International Law: Jerusalem Belongs To Israel

[MJB12741]

Iraq was called Mesopotamia. Get it yet?

Iraq was called French mandate and before that it was called Mesopotamia.

You are pathetic. Butthurt67.

Hello again dipshit. How old are you? Iraq and Syria were part of the Ottoman Empire and after it collapsed they became part of the French mandate.

Who gives a shat. Iraq was called Mesopotamia and it was Ottoman territory for 600 years, like most of the Middle East, before coming under British or French mandates.

LOL!!! You're such an idiot!!!!!!

Not only are you wrong about Iraq/Mesopotamia being a French Mandate, but you're wrong about international law giving Jerusalem to Israel.

Go back to school.

 

[aris2chat]

Iraq was called French mandate and before that it was called Mesopotamia.

You are pathetic. Butthurt67.

Hello again dipshit. How old are you? Iraq and Syria were part of the Ottoman Empire and after it collapsed they became part of the French mandate.

Who gives a shat. Iraq was called Mesopotamia and it was Ottoman territory for 600 years, like most of the Middle East, before coming under British or French mandates.

LOL!!! You're such an idiot!!!!!!

Not only are you wrong about Iraq/Mesopotamia being a French Mandate, but you're wrong about international law giving Jerusalem to Israel.

Go back to school.

Zor sanjak became part of the Baghdad vilayet for a time and part of the Aleppo vilayet later on. Armenians and Kurdish areas.
Zor was part of the French mandate.

Yes, take your own advice and go back to school. You obviously don't know much, especially when it come to the middle east. I'm sure your feet would look much better out of your mouth.

 

[MJB12741]

I love him for the laughs he gives us.



QUOTE=aris2chat;8765122]

Iraq was called French mandate and before that it was called Mesopotamia.

You are pathetic. Butthurt67.

Who gives a shat. Iraq was called Mesopotamia and it was Ottoman territory for 600 years, like most of the Middle East, before coming under British or French mandates.

LOL!!! You're such an idiot!!!!!!

Not only are you wrong about Iraq/Mesopotamia being a French Mandate, but you're wrong about international law giving Jerusalem to Israel.

Go back to school.

Zor sanjak became part of the Baghdad vilayet for a time and part of the Aleppo vilayet later on. Armenians and Kurdish areas.
Zor was part of the French mandate.

Yes, take your own advice and go back to school. You obviously don't know much, especially when it come to the middle east. I'm sure your feet would look much better out of your mouth.

[/QUOTE]

 

[aris2chat]

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.

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.

Unfortunately, it seems some of them

are a tad hard headed

 

[Billo_Really]

You didn't read the article didya?

How the **** could I address specific claims from your article, if I didn't read it?

Care to answer that one, Mr. Wizard?

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.

And those documents did not give any part of the West Bank, Golan Heights, Gaza or East Jerusalem, to the Zionists.

What those documents did do, was give 70% of the land, to 10% of the population.

And it didn't..

Tell that to the over 700,000 Palestinian-arabs that were driven from their homes by jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.

The portion of Palestine that became Israel was fully assimiliated.

Do you fully assimilate garbage? Because that's how Palestinian's are treated.

Do you call this assimilation?

"...the settlers must under no circumstances arouse the wrath of the natives ... 'Yet what do our brethren do in Palestine? Just the very opposite! Serfs they were in the lands of the Diaspora and suddenly they find themselves in unrestricted freedom and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination ...'
- Ahad Ha'am (famous Zionist humanist)

Is that what you call assimilation?

A fact that is reflected in the Arab political parties and Knesset representation that has ALWAYS existed within the Jewish state..

Like the Nakba Law? Or "jew only" roads and communities?

You folks just don't have any LEGAL analysis to back up your assertions..

Over 100 UN resolutions against Israel, say you're wrong.

While the predominance of scholarly and legal opinion is there for everyone to see. All 10 pounds of it.

Then watch where you step.

I can tell, you have no interest in looking at this issue objectively and honestly.

 

[aris2chat]

There isn't one and you know it, just as there is no law giving Palestine to the muslims exclusively. But there is a law that give the Jews control over all the land of Palestine and the people who live there.

That is a lie. There is no law giving the Jews exclusive ownership of Palestine.

Would you prefer quran or bible? English or arabic, or german?

 

[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?

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.

Well, waddya know... you actually got one half-right, for once.

Article 102 states...

1. Every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it.

2. No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations.

https://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter16.shtml

Which pertains to treaties created AFTER the ratification of the UN Charter, and not BEFORE, as you alluded to here...

so, which is this amazing international law that says Jerusalem belongs to Israel?

You have asserted that no international treaty is recognized unless registered at the UN.

Let me rephrase that.

No international treaty signed before the ratification of the UN Charter, is valid until it is registered with the UN.

Article 102 merely states that any treaty not 'registered' with the UN Secretariat may not be brought before the UN for purposes of enforcement.

That does not mean that two or more sovereign nations cannot legally enter into a treaty that is not registered with the UN.

That merely means that enforcement of such a treaty is entirely up to the stakeholder parties themselves.

And, let's face it, having your treaty published in the UN's records and proceedings is not a guarantee that the UN will enforce the treaty on your behalf or even rule on it as legal or illegal - it just means that it is public knowledge - and that there is some slim chance that you might be able to utilize the UN or its judicial organ(s) for enforcement or arbitration purposes.

It always helps to have your treaty recognized internationally but recognition does not guarantee legality nor enforce-ability; merely recognition of its existence, and a pathway to international arbitration services.

You were closer to being right the first time (post-UN Charter) than after your re-phrasing. Clearly, you were operating off of some old memory or another and just winging it, and backed down when challenged, when you should have dug in your heels and served-up the Original Position Reinforcement, which would have at least bought you some time.

And you were close to being right about the old League of Nations registration of international treaties as well, with the same caveats about registration not guaranteeing either legality nor enforce-ability, and with the additional caveat that the League shook apart as an impractical and crippled mode of governance, in much the same fashion that the UN is at risk of a similar fate.

All in all, you were more right than wrong about that one, and I learned something.

Credit where credit is due.

Thank you.

I will continue to posit that UN recognition of a treaty does not make or un-make the Legality of a treaty - merely its enforce-ability utilizing organs of the UN.

But I will move forward bearing in mind the practical limitations of a treaty that cannot be brought before the UN or its organs for arbitration.

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

I, for one, have never claimed that one exists.

I merely claim that it doesn't matter.

Israel owns it now.

They aren't going to give it back.

And I fully support that position.

 

[MJB12741]

I detest those Zionists for their treatment of Palesstinians. Peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions so they can remain in Israel. Face it folks, no Arab country, who know the Palestinians best, ever treated them like those Zionists in Israel do.

You didn't read the article didya?

How the **** could I address specific claims from your article, if I didn't read it?

Care to answer that one, Mr. Wizard?

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.

And those documents did not give any part of the West Bank, Golan Heights, Gaza or East Jerusalem, to the Zionists.

What those documents did do, was give 70% of the land, to 10% of the population.

Tell that to the over 700,000 Palestinian-arabs that were driven from their homes by jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.

Do you fully assimilate garbage? Because that's how Palestinian's are treated.

Do you call this assimilation?

Is that what you call assimilation?


Like the Nakba Law? Or "jew only" roads and communities?

You folks just don't have any LEGAL analysis to back up your assertions..

Over 100 UN resolutions against Israel, say you're wrong.

While the predominance of scholarly and legal opinion is there for everyone to see. All 10 pounds of it.

Then watch where you step.

I can tell, you have no interest in looking at this issue objectively and honestly.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

There isn't one and you know it, just as there is no law giving Palestine to the muslims exclusively. But there is a law that give the Jews control over all the land of Palestine and the people who live there.

That is a lie. There is no law giving the Jews exclusive ownership of Palestine.

Would you prefer quran or bible? English or arabic, or german?

Can we have all of them? I understand German a little because it's very similar to Yiddish.

 

[flacaltenn]

You didn't read the article didya?

How the **** could I address specific claims from your article, if I didn't read it?

Care to answer that one, Mr. Wizard?

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.

And those documents did not give any part of the West Bank, Golan Heights, Gaza or East Jerusalem, to the Zionists.

What those documents did do, was give 70% of the land, to 10% of the population.

Tell that to the over 700,000 Palestinian-arabs that were driven from their homes by jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.

Do you fully assimilate garbage? Because that's how Palestinian's are treated.

Do you call this assimilation?

Is that what you call assimilation?


Like the Nakba Law? Or "jew only" roads and communities?

You folks just don't have any LEGAL analysis to back up your assertions..

Over 100 UN resolutions against Israel, say you're wrong.

While the predominance of scholarly and legal opinion is there for everyone to see. All 10 pounds of it.

Then watch where you step.

I can tell, you have no interest in looking at this issue objectively and honestly.

And those documents did not give any part of the West Bank, Golan Heights, Gaza or East Jerusalem, to the Zionists.

What those documents did do, was give 70% of the land, to 10% of the population.

That is correct.. The San Remo conference was WAAAAAAY before Jordan lost the West Bank, Egypt lost the entire Sinai and Gaza, and Syria lost the Golan to Israel by starting a war.. San Remo further defined the PARTITION OF PALESTINE from a British Protectorate to the territories of Israel and Trans-Jordan. One as a Jewish homeland, and the other as a Palestinian Homeland.

Tell that to the over 700,000 Palestinian-arabs that were driven from their homes by jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.

Do you fully assimilate garbage? Because that's how Palestinian's are treated.

Do you call this assimilation?

Is that what you call assimilation?

Two DIFFERENT epochs of history.. The first associated with founding of Israel invited any Arab residents to PARTICIPATE in the sovereign government -- there was conflict with those that didn't recognize the government or had poor title to land rights. However -- ARAB Israelis played a part in the early government and CONTINUE to do so and are largely successfully assimilated..

Twenty years later, after the 67 war, Israelis did NOT invite the inhabitants of the occupied territorities into the government and treated the acquisitions as an OCCUPATION..
I believe that was a mistake. And those areas should have been FULLY ANNEXED intto Israel with the goal of returning those lands to soveriegn Pali control once infrastructure development, economic trade and integration of Arabs and Israelis was stabilized. It's an occupation gone badly. As MOST occupations do when they persist for DECADES..

But the problem got consistently WORSE after 67 as more war broke out and more substantially, JORDAN broke ties to the West Bank claims because THEY couldn't handle their OWN Palestinian issues.. The King literally washed his hands of these uncontrollable renegades in the 70s and 80s.. The possibility of assimilation at THAT POINT was gone.

So now Israel has virtually NO HELP from the Arab League or any other Arab partner to forge a legit and STABLE Palestinian government in those regions.. I blame Israel for not capitalizing on the opportunity to AVOID a 50 year occupation.. But I blame Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon et al --- for NOT caring enough about the outcome for Palestinians much more..

How's that for "objectivity" ?? Now YOU try it....

 

[aris2chat]

'NPR' denies the Nakba

 

[MJB12741]

BS. The Palestinians were driven out of their homes by their own Arab brothers in Arab countries. And not one of thiose Arab countries will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands. And now those stupid Zionists in Israel actually make peace oferings to the Palestinian squatters, build a security fence & give them their own land in Gaza only to be thanked with rocket missiles. When will Israel ever learn from king Hussein how to establish a lasting peace from Palestinians?

You didn't read the article didya?

How the **** could I address specific claims from your article, if I didn't read it?

Care to answer that one, Mr. Wizard?

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.

And those documents did not give any part of the West Bank, Golan Heights, Gaza or East Jerusalem, to the Zionists.

What those documents did do, was give 70% of the land, to 10% of the population.

Tell that to the over 700,000 Palestinian-arabs that were driven from their homes by jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.

Do you fully assimilate garbage? Because that's how Palestinian's are treated.

Do you call this assimilation?

Is that what you call assimilation?


Like the Nakba Law? Or "jew only" roads and communities?

You folks just don't have any LEGAL analysis to back up your assertions..

Over 100 UN resolutions against Israel, say you're wrong.

While the predominance of scholarly and legal opinion is there for everyone to see. All 10 pounds of it.

Then watch where you step.

I can tell, you have no interest in looking at this issue objectively and honestly.

 

[MJB12741]

For 19 years Jerusalem was once a divided city. The 6 day war put an end to that. And may Jerusalem forever remain Israel's alone.

BS. The Palestinians were driven out of their homes by their own Arab brothers in Arab countries. And not one of thiose Arab countries will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands. And now those stupid Zionists in Israel actually make peace oferings to the Palestinian squatters, build a security fence & give them their own land in Gaza only to be thanked with rocket missiles. When will Israel ever learn from king Hussein how to establish a lasting peace from Palestinians?

You didn't read the article didya?

How the **** could I address specific claims from your article, if I didn't read it?

Care to answer that one, Mr. Wizard?

And those documents did not give any part of the West Bank, Golan Heights, Gaza or East Jerusalem, to the Zionists.

What those documents did do, was give 70% of the land, to 10% of the population.

Tell that to the over 700,000 Palestinian-arabs that were driven from their homes by jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.

Do you fully assimilate garbage? Because that's how Palestinian's are treated.

Do you call this assimilation?

Is that what you call assimilation?


Like the Nakba Law? Or "jew only" roads and communities?

Over 100 UN resolutions against Israel, say you're wrong.

While the predominance of scholarly and legal opinion is there for everyone to see. All 10 pounds of it.

Then watch where you step.

I can tell, you have no interest in looking at this issue objectively and honestly.