Israel Should Just Employ the Geneva Conventions

[Boston1]

Most declarations of war don't actually use the term war. And I don't think I've ever read one that wasn't a litany of excuses for the aggressor to send in the army.

So yeah, you just shot yourself in the foot again.

Also the GC definition of war is very clear on this matter.

Quote

• Art 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
• Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
• The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
• Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
• Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
• provisions:
• (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
• (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
• (b) taking of hostages;
• (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
• (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
• (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
• An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
• The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
• The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
• Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
• (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
• (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
• (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
• (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
• (c) that of carrying arms openly;
• (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
• (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
• (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
• (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
• (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
• B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
• (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
• (2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
• C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
• Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

End Quote

So there Spiffy ( check the highlighted area in red ) it really doesn't matter if the Arab Muslims are willing to recognize the war as a war or even if they started it, it still falls under the GC.

Boom

 

[Challenger]

Most declarations of war don't actually use the term war. And I don't think I've ever read one that wasn't a litany of excuses for the aggressor to send in the army.

Well yes they do, otherwise they wouldn't be "declarations of war".

So yeah, you just shot yourself in the foot again.

Not so much, I just challenged your assinine assertions in posts #172 and #183 and provided evidence to support my case.

So there Spiffy ( check the highlighted area in red ) it really doesn't matter if the Arab Muslims are willing to recognize the war as a war or even if they started it, it still falls under the GC.

Seems you now accept my position. Good, I can move on to demolish the rest of this silly thread of yours.

 

[Boston1]

#1
Again not real bright. The document offered to the UN by the League of nations is most certainly a declaration of war. Simply because you don't comprehend the legal developments with the UN charter that prohibit both the threat and use of aggressive force in international conflict which made it politically disadvantageous to use the term war in the Arab League declaration, doesn't mean it wasn't a declaration of war and actually does meet the qualifications as a declaration of war because it created a condition of war.

Boom

PS
You're an idiot. I can't believe you even argued that.

#2
My assertions were that the secretary general of the Arab League stated the following which admitted the situation created by the Arab League declaration the previous day was a one of war.

Quote

"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

End Quote

Which pretty well shot down any nonsense you might have forwarded denying that the Arab League had declared war on Israel and that as such the Geneva Conventions may be applied

The best you could do was drivel on about where the statement was first published ;--))

You failed completely to show that the document was not a declaration of war. You have never addressed the fact that it declared a condition of war.

You cannot deny the Arab Leagues secretary generals use of the term war in reference to the declaration or his assertions of it being a war of genocide, instead you presented an argument about where the statements in question were first published. Hardly a viable refutation of the facts.

PS
Again, a childish obfuscation of a simple truth that didn't fool anyone.

#3
Again you are confused. At no point have you argued the GC conditions for war. Or can you provide a reference to the link where you did? My contention all along has been that it doesn't matter what the Arab Muslims argue, it only only matters what the GC defines as a state of war. That definition includes the following

Quote

• Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
• The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
• Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

End Quote

Which fully supports my view and the view I've been forwarding throughout the thread.

You are apparently confused again as you have never as far as I've seen, supported that view.

In any case it doesn't really matter what you think as Israel with reservation has signed the conventions and as such a state of war only need be recognized by one party to the conflict in order for the conventions to apply.

Boom

Looks like once again your debating skills have failed you there Spiffy.

The Arab league did declare war
Israel is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions
As a war the Geneva Conventions apply
The war need only be recognized by one of the parties to the conflict.

If the Israeli's deny its a war or the application of the Geneva Conventions it doesn't matter because the Arab League nations have signed as has Abbas and the Arab Muslims of Israel and if the Arab Muslims of Israel deny its a war it does't matter because Israel signed and anytime they wish to they could clear out the terrorist scum under the Geneva Conventions rules of engagement.

 

[Phoenall]

All this discussion and you simply don't get it do you Monty.

UNR 181 is a general assembly resolution rejected by all Arab states able to vote at the time. As such is was a suggestion, not even remotely a legally binding act.

The fact that Arab League declared war on March 15 and attacked the fledgling Israeli state put the entire issue into a whole new light.

A nations right to defend itself.

Israel won, several times and today. THERE IS NO PALESTINE.

It is true that resolution 181 was stillborn.

However,

The Arab League did not declare war on Israel and there is no evidence that any Arab armies entered Israeli territory.

WRONG AGAIN as 181 was an either or resolution. it did not need two parties to agree on the outcome

If they entered any of the land designated as Jewish Palestine then they entered Israeli territory. This included gaza, west bank, Golan heights and Jerusalem. So who entered gaza, west bank, Golan heights and Jerusalem in 1947 with the intention of wiping out the Jews

If they entered any of the land designated as Jewish Palestine then they entered Israeli territory.​

Link to land given to a Jewish Palestine.

Here you go for the thousandth time, why don't you save it and then you wont keep asking for it



Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:


PALESTINE


INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.


Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -

North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

There is nothing in your post that answers my question. It doesn't mention giving that land to the Jews.

Try reading the full report where it does, but don't forget to read the Mandate of Palestine at the same time.


Here is the heading again


Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:



Is that any clearer for you when added to the mandate that states the borders will be determined by the LoN at a future date

 

[Phoenall]

...They have some long convoluted reasoning which I don't happen to agree with.

They also have people highly qualified in international law, but hey, you clearly know best.

More qualified than you could ever be, and decidedly more qualified than any islamonazi terrorist. Which is why you don't have an argument to the Israeli position and so try and ignore it as much as possible. The fact remains the Israelis are working with the rules of IHL and the Geneva conventions at all times

 

[Phoenall]

So, if BDS calls for boycott until Israel abides by international law, why don't they just do it?

And what international law is Israel not abiding by, and by that I mean a real law and not a UN recommendation that has no power at all.

 

[Phoenall]

Yeah, while my favorite was when you tried to tell us that the Arab League hadn't declared war and when presented with the Arab League chairmans own words declaring it not only a war but a war of genocide against the Judaic people the best you could come up with was some lame and unfounded accusations about where the admission was published first. That one was a hoot.

You were quoting verbatim Eli E. Hertz' blog/website The Arab League at War with Israel I merely demonstrated he was making things up and playing fast and loose with the facts, just like our "bovine" friend here.

I'll let readers make up their own minds, "Declaration of war" or "Declaration of an intervention in order to restore the peace and the rule of law"?

"10. Now that the Mandate over Palestine has come to an end, leaving no legally constituted authority behind in order to administer law and order in the country and afford the necessary and adequate protection to life and property, the Arab States declare as follows:

(a) The right to set up a Government in Palestine pertains to its inhabitants under the principles of self-determination recognized by the Covenant of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter;

(b) Peace and order have been completely upset in Palestine, and, in consequence of Jewish aggression, approximately over a quarter of a million of the Arab population have been compelled to leave their homes and emigrate to neighbouring Arab countries. The prevailing events in Palestine exposed the concealed aggressive intentions of the Zionists and their imperialistic motives, as clearly shown in their acts committed upon those peaceful Arabs and villagers of Deer Yasheen, Tiberias, and other places, as well as by their encroachment upon the building and bodies of the inviolable consular codes, manifested by their attack upon the Consulate in Jerusalem.

(c) The Mandatory has already announced that on the termination of the Mandate it will no longer be responsible for the maintenance of law and order in Palestine except in the camps and areas actually occupied by its forces, and only to the extent necessary for the security of those forces and their withdrawal. This leaves Palestine absolutely without any administrative authority entitled to maintain, and capable of maintaining, a machinery of administration of the country adequate for the purpose of ensuring due protection of life and property. There is further the threat that this lawlessness may spread to the neighbouring Arab States where feeling is already very tense on account of the prevailing conditions in Palestine. The respective members of the Arab League, and as Members of the United Nations at the same time, feel gravely perturbed and deeply concerned over this situation.

(d) It was the sincere wish of the Arab States that the United Nations might succeed in arriving at a fair and just solution of the Palestine problem, thus establishing a lasting peace for the country under the precepts of the democratic principles and in conformity with the Covenant of the League of Nations and the United Nations Charter.

(e) They are responsible in any … by virtue of their responsibility as members of the Arab League which is a regional organization within the meaning of Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. The recent disturbances in Palestine further constitute a serious and direct threat to peace and security within the territories of the Arab States themselves. For these reasons, and considering that the security of Palestine is a sacred trust for them, and out of anxiousness to check the further deterioration of the prevailing conditions and to prevent the spread of disorder and lawlessness into the neighbouring Arab lands, and in order to fill the vacuum created by the termination of the Mandate and the failure to replace it by any legally constituted authority, the Arab Governments find themselves compelled to intervene for the sole purpose of restoring peace and security and establishing law and order in Palestine.

The Arab States recognize that the independence and sovereignty of Palestine which was so far subject to the British Mandate has now, with the termination of the Mandate, become established in fact, and maintain that the lawful inhabitants of Palestine are alone competent and entitled to set up an administration in Palestine for the discharge of all governmental functions without any external interference. As soon as that stage is reached the intervention of the Arab States, which is confined to the restoration of peace and establishment of law and order, shall be put an end to, and the sovereign State of Palestine will be competent in co-operation with the other States members of the Arab League, to take every step for the promotion of the welfare and security of its peoples and territory.

The Governments of the Arab States hereby confirm at this stage the view that had been repeatedly declared by them on previous occasions, such as the London Conference and before the United Nations mainly, the only fair and just solution to the problem of Palestine is the creation of United State of Palestine based upon the democratic principles which will enable all its inhabitants to enjoy equality before the law, and which would guarantee to all minorities the safeguards provided for in all democratic constitutional States affording at the same time full protection and free access to Holy Places. The Arab States emphatically and repeatedly declare that their intervention in Palestine has been prompted solely by the considerations and for the aims set out above and that they are not inspired by any other motive whatsoever. They are, therefore, confident that their action will receive the support of the United Nations as tending to further the aims and ideals of the United Nations as set out in its Charter." Cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the Secretary-General of the United Nations - Wikisource, the free online library

....and this a direct announcement of, "a war of genocide against the Judaic (whoever they are supposed to be)people " or a bombastic warning of a worst case scenario if matters continue along their current course made at least 6 months before Zionist Israel declared it's "independance"

"I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine's Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving to us from [as far as] India, Afghanistan, and China to win the honor of martyrdom for the sake of Palestine … You might be surprised to learn that hundreds of Englishmen expressed their wish to volunteer in the Arab armies to fight the Jews.

"This war will be distinguished by three serious matters. First—faith: as each fighter deems his death on behalf of Palestine as the shortest road to paradise; second, [the war] will be an opportunity for vast plunder. Third, it will be impossible to contain the zealous volunteers arriving from all corners of the world to avenge the martyrdom of the Palestine Arabs, and viewing the war as dignifying every Arab and every Muslim throughout the world …

"The Arab is superior to the Jew in that he accepts defeat with a smile: Should the Jews defeat us in the first battle, we will defeat them in the second or the third battle … or the final one… whereas one defeat will shatter the Jew's morale! Most desert Arabians take pleasure in fighting. I recall being tasked with mediating a truce in a desert war (in which I participated) that lasted for nine months…While en route to sign the truce, I was approached by some of my comrades in arms who told me: 'Shame on you! You are a man of the people, so how could you wish to end the war … How can we live without war?' This is because war gives the Bedouin a sense of happiness, bliss, and security that peace does not provide! …

"I warned the Jewish leaders I met in London to desist from their policy, telling them that the Arab was the mightiest of soldiers and the day he draws his weapon, he will not lay it down until firing the last bullet in the battle, and we will fire the last shot …"

He [Azzam] ended his conversation with me by saying: "I foresee the consequences of this bloody war. I see before me its horrible battles. I can picture its dead, injured, and victims … But my conscience is clear … For we are not attacking but defending ourselves, and we are not aggressors but defenders against an aggression! …" Azzam's Genocidal Threat

UNSCR 54 The Avalon Project : United Nations Security Council Resolution 54; July 15, 1948 called on all fighting to stop, threatening U.N. intervention if it didn't. It came after the expiry of the first UN imposed truce. the Zionists accepted "in principle" but kept on fighting anyway (the first truce had allowed them to regroup, rearm and reorganise so any pause in hostilities worked in their favour) The Arabs, on the other hand, had not prepared for a war and had gambled on a swift early victory, and having used up most of their resources would only get weaker if the truce was extended. As events transpired both sides eventually accepted the second truce. There was no U.N. condemnation od any Arab agression in that resolution or any other at the time.

I wont go past the first sentence.............. When did the Mandate end as I cant find any official announcement to that fact. The British handed control to the UN on May 15 1948 who promptly passed it on to another committee that as far as I am aware is still in existence and looks after the mandate of palestine

 

[Phoenall]

Most declarations of war don't actually use the term war. And I don't think I've ever read one that wasn't a litany of excuses for the aggressor to send in the army.

Well yes they do, otherwise they wouldn't be "declarations of war".

So yeah, you just shot yourself in the foot again.

Not so much, I just challenged your assinine assertions in posts #172 and #183 and provided evidence to support my case.

So there Spiffy ( check the highlighted area in red ) it really doesn't matter if the Arab Muslims are willing to recognize the war as a war or even if they started it, it still falls under the GC.

Seems you now accept my position. Good, I can move on to demolish the rest of this silly thread of yours.

In the case of the 1967 war the Egyptians committed an act of war that was the start of the upcoming war when Israel responded by invading the Sinai. That act of war was the closing of the straits to Israeli vessels that was contrary to maritime law of the time. This was voiced by the US president at the time and by the US representative at the U.N

 

[Boston1]

It is true that resolution 181 was stillborn.

However,

The Arab League did not declare war on Israel and there is no evidence that any Arab armies entered Israeli territory.

WRONG AGAIN as 181 was an either or resolution. it did not need two parties to agree on the outcome

If they entered any of the land designated as Jewish Palestine then they entered Israeli territory. This included gaza, west bank, Golan heights and Jerusalem. So who entered gaza, west bank, Golan heights and Jerusalem in 1947 with the intention of wiping out the Jews

If they entered any of the land designated as Jewish Palestine then they entered Israeli territory.​

Link to land given to a Jewish Palestine.

Here you go for the thousandth time, why don't you save it and then you wont keep asking for it



Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:


PALESTINE


INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.


Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -

North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

There is nothing in your post that answers my question. It doesn't mention giving that land to the Jews.

Try reading the full report where it does, but don't forget to read the Mandate of Palestine at the same time.


Here is the heading again


Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:



Is that any clearer for you when added to the mandate that states the borders will be determined by the LoN at a future date

Well done.

I think allot of people are confused by that actually as I've heard the Arab Muslims argument before. They seem to have very selective memories.

I have to wonder if the entire Arab Muslim diatribe isn't dependent on half truths or outright lies.

for instance if the 1948 Arab declaration of war is actually a declaration of war or not. It was after all a notification to the international community that a condition of war now exists between the Arab League and Israel, was it not ?

 

[Boston1]

Yeah, while my favorite was when you tried to tell us that the Arab League hadn't declared war and when presented with the Arab League chairmans own words declaring it not only a war but a war of genocide against the Judaic people the best you could come up with was some lame and unfounded accusations about where the admission was published first. That one was a hoot.

You were quoting verbatim Eli E. Hertz' blog/website The Arab League at War with Israel I merely demonstrated he was making things up and playing fast and loose with the facts, just like our "bovine" friend here.

I'll let readers make up their own minds, "Declaration of war" or "Declaration of an intervention in order to restore the peace and the rule of law"?

"10. Now that the Mandate over Palestine has come to an end, leaving no legally constituted authority behind in order to administer law and order in the country and afford the necessary and adequate protection to life and property, the Arab States declare as follows:

(a) The right to set up a Government in Palestine pertains to its inhabitants under the principles of self-determination recognized by the Covenant of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter;

(b) Peace and order have been completely upset in Palestine, and, in consequence of Jewish aggression, approximately over a quarter of a million of the Arab population have been compelled to leave their homes and emigrate to neighbouring Arab countries. The prevailing events in Palestine exposed the concealed aggressive intentions of the Zionists and their imperialistic motives, as clearly shown in their acts committed upon those peaceful Arabs and villagers of Deer Yasheen, Tiberias, and other places, as well as by their encroachment upon the building and bodies of the inviolable consular codes, manifested by their attack upon the Consulate in Jerusalem.

(c) The Mandatory has already announced that on the termination of the Mandate it will no longer be responsible for the maintenance of law and order in Palestine except in the camps and areas actually occupied by its forces, and only to the extent necessary for the security of those forces and their withdrawal. This leaves Palestine absolutely without any administrative authority entitled to maintain, and capable of maintaining, a machinery of administration of the country adequate for the purpose of ensuring due protection of life and property. There is further the threat that this lawlessness may spread to the neighbouring Arab States where feeling is already very tense on account of the prevailing conditions in Palestine. The respective members of the Arab League, and as Members of the United Nations at the same time, feel gravely perturbed and deeply concerned over this situation.

(d) It was the sincere wish of the Arab States that the United Nations might succeed in arriving at a fair and just solution of the Palestine problem, thus establishing a lasting peace for the country under the precepts of the democratic principles and in conformity with the Covenant of the League of Nations and the United Nations Charter.

(e) They are responsible in any … by virtue of their responsibility as members of the Arab League which is a regional organization within the meaning of Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. The recent disturbances in Palestine further constitute a serious and direct threat to peace and security within the territories of the Arab States themselves. For these reasons, and considering that the security of Palestine is a sacred trust for them, and out of anxiousness to check the further deterioration of the prevailing conditions and to prevent the spread of disorder and lawlessness into the neighbouring Arab lands, and in order to fill the vacuum created by the termination of the Mandate and the failure to replace it by any legally constituted authority, the Arab Governments find themselves compelled to intervene for the sole purpose of restoring peace and security and establishing law and order in Palestine.

The Arab States recognize that the independence and sovereignty of Palestine which was so far subject to the British Mandate has now, with the termination of the Mandate, become established in fact, and maintain that the lawful inhabitants of Palestine are alone competent and entitled to set up an administration in Palestine for the discharge of all governmental functions without any external interference. As soon as that stage is reached the intervention of the Arab States, which is confined to the restoration of peace and establishment of law and order, shall be put an end to, and the sovereign State of Palestine will be competent in co-operation with the other States members of the Arab League, to take every step for the promotion of the welfare and security of its peoples and territory.

The Governments of the Arab States hereby confirm at this stage the view that had been repeatedly declared by them on previous occasions, such as the London Conference and before the United Nations mainly, the only fair and just solution to the problem of Palestine is the creation of United State of Palestine based upon the democratic principles which will enable all its inhabitants to enjoy equality before the law, and which would guarantee to all minorities the safeguards provided for in all democratic constitutional States affording at the same time full protection and free access to Holy Places. The Arab States emphatically and repeatedly declare that their intervention in Palestine has been prompted solely by the considerations and for the aims set out above and that they are not inspired by any other motive whatsoever. They are, therefore, confident that their action will receive the support of the United Nations as tending to further the aims and ideals of the United Nations as set out in its Charter." Cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the Secretary-General of the United Nations - Wikisource, the free online library

....and this a direct announcement of, "a war of genocide against the Judaic (whoever they are supposed to be)people " or a bombastic warning of a worst case scenario if matters continue along their current course made at least 6 months before Zionist Israel declared it's "independance"

"I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine's Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving to us from [as far as] India, Afghanistan, and China to win the honor of martyrdom for the sake of Palestine … You might be surprised to learn that hundreds of Englishmen expressed their wish to volunteer in the Arab armies to fight the Jews.

"This war will be distinguished by three serious matters. First—faith: as each fighter deems his death on behalf of Palestine as the shortest road to paradise; second, [the war] will be an opportunity for vast plunder. Third, it will be impossible to contain the zealous volunteers arriving from all corners of the world to avenge the martyrdom of the Palestine Arabs, and viewing the war as dignifying every Arab and every Muslim throughout the world …

"The Arab is superior to the Jew in that he accepts defeat with a smile: Should the Jews defeat us in the first battle, we will defeat them in the second or the third battle … or the final one… whereas one defeat will shatter the Jew's morale! Most desert Arabians take pleasure in fighting. I recall being tasked with mediating a truce in a desert war (in which I participated) that lasted for nine months…While en route to sign the truce, I was approached by some of my comrades in arms who told me: 'Shame on you! You are a man of the people, so how could you wish to end the war … How can we live without war?' This is because war gives the Bedouin a sense of happiness, bliss, and security that peace does not provide! …

"I warned the Jewish leaders I met in London to desist from their policy, telling them that the Arab was the mightiest of soldiers and the day he draws his weapon, he will not lay it down until firing the last bullet in the battle, and we will fire the last shot …"

He [Azzam] ended his conversation with me by saying: "I foresee the consequences of this bloody war. I see before me its horrible battles. I can picture its dead, injured, and victims … But my conscience is clear … For we are not attacking but defending ourselves, and we are not aggressors but defenders against an aggression! …" Azzam's Genocidal Threat

UNSCR 54 The Avalon Project : United Nations Security Council Resolution 54; July 15, 1948 called on all fighting to stop, threatening U.N. intervention if it didn't. It came after the expiry of the first UN imposed truce. the Zionists accepted "in principle" but kept on fighting anyway (the first truce had allowed them to regroup, rearm and reorganise so any pause in hostilities worked in their favour) The Arabs, on the other hand, had not prepared for a war and had gambled on a swift early victory, and having used up most of their resources would only get weaker if the truce was extended. As events transpired both sides eventually accepted the second truce. There was no U.N. condemnation od any Arab agression in that resolution or any other at the time.

I wont go past the first sentence.............. When did the Mandate end as I cant find any official announcement to that fact. The British handed control to the UN on May 15 1948 who promptly passed it on to another committee that as far as I am aware is still in existence and looks after the mandate of palestine

Thats an interesting point. I'd always thought the mandate expired however I've seen since being here on this particular forum several good arguments to indicate that the mandate is nothing less than a trust which transfer'd on to the UN just as you suggest.

I'm not sure who, within the UN is holding this in trust at this point tho. The mandate was after all set to expire on May 14 1948, but apparently that doesn't mean the trust didn't pass on given that no solution was found.

That is right up until the Arabs declared war at which point the Geneva Conventions take precedent.

Which really muddies the waters as the defending power ( Israel ) prevailed and eventually captured territory occupied by the aggressors ( Arab Muslims ) And brings the entire show to a whole other level.

 

[montelatici]

The Arab League did not declare war, they intervened in an attempt to prevent the expulsion and massacre of Muslims and Christians at the hands of the European colonists. As is clearly stated in the declaration:

"Cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (1948)

On the occasion of the intervention of Arab States in Palestine to restore law and order and to prevent disturbances prevailing in Palestine from spreading into their territories and to check further bloodshed, I have the honour to request your Excellency to bring following statement before General Assembly and Security Council.

1. Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire subject to its rule of law and enjoying full representation in its parliament, the great majority of its population was composed of Arabs with a small minority of Jews enjoying all rights alike with all the remaining citizens and liable only to such charges as all others were. Never were they as minority the subject of any discrimination on account of their creed. Holy Places were protected and accessible to all without distinction.

2. The Arabs have constantly been seeking their freedom and independence; when the Second World War broke out and the Allies declared that they were fighting to restore freedom to the nations the Arabs sided with the Allies and placed all their means at their disposal and in fact fought with them for the realization of their national aspirations and their independence. Great Britain took upon herself the recognition of the independence of the Arab countries in Asia including Palestine. The Arabs’ effort was felt and duly appreciated in winning victory.

3. Great Britain issued a declaration in 1917 in which expression was made of its sympathy with the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine. When this was brought to the knowledge of the Arabs they did not fail to express their resentment and opposition to such expression of policy and when they protested formally to Great Britain the latter made the necessary reassurances with a confirmation of the view that such a declaration did not affect in any degree their rights nor their freedom and independence, and that the said declaration did not prejudice the political position of the Arabs of Palestine notwithstanding the illegality of the said declaration. The British Government’s interpretation of it was that it meant no more than the establishment of a spiritual abode for the Jews in Palestine without there being any ulterior political motives such as the creation of a Jewish State, that being further the expressed views of the Jewish leaders at the time.

4. When the war ended Great Britain did not fulfil its pledges. Instead Palestine was placed under a Mandate entrusted to Great Britain. The terms of the Mandate provided for the safeguarding of the interests of the inhabitants of Palestine and their preparation for eventual independence to which they were entitled by virtue of the Covenant of the League of Nations which admitted that the inhabitants of Palestine were fit for it.

5. Great Britain however placed Palestine in such a position as made it possible for the Jews to flood the country with waves of immigrants and factually helped their establishment on the soil despite the saturation of the land with its population which did exceed the absorptive capacity of the country economically and otherwise, thereby neglecting the provided for interests and the rights of its lawful inhabitants. The Arabs used all means at all times to express their deep concern and anxiety at such a policy which they felt was undermining their future and their very existence. But at all such times they were met with utter disregard and harsh treatment such as jail, exile, etc.

6. And whereas Palestine is an Arab country falling in the heart of the Arab countries and attached to the Arab world with all bonds spiritual, historical, economical and strategical, the Arab States as well as Eastern countries, whether through their people or governments, could not but concern and interest themselves with the fate of Palestine. This is why they took upon themselves the task of handling its case before the international institutions generally and particularly before Great Britain, insisting upon a solution for the problem based upon undertaking given to them and upon democratic principles. A round-table conference was held early in 1939 in London in which the Arab States took part asking for the safeguarding of the independence of Arab Palestine as a whole. That conference resulted in the issue of the well-known White Paper in which Great Britain defined its policy towards Palestine, admitting its right to independence while laying down at the same time certain provisions for the exercise of such independence. Great Britain did therein further declare that its obligations regarding the establishment of the Jewish National Home have been completely fulfilled as the said National Home had been established. But unfortunately the underlying policy of the White Paper was not carried out, which led to an increasingly bad situation and, in fact, resulted in complete prejudice and disregard to Arab interests.

7. During the time that the Second World War was raging the respective Governments of the Arab States began to co-ordinate their views and actions for the useful purpose of better securing co-operation regarding not only their present and future but for playing their part in the establishment of lasting world-wide peace. The problem of Palestine did not at any time during their mutual consultations fail to absorb its due share of attention and interest. It was a result of those consultations that then emerged the present Arab League as instrument for the realization of their own peace, security and welfare. The Arab League Charter declared that Palestine had become an independent country since its separation from the Ottoman Empire, but that all the appertaining external rights and privileges attendant upon formal independence had to be subdued temporarily for reasons beyond the will of its people. It was a happy coincidence which gave rise to the hopes of the Arab States then that at that time the United Nations was brought to existence soon after. And accordingly the Arab States unhesitatingly participated in its creation and membership out of deep belief in that institution, its ideals, and high aims.

8. Since then the Arab League, through its member States, unceasingly endeavoured by all its means, whether with the Mandatory or with the United Nations, to find a fair and just solution for the problem of Palestine, based on democratic principles and consistent with the provisions of the League of Nations Covenant as well as of the United Nations Charter, a solution which would be lasting and would ensure peace and security in the land leading to prosperity, but such solution invariably conflicted with opposition from Zionists and with their demands as they then started to openly declare their insistence upon a Jewish State and in fact bent upon full preparations with arms and fortifications to impose their own solution by force.

9. When the General Assembly made its recommendations on 29 November 1947 for the solution of the Palestine problem on the basis of partition providing for the establishment of two States, one Arab and one Jewish, with an international regime of trusteeship for the City of Jerusalem, the Arab States expressed the warning that such a solution was prejudicial to the rights of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine to independence and was contradictory to democratic principles and to the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter. The Arabs then rejected such a scheme declaring that it was not susceptible of execution by peaceful means and that its imposition by force constituted a threat to peace and security in this area.

The apprehensions of the Arab States proved to be well founded as the disturbances of which they had warned soon swept the country, and armed conflict took place between its two peoples who started to combat against each other and shed each other’s blood. Consequently, the United Nations realized the mistake upon which the recommendation of partition was made and turned to search for an outlet.

10. Now that the Mandate over Palestine has come to an end, leaving no legally constituted authority behind in order to administer law and order in the country and afford the necessary and adequate protection to life and property, the Arab States declare as follows:

(a) The right to set up a Government in Palestine pertains to its inhabitants under the principles of self-determination recognized by the Covenant of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter;

(b) Peace and order have been completely upset in Palestine, and, in consequence of Jewish aggression, approximately over a quarter of a million of the Arab population have been compelled to leave their homes and emigrate to neighbouring Arab countries. The prevailing events in Palestine exposed the concealed aggressive intentions of the Zionists and their imperialistic motives, as clearly shown in their acts committed upon those peaceful Arabs and villagers of Deer Yasheen, Tiberias, and other places, as well as by their encroachment upon the building and bodies of the inviolable consular codes, manifested by their attack upon the Consulate in Jerusalem.

(c) The Mandatory has already announced that on the termination of the Mandate it will no longer be responsible for the maintenance of law and order in Palestine except in the camps and areas actually occupied by its forces, and only to the extent necessary for the security of those forces and their withdrawal. This leaves Palestine absolutely without any administrative authority entitled to maintain, and capable of maintaining, a machinery of administration of the country adequate for the purpose of ensuring due protection of life and property. There is further the threat that this lawlessness may spread to the neighbouring Arab States where feeling is already very tense on account of the prevailing conditions in Palestine. The respective members of the Arab League, and as Members of the United Nations at the same time, feel gravely perturbed and deeply concerned over this situation.

(d) It was the sincere wish of the Arab States that the United Nations might succeed in arriving at a fair and just solution of the Palestine problem, thus establishing a lasting peace for the country under the precepts of the democratic principles and in conformity with the Covenant of the League of Nations and the United Nations Charter.

(e) They are responsible in any … by virtue of their responsibility as members of the Arab League which is a regional organization within the meaning of Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. The recent disturbances in Palestine further constitute a serious and direct threat to peace and security within the territories of the Arab States themselves. For these reasons, and considering that the security of Palestine is a sacred trust for them, and out of anxiousness to check the further deterioration of the prevailing conditions and to prevent the spread of disorder and lawlessness into the neighbouring Arab lands, and in order to fill the vacuum created by the termination of the Mandate and the failure to replace it by any legally constituted authority, the Arab Governments find themselves compelled to intervene for the sole purpose of restoring peace and security and establishing law and order in Palestine.

The Arab States recognize that the independence and sovereignty of Palestine which was so far subject to the British Mandate has now, with the termination of the Mandate, become established in fact, and maintain that the lawful inhabitants of Palestine are alone competent and entitled to set up an administration in Palestine for the discharge of all governmental functions without any external interference. As soon as that stage is reached the intervention of the Arab States, which is confined to the restoration of peace and establishment of law and order, shall be put an end to, and the sovereign State of Palestine will be competent in co-operation with the other States members of the Arab League, to take every step for the promotion of the welfare and security of its peoples and territory.

The Governments of the Arab States hereby confirm at this stage the view that had been repeatedly declared by them on previous occasions, such as the London Conference and before the United Nations mainly, the only fair and just solution to the problem of Palestine is the creation of United State of Palestine based upon the democratic principles which will enable all its inhabitants to enjoy equality before the law, and which would guarantee to all minorities the safeguards provided for in all democratic constitutional States affording at the same time full protection and free access to Holy Places. The Arab States emphatically and repeatedly declare that their intervention in Palestine has been prompted solely by the considerations and for the aims set out above and that they are not inspired by any other motive whatsoever. They are, therefore, confident that their action will receive the support of the United Nations as tending to further the aims and ideals of the United Nations as set out in its Charter.

Abdul Razek Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the League of Arab States UN Doc. S/745, reprinted in 3 UN SCOR, Supp. for May 1948, at 83-88

 

[Shusha]

Wouldn't the existence of Israel cause the Mandate to be no longer applicable? Just as it was no longer applicable in Jordan, Syria, and Iraq when they gained independence? There is no need for a trust once the child has, "come of age", as it were.

 

[Boston1]

Wouldn't the existence of Israel cause the Mandate to be no longer applicable? Just as it was no longer applicable in Jordan, Syria, and Iraq when they gained independence? There is no need for a trust once the child has, "come of age", as it were.

I would have thought the creation of the two state solution in the mandate area was sufficient to fulfill the mandate. Jordan and Israel. But I guess not. The Arab Muslims are now demanding a third and fourth state. Anything to chip away at Israel.

The Arab League did not declare war, they intervened in an attempt to prevent the expulsion and massacre of Muslims and Christians at the hands of the European colonists. As is clearly stated in the declaration:

"Cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (1948)

On the occasion of the intervention of Arab States in Palestine to restore law and order and to prevent disturbances prevailing in Palestine from spreading into their territories and to check further bloodshed, I have the honour to request your Excellency to bring following statement before General Assembly and Security Council.

1. Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire subject to its rule of law and enjoying full representation in its parliament, the great majority of its population was composed of Arabs with a small minority of Jews enjoying all rights alike with all the remaining citizens and liable only to such charges as all others were. Never were they as minority the subject of any discrimination on account of their creed. Holy Places were protected and accessible to all without distinction.

2. The Arabs have constantly been seeking their freedom and independence; when the Second World War broke out and the Allies declared that they were fighting to restore freedom to the nations the Arabs sided with the Allies and placed all their means at their disposal and in fact fought with them for the realization of their national aspirations and their independence. Great Britain took upon herself the recognition of the independence of the Arab countries in Asia including Palestine. The Arabs’ effort was felt and duly appreciated in winning victory.

3. Great Britain issued a declaration in 1917 in which expression was made of its sympathy with the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine. When this was brought to the knowledge of the Arabs they did not fail to express their resentment and opposition to such expression of policy and when they protested formally to Great Britain the latter made the necessary reassurances with a confirmation of the view that such a declaration did not affect in any degree their rights nor their freedom and independence, and that the said declaration did not prejudice the political position of the Arabs of Palestine notwithstanding the illegality of the said declaration. The British Government’s interpretation of it was that it meant no more than the establishment of a spiritual abode for the Jews in Palestine without there being any ulterior political motives such as the creation of a Jewish State, that being further the expressed views of the Jewish leaders at the time.

4. When the war ended Great Britain did not fulfil its pledges. Instead Palestine was placed under a Mandate entrusted to Great Britain. The terms of the Mandate provided for the safeguarding of the interests of the inhabitants of Palestine and their preparation for eventual independence to which they were entitled by virtue of the Covenant of the League of Nations which admitted that the inhabitants of Palestine were fit for it.

5. Great Britain however placed Palestine in such a position as made it possible for the Jews to flood the country with waves of immigrants and factually helped their establishment on the soil despite the saturation of the land with its population which did exceed the absorptive capacity of the country economically and otherwise, thereby neglecting the provided for interests and the rights of its lawful inhabitants. The Arabs used all means at all times to express their deep concern and anxiety at such a policy which they felt was undermining their future and their very existence. But at all such times they were met with utter disregard and harsh treatment such as jail, exile, etc.

6. And whereas Palestine is an Arab country falling in the heart of the Arab countries and attached to the Arab world with all bonds spiritual, historical, economical and strategical, the Arab States as well as Eastern countries, whether through their people or governments, could not but concern and interest themselves with the fate of Palestine. This is why they took upon themselves the task of handling its case before the international institutions generally and particularly before Great Britain, insisting upon a solution for the problem based upon undertaking given to them and upon democratic principles. A round-table conference was held early in 1939 in London in which the Arab States took part asking for the safeguarding of the independence of Arab Palestine as a whole. That conference resulted in the issue of the well-known White Paper in which Great Britain defined its policy towards Palestine, admitting its right to independence while laying down at the same time certain provisions for the exercise of such independence. Great Britain did therein further declare that its obligations regarding the establishment of the Jewish National Home have been completely fulfilled as the said National Home had been established. But unfortunately the underlying policy of the White Paper was not carried out, which led to an increasingly bad situation and, in fact, resulted in complete prejudice and disregard to Arab interests.

7. During the time that the Second World War was raging the respective Governments of the Arab States began to co-ordinate their views and actions for the useful purpose of better securing co-operation regarding not only their present and future but for playing their part in the establishment of lasting world-wide peace. The problem of Palestine did not at any time during their mutual consultations fail to absorb its due share of attention and interest. It was a result of those consultations that then emerged the present Arab League as instrument for the realization of their own peace, security and welfare. The Arab League Charter declared that Palestine had become an independent country since its separation from the Ottoman Empire, but that all the appertaining external rights and privileges attendant upon formal independence had to be subdued temporarily for reasons beyond the will of its people. It was a happy coincidence which gave rise to the hopes of the Arab States then that at that time the United Nations was brought to existence soon after. And accordingly the Arab States unhesitatingly participated in its creation and membership out of deep belief in that institution, its ideals, and high aims.

8. Since then the Arab League, through its member States, unceasingly endeavoured by all its means, whether with the Mandatory or with the United Nations, to find a fair and just solution for the problem of Palestine, based on democratic principles and consistent with the provisions of the League of Nations Covenant as well as of the United Nations Charter, a solution which would be lasting and would ensure peace and security in the land leading to prosperity, but such solution invariably conflicted with opposition from Zionists and with their demands as they then started to openly declare their insistence upon a Jewish State and in fact bent upon full preparations with arms and fortifications to impose their own solution by force.

9. When the General Assembly made its recommendations on 29 November 1947 for the solution of the Palestine problem on the basis of partition providing for the establishment of two States, one Arab and one Jewish, with an international regime of trusteeship for the City of Jerusalem, the Arab States expressed the warning that such a solution was prejudicial to the rights of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine to independence and was contradictory to democratic principles and to the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter. The Arabs then rejected such a scheme declaring that it was not susceptible of execution by peaceful means and that its imposition by force constituted a threat to peace and security in this area.

The apprehensions of the Arab States proved to be well founded as the disturbances of which they had warned soon swept the country, and armed conflict took place between its two peoples who started to combat against each other and shed each other’s blood. Consequently, the United Nations realized the mistake upon which the recommendation of partition was made and turned to search for an outlet.

10. Now that the Mandate over Palestine has come to an end, leaving no legally constituted authority behind in order to administer law and order in the country and afford the necessary and adequate protection to life and property, the Arab States declare as follows:

(a) The right to set up a Government in Palestine pertains to its inhabitants under the principles of self-determination recognized by the Covenant of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter;

(b) Peace and order have been completely upset in Palestine, and, in consequence of Jewish aggression, approximately over a quarter of a million of the Arab population have been compelled to leave their homes and emigrate to neighbouring Arab countries. The prevailing events in Palestine exposed the concealed aggressive intentions of the Zionists and their imperialistic motives, as clearly shown in their acts committed upon those peaceful Arabs and villagers of Deer Yasheen, Tiberias, and other places, as well as by their encroachment upon the building and bodies of the inviolable consular codes, manifested by their attack upon the Consulate in Jerusalem.

(c) The Mandatory has already announced that on the termination of the Mandate it will no longer be responsible for the maintenance of law and order in Palestine except in the camps and areas actually occupied by its forces, and only to the extent necessary for the security of those forces and their withdrawal. This leaves Palestine absolutely without any administrative authority entitled to maintain, and capable of maintaining, a machinery of administration of the country adequate for the purpose of ensuring due protection of life and property. There is further the threat that this lawlessness may spread to the neighbouring Arab States where feeling is already very tense on account of the prevailing conditions in Palestine. The respective members of the Arab League, and as Members of the United Nations at the same time, feel gravely perturbed and deeply concerned over this situation.

(d) It was the sincere wish of the Arab States that the United Nations might succeed in arriving at a fair and just solution of the Palestine problem, thus establishing a lasting peace for the country under the precepts of the democratic principles and in conformity with the Covenant of the League of Nations and the United Nations Charter.

(e) They are responsible in any … by virtue of their responsibility as members of the Arab League which is a regional organization within the meaning of Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. The recent disturbances in Palestine further constitute a serious and direct threat to peace and security within the territories of the Arab States themselves. For these reasons, and considering that the security of Palestine is a sacred trust for them, and out of anxiousness to check the further deterioration of the prevailing conditions and to prevent the spread of disorder and lawlessness into the neighbouring Arab lands, and in order to fill the vacuum created by the termination of the Mandate and the failure to replace it by any legally constituted authority, the Arab Governments find themselves compelled to intervene for the sole purpose of restoring peace and security and establishing law and order in Palestine.

The Arab States recognize that the independence and sovereignty of Palestine which was so far subject to the British Mandate has now, with the termination of the Mandate, become established in fact, and maintain that the lawful inhabitants of Palestine are alone competent and entitled to set up an administration in Palestine for the discharge of all governmental functions without any external interference. As soon as that stage is reached the intervention of the Arab States, which is confined to the restoration of peace and establishment of law and order, shall be put an end to, and the sovereign State of Palestine will be competent in co-operation with the other States members of the Arab League, to take every step for the promotion of the welfare and security of its peoples and territory.

The Governments of the Arab States hereby confirm at this stage the view that had been repeatedly declared by them on previous occasions, such as the London Conference and before the United Nations mainly, the only fair and just solution to the problem of Palestine is the creation of United State of Palestine based upon the democratic principles which will enable all its inhabitants to enjoy equality before the law, and which would guarantee to all minorities the safeguards provided for in all democratic constitutional States affording at the same time full protection and free access to Holy Places. The Arab States emphatically and repeatedly declare that their intervention in Palestine has been prompted solely by the considerations and for the aims set out above and that they are not inspired by any other motive whatsoever. They are, therefore, confident that their action will receive the support of the United Nations as tending to further the aims and ideals of the United Nations as set out in its Charter.

Abdul Razek Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the League of Arab States UN Doc. S/745, reprinted in 3 UN SCOR, Supp. for May 1948, at 83-88

Didn't get past the first sentence

The Arab League declaration of war was filed with the UN on May 15 1948

It declared a condition of war now existed between the sovereign state of Israel and the Arab League states.

Under the GC articles it is most certainly a declaration of war as described in my previous which I'll quote again in case you missed it.


Quote

#1
Again not real bright. The document offered to the UN by the League of nations is most certainly a declaration of war. Simply because you don't comprehend the legal developments with the UN charter that prohibit both the threat and use of aggressive force in international conflict which made it politically disadvantageous to use the term war in the Arab League declaration, doesn't mean it wasn't a declaration of war and actually does meet the qualifications as a declaration of war because it created a condition of war.

Boom

PS
You're an idiot. I can't believe you even argued that.

#2
My assertions were that the secretary general of the Arab League stated the following which admitted the situation created by the Arab League declaration the previous day was a one of war.

Quote

"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

End Quote

Which pretty well shot down any nonsense you might have forwarded denying that the Arab League had declared war on Israel and that as such the Geneva Conventions may be applied

The best you could do was drivel on about where the statement was first published ;--))

You failed completely to show that the document was not a declaration of war. You have never addressed the fact that it declared a condition of war.

You cannot deny the Arab Leagues secretary generals use of the term war in reference to the declaration or his assertions of it being a war of genocide, instead you presented an argument about where the statements in question were first published. Hardly a viable refutation of the facts.

PS
Again, a childish obfuscation of a simple truth that didn't fool anyone.

#3
Again you are confused. At no point have you argued the GC conditions for war. Or can you provide a reference to the link where you did? My contention all along has been that it doesn't matter what the Arab Muslims argue, it only only matters what the GC defines as a state of war. That definition includes the following

Quote

• Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
• The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
• Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

End Quote

Which fully supports my view and the view I've been forwarding throughout the thread.

You are apparently confused again as you have never as far as I've seen, supported that view.

In any case it doesn't really matter what you think as Israel with reservation has signed the conventions and as such a state of war only need be recognized by one party to the conflict in order for the conventions to apply.

Boom

Looks like once again your debating skills have failed you there Spiffy.

The Arab league did declare war
Israel is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions
As a war the Geneva Conventions apply
The war need only be recognized by one of the parties to the conflict.

If the Israeli's deny its a war or the application of the Geneva Conventions it doesn't matter because the Arab League nations have signed as has Abbas and the Arab Muslims of Israel and if the Arab Muslims of Israel deny its a war it does't matter because Israel signed and anytime they wish to they could clear out the terrorist scum under the Geneva Conventions rules of engagement.
End Quote

 

[montelatici]

Wouldn't the existence of Israel cause the Mandate to be no longer applicable? Just as it was no longer applicable in Jordan, Syria, and Iraq when they gained independence? There is no need for a trust once the child has, "come of age", as it were.

I would have thought the creation of the two state solution in the mandate area was sufficient to fulfill the mandate. Jordan and Israel. But I guess not. The Arab Muslims are now demanding a third and fourth state. Anything to chip away at Israel.

The Arab League did not declare war, they intervened in an attempt to prevent the expulsion and massacre of Muslims and Christians at the hands of the European colonists. As is clearly stated in the declaration:

"Cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (1948)

On the occasion of the intervention of Arab States in Palestine to restore law and order and to prevent disturbances prevailing in Palestine from spreading into their territories and to check further bloodshed, I have the honour to request your Excellency to bring following statement before General Assembly and Security Council.

1. Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire subject to its rule of law and enjoying full representation in its parliament, the great majority of its population was composed of Arabs with a small minority of Jews enjoying all rights alike with all the remaining citizens and liable only to such charges as all others were. Never were they as minority the subject of any discrimination on account of their creed. Holy Places were protected and accessible to all without distinction.

2. The Arabs have constantly been seeking their freedom and independence; when the Second World War broke out and the Allies declared that they were fighting to restore freedom to the nations the Arabs sided with the Allies and placed all their means at their disposal and in fact fought with them for the realization of their national aspirations and their independence. Great Britain took upon herself the recognition of the independence of the Arab countries in Asia including Palestine. The Arabs’ effort was felt and duly appreciated in winning victory.

3. Great Britain issued a declaration in 1917 in which expression was made of its sympathy with the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine. When this was brought to the knowledge of the Arabs they did not fail to express their resentment and opposition to such expression of policy and when they protested formally to Great Britain the latter made the necessary reassurances with a confirmation of the view that such a declaration did not affect in any degree their rights nor their freedom and independence, and that the said declaration did not prejudice the political position of the Arabs of Palestine notwithstanding the illegality of the said declaration. The British Government’s interpretation of it was that it meant no more than the establishment of a spiritual abode for the Jews in Palestine without there being any ulterior political motives such as the creation of a Jewish State, that being further the expressed views of the Jewish leaders at the time.

4. When the war ended Great Britain did not fulfil its pledges. Instead Palestine was placed under a Mandate entrusted to Great Britain. The terms of the Mandate provided for the safeguarding of the interests of the inhabitants of Palestine and their preparation for eventual independence to which they were entitled by virtue of the Covenant of the League of Nations which admitted that the inhabitants of Palestine were fit for it.

5. Great Britain however placed Palestine in such a position as made it possible for the Jews to flood the country with waves of immigrants and factually helped their establishment on the soil despite the saturation of the land with its population which did exceed the absorptive capacity of the country economically and otherwise, thereby neglecting the provided for interests and the rights of its lawful inhabitants. The Arabs used all means at all times to express their deep concern and anxiety at such a policy which they felt was undermining their future and their very existence. But at all such times they were met with utter disregard and harsh treatment such as jail, exile, etc.

6. And whereas Palestine is an Arab country falling in the heart of the Arab countries and attached to the Arab world with all bonds spiritual, historical, economical and strategical, the Arab States as well as Eastern countries, whether through their people or governments, could not but concern and interest themselves with the fate of Palestine. This is why they took upon themselves the task of handling its case before the international institutions generally and particularly before Great Britain, insisting upon a solution for the problem based upon undertaking given to them and upon democratic principles. A round-table conference was held early in 1939 in London in which the Arab States took part asking for the safeguarding of the independence of Arab Palestine as a whole. That conference resulted in the issue of the well-known White Paper in which Great Britain defined its policy towards Palestine, admitting its right to independence while laying down at the same time certain provisions for the exercise of such independence. Great Britain did therein further declare that its obligations regarding the establishment of the Jewish National Home have been completely fulfilled as the said National Home had been established. But unfortunately the underlying policy of the White Paper was not carried out, which led to an increasingly bad situation and, in fact, resulted in complete prejudice and disregard to Arab interests.

7. During the time that the Second World War was raging the respective Governments of the Arab States began to co-ordinate their views and actions for the useful purpose of better securing co-operation regarding not only their present and future but for playing their part in the establishment of lasting world-wide peace. The problem of Palestine did not at any time during their mutual consultations fail to absorb its due share of attention and interest. It was a result of those consultations that then emerged the present Arab League as instrument for the realization of their own peace, security and welfare. The Arab League Charter declared that Palestine had become an independent country since its separation from the Ottoman Empire, but that all the appertaining external rights and privileges attendant upon formal independence had to be subdued temporarily for reasons beyond the will of its people. It was a happy coincidence which gave rise to the hopes of the Arab States then that at that time the United Nations was brought to existence soon after. And accordingly the Arab States unhesitatingly participated in its creation and membership out of deep belief in that institution, its ideals, and high aims.

8. Since then the Arab League, through its member States, unceasingly endeavoured by all its means, whether with the Mandatory or with the United Nations, to find a fair and just solution for the problem of Palestine, based on democratic principles and consistent with the provisions of the League of Nations Covenant as well as of the United Nations Charter, a solution which would be lasting and would ensure peace and security in the land leading to prosperity, but such solution invariably conflicted with opposition from Zionists and with their demands as they then started to openly declare their insistence upon a Jewish State and in fact bent upon full preparations with arms and fortifications to impose their own solution by force.

9. When the General Assembly made its recommendations on 29 November 1947 for the solution of the Palestine problem on the basis of partition providing for the establishment of two States, one Arab and one Jewish, with an international regime of trusteeship for the City of Jerusalem, the Arab States expressed the warning that such a solution was prejudicial to the rights of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine to independence and was contradictory to democratic principles and to the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter. The Arabs then rejected such a scheme declaring that it was not susceptible of execution by peaceful means and that its imposition by force constituted a threat to peace and security in this area.

The apprehensions of the Arab States proved to be well founded as the disturbances of which they had warned soon swept the country, and armed conflict took place between its two peoples who started to combat against each other and shed each other’s blood. Consequently, the United Nations realized the mistake upon which the recommendation of partition was made and turned to search for an outlet.

10. Now that the Mandate over Palestine has come to an end, leaving no legally constituted authority behind in order to administer law and order in the country and afford the necessary and adequate protection to life and property, the Arab States declare as follows:

(a) The right to set up a Government in Palestine pertains to its inhabitants under the principles of self-determination recognized by the Covenant of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter;

(b) Peace and order have been completely upset in Palestine, and, in consequence of Jewish aggression, approximately over a quarter of a million of the Arab population have been compelled to leave their homes and emigrate to neighbouring Arab countries. The prevailing events in Palestine exposed the concealed aggressive intentions of the Zionists and their imperialistic motives, as clearly shown in their acts committed upon those peaceful Arabs and villagers of Deer Yasheen, Tiberias, and other places, as well as by their encroachment upon the building and bodies of the inviolable consular codes, manifested by their attack upon the Consulate in Jerusalem.

(c) The Mandatory has already announced that on the termination of the Mandate it will no longer be responsible for the maintenance of law and order in Palestine except in the camps and areas actually occupied by its forces, and only to the extent necessary for the security of those forces and their withdrawal. This leaves Palestine absolutely without any administrative authority entitled to maintain, and capable of maintaining, a machinery of administration of the country adequate for the purpose of ensuring due protection of life and property. There is further the threat that this lawlessness may spread to the neighbouring Arab States where feeling is already very tense on account of the prevailing conditions in Palestine. The respective members of the Arab League, and as Members of the United Nations at the same time, feel gravely perturbed and deeply concerned over this situation.

(d) It was the sincere wish of the Arab States that the United Nations might succeed in arriving at a fair and just solution of the Palestine problem, thus establishing a lasting peace for the country under the precepts of the democratic principles and in conformity with the Covenant of the League of Nations and the United Nations Charter.

(e) They are responsible in any … by virtue of their responsibility as members of the Arab League which is a regional organization within the meaning of Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. The recent disturbances in Palestine further constitute a serious and direct threat to peace and security within the territories of the Arab States themselves. For these reasons, and considering that the security of Palestine is a sacred trust for them, and out of anxiousness to check the further deterioration of the prevailing conditions and to prevent the spread of disorder and lawlessness into the neighbouring Arab lands, and in order to fill the vacuum created by the termination of the Mandate and the failure to replace it by any legally constituted authority, the Arab Governments find themselves compelled to intervene for the sole purpose of restoring peace and security and establishing law and order in Palestine.

The Arab States recognize that the independence and sovereignty of Palestine which was so far subject to the British Mandate has now, with the termination of the Mandate, become established in fact, and maintain that the lawful inhabitants of Palestine are alone competent and entitled to set up an administration in Palestine for the discharge of all governmental functions without any external interference. As soon as that stage is reached the intervention of the Arab States, which is confined to the restoration of peace and establishment of law and order, shall be put an end to, and the sovereign State of Palestine will be competent in co-operation with the other States members of the Arab League, to take every step for the promotion of the welfare and security of its peoples and territory.

The Governments of the Arab States hereby confirm at this stage the view that had been repeatedly declared by them on previous occasions, such as the London Conference and before the United Nations mainly, the only fair and just solution to the problem of Palestine is the creation of United State of Palestine based upon the democratic principles which will enable all its inhabitants to enjoy equality before the law, and which would guarantee to all minorities the safeguards provided for in all democratic constitutional States affording at the same time full protection and free access to Holy Places. The Arab States emphatically and repeatedly declare that their intervention in Palestine has been prompted solely by the considerations and for the aims set out above and that they are not inspired by any other motive whatsoever. They are, therefore, confident that their action will receive the support of the United Nations as tending to further the aims and ideals of the United Nations as set out in its Charter.

Abdul Razek Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the League of Arab States UN Doc. S/745, reprinted in 3 UN SCOR, Supp. for May 1948, at 83-88

Didn't get past the first sentence

The Arab League declaration of war was filed with the UN on May 15 1948

It declared a condition of war now existed between the sovereign state of Israel and the Arab League states.

Under the GC articles it is most certainly a declaration of war as described in my previous which I'll quote again in case you missed it.


Quote

#1
Again not real bright. The document offered to the UN by the League of nations is most certainly a declaration of war. Simply because you don't comprehend the legal developments with the UN charter that prohibit both the threat and use of aggressive force in international conflict which made it politically disadvantageous to use the term war in the Arab League declaration, doesn't mean it wasn't a declaration of war and actually does meet the qualifications as a declaration of war because it created a condition of war.

Boom

PS
You're an idiot. I can't believe you even argued that.

#2
My assertions were that the secretary general of the Arab League stated the following which admitted the situation created by the Arab League declaration the previous day was a one of war.

Quote

"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

End Quote

Which pretty well shot down any nonsense you might have forwarded denying that the Arab League had declared war on Israel and that as such the Geneva Conventions may be applied

The best you could do was drivel on about where the statement was first published ;--))

You failed completely to show that the document was not a declaration of war. You have never addressed the fact that it declared a condition of war.

You cannot deny the Arab Leagues secretary generals use of the term war in reference to the declaration or his assertions of it being a war of genocide, instead you presented an argument about where the statements in question were first published. Hardly a viable refutation of the facts.

PS
Again, a childish obfuscation of a simple truth that didn't fool anyone.

#3
Again you are confused. At no point have you argued the GC conditions for war. Or can you provide a reference to the link where you did? My contention all along has been that it doesn't matter what the Arab Muslims argue, it only only matters what the GC defines as a state of war. That definition includes the following

Quote

• Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
• The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
• Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

End Quote

Which fully supports my view and the view I've been forwarding throughout the thread.

You are apparently confused again as you have never as far as I've seen, supported that view.

In any case it doesn't really matter what you think as Israel with reservation has signed the conventions and as such a state of war only need be recognized by one party to the conflict in order for the conventions to apply.

Boom

Looks like once again your debating skills have failed you there Spiffy.

The Arab league did declare war
Israel is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions
As a war the Geneva Conventions apply
The war need only be recognized by one of the parties to the conflict.

If the Israeli's deny its a war or the application of the Geneva Conventions it doesn't matter because the Arab League nations have signed as has Abbas and the Arab Muslims of Israel and if the Arab Muslims of Israel deny its a war it does't matter because Israel signed and anytime they wish to they could clear out the terrorist scum under the Geneva Conventions rules of engagement.
End Quote

No the Arab League Declaration states clearly what it is, it is an intervention by an International Organization to restore order and stop European Jewish aggression in Palestine. Israel is not even mentioned.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Wouldn't the existence of Israel cause the Mandate to be no longer applicable? Just as it was no longer applicable in Jordan, Syria, and Iraq when they gained independence? There is no need for a trust once the child has, "come of age", as it were.

Interesting question. Jordan obtained independence by treaty with Britain. There was no treaty with Israel. When Britain left Palestine it passed the torch to the UNPC to take over the administration of Palestine. However, when it was time to take over their responsibility they didn't bother to show up.

Nothing in that time period makes any sense. In the 1949 UN Armistice agreements all of Palestine was still called Palestine. Israel was not mentioned.

 

[Shusha]

Interesting question. Jordan obtained independence by treaty with Britain.

Are you saying that a treaty is required in order for independence to occur? Why would you think this is so?

The treaties outlined restrictions on full sovereignty and their eventual removal. (Treaty of London 1946 and Anglo-Jordanian Treaty, 1948, yes?). But these would be pre-requisites for sovereignty, not the obtainment of sovereignty.

Why would there be the assumption that there were restrictions on sovereignty? Israel was recognized by the UN in 1949. Jordan wasn't recognized until 1955.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Interesting question. Jordan obtained independence by treaty with Britain.

Are you saying that a treaty is required in order for independence to occur? Why would you think this is so?

The treaties outlined restrictions on full sovereignty and their eventual removal. (Treaty of London 1946 and Anglo-Jordanian Treaty, 1948, yes?). But these would be pre-requisites for sovereignty, not the obtainment of sovereignty.

Why would there be the assumption that there were restrictions on sovereignty? Israel was recognized by the UN in 1949. Jordan wasn't recognized until 1955.

Britain assisted in establishing a government in Jordan and gave them independence through treaty.

Britain failed to establish a government in Palestine so it passed its trusteeship to the UN.

 

[Hollie]

Interesting question. Jordan obtained independence by treaty with Britain.

Are you saying that a treaty is required in order for independence to occur? Why would you think this is so?

The treaties outlined restrictions on full sovereignty and their eventual removal. (Treaty of London 1946 and Anglo-Jordanian Treaty, 1948, yes?). But these would be pre-requisites for sovereignty, not the obtainment of sovereignty.

Why would there be the assumption that there were restrictions on sovereignty? Israel was recognized by the UN in 1949. Jordan wasn't recognized until 1955.

Britain assisted in establishing a government in Jordan and gave them independence through treaty.

Britain failed to establish a government in Palestine so it passed its trusteeship to the UN.

And the Arab-Moslem squatters failed at every instance to succeed at what others have done. Failure is a common theme among Arabs-Moslems.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you tell truths --- but only partial truths.

Wouldn't the existence of Israel cause the Mandate to be no longer applicable? Just as it was no longer applicable in Jordan, Syria, and Iraq when they gained independence? There is no need for a trust once the child has, "come of age", as it were.

Interesting question. Jordan obtained independence by treaty with Britain. There was no treaty with Israel. When Britain left Palestine it passed the torch to the UNPC to take over the administration of Palestine. However, when it was time to take over their responsibility they didn't bother to show up.

Nothing in that time period makes any sense. In the 1949 UN Armistice agreements all of Palestine was still called Palestine. Israel was not mentioned.

(COMMENT)

• Yes, Jordan obtained independence by treaty with Britain. However, in 1946, Britain was still the Mandatory and Transjordan bordered another Mandate --- Iraq. But that is only one way of assuming territorial sovereignty.

• In the case of Israel, independence was acquired through the right of self-determination. The Jewish Agency and the Provisional Government followed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as recommended and adopted in Resolution 181(II). Later, in treaties established with Egypt and Jordan, border disputes were resolved and permanent international boundaries were set.
​

The Israel accepted the offer and recommendations adopted by the General Assembly. As was consistent with the attitude expressed and the diplomatic history of the Arabs, they rejected all options available to them that would have led to independence and sovereignty.

In 1949, the Armistice Arrangements were made with the State of Israel and the warring parties of the border states. The fact that the Armistice Lines may follow (in places) the demarcation established in connection with the territories formerly under the various mandates. "Palestine" is merely a territorial name for one particular mandate as was determined by the Allied Powers.

• Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
• Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949
• Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
• Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
​

The 11 May 1949, UN General Assembly Resolution 273 (III), admits Israel in the UN and recalls the November 29, 1947. The use of the name "Palestine" representing the territory that was formerly under the Mandate of that same name will always remain a historically significant name that will apply to that territory that was determined by the Allied Powers. But it will never carry with it the implication that you attempt to attach to here in this exchange. Each of the Armistice Agreements are between the Military Representative of the Israeli Defense Force and the Military Representative of each of the other adjacent states at war. The implication that something special or significant pertaining to the use (of not) for the name Israel is fraudulent and politically fallacious.

The applicability of the Mandate ended with the termination of the the Mandate to a specific Mandatory. A Mandate is an authority and order that speaks directly to a Mandatory (in the case of Palestine --- Britain). Upon the termination of the Mandate, the successor government (the UNPC) assumes control under Article 77 (1a) of the Charter:

Chapter XII Article 77
1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:

a. territories now held under mandate;
b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration
​

As a direct result of the Arab League Military Intervention and aggression, the UN and the Security Council established the UN Mediator and Truce Commission to replace the UNPC after the outbreak of hostilities initiated by the Arab League states. Again, the implication ("when it was time to take over their responsibility they didn't bother to show up") is both fraudulent and politically fallacious. This is misinformation in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the implementation. Never-the-less --- the expansion of territory control and sovereignty was a direct result of battlefield losses by Aggressor Arab Forces and the Israeli Defense Force hot pursuit.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Shusha, P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is more misinformation.

Interesting question. Jordan obtained independence by treaty with Britain.

Are you saying that a treaty is required in order for independence to occur? Why would you think this is so?

The treaties outlined restrictions on full sovereignty and their eventual removal. (Treaty of London 1946 and Anglo-Jordanian Treaty, 1948, yes?). But these would be pre-requisites for sovereignty, not the obtainment of sovereignty.

Why would there be the assumption that there were restrictions on sovereignty? Israel was recognized by the UN in 1949. Jordan wasn't recognized until 1955.

(COMMENT)

Again, this is fraudulent and fallacious. Customary Law says that:

ARTICLE 3
Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); Convention signed at Montevideo December 26, 1933

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.
​

While the treaty does not directly to the Middle East (absent parties to the agreement), the concept is applicable.

Most Respectfully,
R