International Law: Jerusalem Belongs To Israel

[Phoenall]

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.

Try again as the area known as Transjordan was a BRITISH PROTECTORATE UNDER THE MANDATE OF PALESTINE. It did not become self autonomous until 1946.

Transjordan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Phoenall]

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.

The "Zionists" did respect the inalienable rights of the indigenous, non-Jewish population.
Right up until they disrespected the Jews inalienable rights and invaded Israel. Then the rights of the arab muslims were lost for ever.



UNSC resolutions are not binding they are nothing more than recommendations, as such they do not take precedence over treaties that came into International Law before the UN was formed. The only part of the UN that is enshrined in Law is the charter, and article 80 states that all of Palestine is Jewish.

As for 242 it does not say that Israel has to get out of the occupied territories at all, it does say
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force

The two are intertwined and one can not be implemented without the other.

Did you know that the Palestinians rejected 242 because it meant they would have no easy path to murder Jewish children ?

 

[Victory67]

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.

Article 80 says nothing about Israel.

It doesn't even mention Israel.

 

[Billo_Really]

The "Zionists" did respect the inalienable rights of the indigenous, non-Jewish population.
Right up until they disrespected the Jews inalienable rights and invaded Israel. Then the rights of the arab muslims were lost for ever.



UNSC resolutions are not binding they are nothing more than recommendations, as such they do not take precedence over treaties that came into International Law before the UN was formed. The only part of the UN that is enshrined in Law is the charter, and article 80 states that all of Palestine is Jewish.

As for 242 it does not say that Israel has to get out of the occupied territories at all, it does say
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force

The two are intertwined and one can not be implemented without the other.

Did you know that the Palestinians rejected 242 because it meant they would have no easy path to murder Jewish children ?

How old are you? Because you certainly don't talk like a responsible adult. You talk more like a 15 year old kid who never does his homework, yet thinks he knows everything.

Residents do not "invade" their own homeland, they "defend" it, dumbass!

 

[MJB12741]

Right on! You tell 'em kiddo. Defending their homeland is exactly what Israel is doing. And who said Billo is an imbecile?

The "Zionists" did respect the inalienable rights of the indigenous, non-Jewish population.
Right up until they disrespected the Jews inalienable rights and invaded Israel. Then the rights of the arab muslims were lost for ever.



UNSC resolutions are not binding they are nothing more than recommendations, as such they do not take precedence over treaties that came into International Law before the UN was formed. The only part of the UN that is enshrined in Law is the charter, and article 80 states that all of Palestine is Jewish.

As for 242 it does not say that Israel has to get out of the occupied territories at all, it does say
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force

The two are intertwined and one can not be implemented without the other.

Did you know that the Palestinians rejected 242 because it meant they would have no easy path to murder Jewish children ?

How old are you? Because you certainly don't talk like a responsible adult. You talk more like a 15 year old kid who never does his homework, yet thinks he knows everything.

Residents do not "invade" their own homeland, they "defend" it, dumbass!

 

[aris2chat]

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.

Article 80 says nothing about Israel.

It doesn't even mention Israel.

Article 80 and the UN Recognition of a ?Palestinian State? | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com

The charter text is legalize and does not mention names only terms like administering authority, trustee, trust territory and mandate

 

[Roudy]

The "Zionists" did respect the inalienable rights of the indigenous, non-Jewish population.
Right up until they disrespected the Jews inalienable rights and invaded Israel. Then the rights of the arab muslims were lost for ever.



UNSC resolutions are not binding they are nothing more than recommendations, as such they do not take precedence over treaties that came into International Law before the UN was formed. The only part of the UN that is enshrined in Law is the charter, and article 80 states that all of Palestine is Jewish.

As for 242 it does not say that Israel has to get out of the occupied territories at all, it does say
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force

The two are intertwined and one can not be implemented without the other.

Did you know that the Palestinians rejected 242 because it meant they would have no easy path to murder Jewish children ?

How old are you? Because you certainly don't talk like a responsible adult. You talk more like a 15 year old kid who never does his homework, yet thinks he knows everything.

Residents do not "invade" their own homeland, they "defend" it, dumbass!

Since when did Arab invaders become "residents"? PCP brain.

 

[Victory67]

Since when did Arab invaders become "residents"? PCP brain.

The Arabs have lived there for generations, you dumb ass.

Still waiting for that curent law that gave EJ to Israel.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Since when did Arab invaders become "residents"? PCP brain.

The Arabs have lived there for generations, you dumb ass.

Still waiting for that curent law that gave EJ to Israel.

When you say EJ, are you talking about Abu Dis, Silwan, etc. or the Old City?

 

[MJB12741]

For three generations the Palestinians have squatted on Israel's land without any deeds.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Nope... I published the archives of US State Dept showing that Jordan was informed that their annexation of the West Bank WAS recognized by US.. It belonged to Jordan as far as we were concerned and Jordan gave FULL recognition and recognition to the "palestinians" as citizens of Jordan..

2nd or 3rd paragraph in :

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cg...FRUS1950v05.p0943&id=FRUS.FRUS1950v05&isize=M

http://images.library.wisc.edu/FRUS/EFacs/1950v05/M/0942.jpg
http://images.library.wisc.edu/FRUS/EFacs/1950v05/M/0943.jpg

 

[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???

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.

You didn't read the article didya? And you're not paying attention to the British definition of Palestine. TransJordan was Palestine. Israel was Palestine as far as the documents are concerned. The PARTITION is what was outlined in San Remo. San Remo DEFINED the partition.

..... it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine

And it didn't.. The portion of Palestine that became Israel was fully assimiliated. A fact that is reflected in the Arab political parties and Knesset representation that has ALWAYS existed within the Jewish state..

You folks just don't have any LEGAL analysis to back up your assertions.. While the predominance of scholarly and legal opinion is there for everyone to see. All 10 pounds of it.

 

[Roudy]

Since when did Arab invaders become "residents"? PCP brain.

The Arabs have lived there for generations, you dumb ass.

Still waiting for that curent law that gave EJ to Israel.

Jews have been there longer than Arabs, moron. The region was Ottoman territory for 600 years and there is record of Jews defending Hebron from the Crusaders about 600 years ago. Last I checked there weren't that many Ottoman Turks in the land to claim "ownership". The Arabs have not owned this land for 700 years roughly, so they really had NO SAY in it's destiny. They are recent 20th century invaders. The British have records of the Arab invasion from neighboring Arab lands during the Palestine mandate years in the early to mid 1900's. Arabs are invaders and conquerors that raped and looted people and lands, that is how most of the middle east became Arab / Islamic lands.

True story.

 

[Roudy]

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.

Nope... I published the archives of US State Dept showing that Jordan was informed that their annexation of the West Bank WAS recognized by US.. It belonged to Jordan as far as we were concerned and Jordan gave FULL recognition and recognition to the "palestinians" as citizens of Jordan..

2nd or 3rd paragraph in :

FRUS: Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa: Israel

http://images.library.wisc.edu/FRUS/EFacs/1950v05/M/0942.jpg
http://images.library.wisc.edu/FRUS/EFacs/1950v05/M/0943.jpg

Jordanians were extremely *NICE* to their Arab Palestinian brethren. In three days during what is known as "Black September" they massacred more "innocent" Palestinians than Israel has in 60 years.

 

[Victory67]

Nope... I published the archives of US State Dept showing that Jordan was informed that their annexation of the West Bank WAS recognized by US.. It belonged to Jordan as far as we were concerned and Jordan gave FULL recognition and recognition to the "palestinians" as citizens of Jordan..

2nd or 3rd paragraph in :

FRUS: Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa: Israel

http://images.library.wisc.edu/FRUS/EFacs/1950v05/M/0942.jpg
http://images.library.wisc.edu/FRUS/EFacs/1950v05/M/0943.jpg

The US State Dept. recognized Jordanian soverignity over the West Bank, which they called "Arab Palestine".

 

[Victory67]

Jews have been there longer than Arabs, moron. The region was Ottoman territory for 600 years and there is record of Jews defending Hebron from the Crusaders about 600 years ago. Last I checked there weren't that many Ottoman Turks in the land to claim "ownership". The Arabs have not owned this land for 700 years roughly, so they really had NO SAY in it's destiny. They are recent 20th century invaders. The British have records of the Arab invasion from neighboring Arab lands during the Palestine mandate years in the early to mid 1900's. Arabs are invaders and conquerors that raped and looted people and lands, that is how most of the middle east became Arab / Islamic lands.

True story.

Evidence says that the Muslim Arabs of Palestine, are descended from Muslim Arabs, Turks, Egyptians, Circassians, Bosnians, Kurds, Persians, who migrated to Palestine over the last 2,000 years...and Judeans who converted to Islam.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Since when did Arab invaders become "residents"? PCP brain.

The Arabs have lived there for generations, you dumb ass.

Still waiting for that curent law that gave EJ to Israel.

When you say EJ, are you talking about Abu Dis, Silwan, etc. or the Old City?

Clarification is needed. Because the Old City will never be given up.

 

[Victory67]

Clarification is needed. Because the Old City will never be given up.

why do Jews need to control the Muslim Quarter?

 

[Roudy]

Jews have been there longer than Arabs, moron. The region was Ottoman territory for 600 years and there is record of Jews defending Hebron from the Crusaders about 600 years ago. Last I checked there weren't that many Ottoman Turks in the land to claim "ownership". The Arabs have not owned this land for 700 years roughly, so they really had NO SAY in it's destiny. They are recent 20th century invaders. The British have records of the Arab invasion from neighboring Arab lands during the Palestine mandate years in the early to mid 1900's. Arabs are invaders and conquerors that raped and looted people and lands, that is how most of the middle east became Arab / Islamic lands.

True story.

Evidence says that the Muslim Arabs of Palestine, are descended from Muslim Arabs, Turks, Egyptians, Circassians, Bosnians, Kurds, Persians, who migrated to Palestine over the last 2,000 years...and Judeans who converted to Islam.

Wow, that was ******* vague. DNA evidence suggests that Yemenite Muslims and certain people from the Caucasus have closer links to Jewish people than do the Palestinians who are recent invaders from neighboring Arab countries.

In other words, your response was meaningless drivel.

 

[aris2chat]

Since when did Arab invaders become "residents"? PCP brain.

The Arabs have lived there for generations, you dumb ass.

Still waiting for that curent law that gave EJ to Israel.

Jews have lived there for millenia.