was made with the caveat that Zionists could create a "jewish state" in Palestine, provided that they respect the inalienable rights of the indigenous, non-Jewish population.

"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 this 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"
- Arthur James Balfour, 2 November 1917

Secondly, when the League of Nations dissolved, they transferred all their responsibility and authority over to the United Nations. So that rap about the Mandate superseding current UN resolutions, is a bunch of crap! UNSC resolutions are binding and they take precedence over any outdated League of Nations Mandate.

And third, resolution 242 tells Israel to get the **** out of the "occupied territories". East Jerusalem is part of those occupied territories. 242 is very clear that Israel must vacate all the territories it seized during the '67 war.

And finally, Theodore Herzl is a major asshole, just like most Zionists.

 

[aris2chat]

Some more:

He denies the Holocaust.
He has no real knowledge of the situation in Israel, having never been there.
He excuses Muslim atrocities, or just ignores/doesn't acknowledge them, including atrocities against his fellow "Christians".
He blames the Joos for everything, like forbidding Christmas in American public schools. (This is apparently a lesser crime than actually crucifying Christians.)
Back to you, toastman...

I have never denied the Holocaust, nor will I ever.

I am very knowledgeable about the situation in Israel/Palestine.

I never excuse Muslim atrocities.

Jews are responsible for the most important US Supreme Court cases that have killed prayer in American public schools. This is a fact.

wrong again

 

[aris2chat]

"There is no international law that says Jerusalem belongs to Israel..."

Maybe there is.

Maybe there isn't.

But it doesn't matter.

Israel holds it, and will continue to hold it.

It's theirs now.

"...No treaty is valid unless it is registered with the UN."

Really?

Was the START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) - a bilateral treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union (later, reaffirmed by the Russian Federation) 'registered' at the United Nations?

What agency does one go through in order to 'register' a treaty at the UN?

What processes does one go through in order to 'register' a treaty at the UN?

When was the START treaty registered with the UN?

Anybody else in the audience care to serve-up a treaty between countries, ratified after the creation of the United Nations, that was not 'registered' at the UN?

V is so confused. The puppy chasing his own tail and getting nowhere.

 

[Phoenall]

the mandate of palestine

which is no longer valid.

the mandate expired decades ago.

Still enshrined in International Law, it has never been repealed. So that is the International law that gives Jerusalem to Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

which is no longer valid.

the mandate expired decades ago.

Oh really?

Yes,

The Mandate expired just before Israel declared independence.

And there is no international law that makes Jerusalem part of Israel.

Don't they teach you ANYTHING in Nazionist school?

Another fail child

The British mandate ended at the same time as Israel declared independence, and was superceded at exactly the same time by the UNSCOP with exactly the same mandate.

The San Remo conference detailed the International Law at the time and gave the whole of the land to the Jews. This is still the case today and is why the ICJ can not take any action against Israel. Every head of state knows that the UN did the dirty on the Jews and will not take action against the slow spread of Israel into the west bank. The land is theirs by right and INTERNATIONAL LAW

 

[Phoenall]

Enough of the personal insults. Just because you lose every issue you debate there is no need to lose your temper.

Nothing has negated the San Remo Mandate. You should know that as it has been explained to you often enough.

The San Remo Conference was 94 years ago.

Its no longer valid, you idiot.

There is no international law that gives Jerusalem to Israel.

Then do show were it was repealed and who repealed it child, The findings of San Remo still stand because if the don't then Syria, Iraq and Jordan no longer exist as they were part of the INTERNATIONAL LAW that was the outcome. Will you tell these nations that they have to go because you don't want the INTERNATIONAL LAW that created them to be used by Israel.

Another massive fail by you child, maybe you should take more interest in History at school

 

[Phoenall]

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

San Remo Conference that set up the partition of Palestine. If you say it has been repealed then all the arab muslims will have to pack up and go elsewhere. No more Iraq, Syria or Jordan as they were created by the SAME INTERNATIONAL LAW as gave Jerusalem to the Jews.

 

[Phoenall]

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...

He cant do that as it would destroy his stand on there not being any International Law that gives Jerusalem to the Jews. As the San Remo conference and the mandate for Palestine have both been accepted as International Law by the UNGC. It was one of the first old League of Nations rulings that the UN accepted as valid and enshrined it into LAW.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Hold on just a minute, not that long ago you were saying that 181 did not apply as it was never acted on by the Palestinians.
But the San Remo conference has been accepted as INTERNATIONAL LAW by the UN, just as the mandate for Palestine was. It was only later that the UN realised they had made a mistake and had broken International law by partitioning Palestine as they did.
So under UN law and International law all of Palestine belongs to Israel

 

[Phoenall]

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.

SAN REMO CONFERENCE and the MANDATE OF PALESTINE. both accepted by the un as de facto and de jure INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Just as Article 80 of the UN charter stops Palestine from being recognised as a state as it breaches International Law.

Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.

As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the “Palestinian Authority.” Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.

It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920. Or put another way, no part of Palestine was allotted for an Arab National Home or state, since Arab self-determination was being generously granted elsewhere – in Syria, Iraq, Arabia, Egypt and North Africa – which has led to the establishment of the 21 Arab states of today, over a vast land mass from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. There is thus no necessity for a new independent Arab State in the specific area of former Mandated Palestine reserved for Jewish self-determination, most particularly, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Creating such a state out of Jewish land would be blatantly illegal under Article 80 of the UN Charter and beyond the legal authority of the UN itself.

In this respect, neither the League of Nations nor its successor, the United Nations, ever had sovereign rights over the land we Jews call Eretz-Israel. As a non-sovereign, the UN has no power whatsoever to allot territory to the “Palestinian Authority” where the allotted territory already belongs to the Jewish People.

Moreover, there is no article in the UN Charter which gives either the Security Council or the General Assembly or even the Trusteeship Council the power to create a new independent state. If the UN had such power, then logically it would also have the inverse power to “de-create” or dismember an existing state, a power it certainly does not enjoy under the UN Charter. If, theoretically speaking, this power did exist, the UN would be in effect a world legislature that could make or unmake states by its own volition, a power that would put in jeopardy the present world order.

For the foregoing reasons, the bill introduced in the US Congress by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is definitely the proper course of action to follow. UN illegality needs to be roundly condemned and stopped dead in its tracks by an appropriate punitive measure, exactly as Ros-Lehtinen has proposed. Her bill would be even more worthy if it were to include a direct reference to Article 80 and to the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory for that purpose, accomplished through the devious or underhanded means of accepting the applicant’s request for membership in the world body.


So there you have it child the full aspect of INTERNATIONAL LAW as written down in the UN charter and accepted by all member states that show Jerusalem is for ever Jewish

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Article 80 of the UN charter says that all of Palestine in Jewish, read all about it child and see that the BDS is nothing more than racism. You fail again.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

WRONG another massive fail by you.

Read all about Article 80 of the UN charter

 

[aris2chat]

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.

>>The mandatory Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure that an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948. <<

If you don't know, ask nicely or shut up and just listen and learn.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Only because they refused to accept it, now they want to turn the clocks back to 1948. The fact is International law states that all of Palestine is Jewish.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Another massive fail child. You see the san remo conference which was the precursor to the mandate was what set up the framework for the partitioning of Palestine. So trans Jordan as a British protectorate did not come into existence until some time after the Mandate did. The same International Law that gives the rest of Palestine to the Jews also gave Transjordan to the arab muslims

Transjordan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia