Israel Should Just Employ the Geneva Conventions

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

As usual, you have this wrong.

GOTO:

Are UN resolutions binding?
OR
Functions and powers of the General Assembly​

The various Resolutions mentioned applied to Oman and Algeria prior to their independence, not only Palestine and had force of law.

(COMMENT)

When a General Assembly Resolution is brought into LAW, it will have a couple thing with it that you will not see on a non-binding resolution.

See the Actual UN Display: GOTO:>
UN Human Rights Commission Office of the High Commissioner​

You will notice that such Resolutions that transition to Laws, will have a date that it was adopted and the date it received sufficient ratifications to "ENTER INTO FORCE." It will also have an instructional paragraph or Article that explains the process. In the example above, it is Article 49.

You can go back to the UN General Assembly Resolutions you have cited, and you WILL NOT FIND any indication that it transitioned into law.

I hope I have explained this to you in sufficient detail.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, you perpetual victims cannot simply see any other application of the word. Sometimes you can be such a Philistine.

Looks like Jordan is the Arab Muslim colonial government in the mandate area. With something like 75% of the Arab Muslims in Jerusalem being colonists who arrived between 1920 and 1945

Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committee
July 25, 1926

London (Jul. 23)(Jewish Telegraphic Agency)

The various phases of the present situation in Palestine and in the Zionist movement throughout the world, and plans of Zionist leadership for the immediate future, were submitted for consideration at the Zionist Actions Committee which opened its session here yesterday.

The contemplated trip to the United States of Dr. Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, the continuation of his efforts while in America to extend the Jewish Agency through his negotiations with the Marshall group, the possibilities of extending Jewish colonization work outside of the present Palestine frontiers, including. Transjordania and certain parts of Syria, were the main features around which the deliberations centered."

Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ

(COMMENT)

In the case of Dr Weizmann, some 90 years ago, using the word "colonization" was meant to convey the idea that the Jewish People would, in accordance with the Mandate, move people into a destination country which they are not natives of or where they do not possess citizenship in order to settle or reside there. It was not, as you are so desperately trying to imply, have anything to do with the intent to deny independence on behalf of a colonial power.

• It did not intend to deny the right to self-determination.
• It was NOT an armed action or repressive measures of any kind directed against dependent peoples.
• The Arab Palestinian rejected to participate in the governance process several times; three time alone in 1923.
​

Dr Weizmann would have used a different word had he known, a century ago, that it would be used to inappropriately convey or imply alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights on the part of a foreign power. Remember the Mandate from the Allied Powers (Article 4 and 6)
shall facilitate Jewish immigration for close settlement by Jews on the land.

A little table has far less force of law than a UN Resolution you silly twat.

(COMMENT)

Obviously you did not read how the UN Special Committee on decolonization use the chart. The UN Resolution has NO FORCE OF LAW. However, the application of the resolution on behalf of the US is handled by the C-24 Special Committee. You cannot apply the Resolution to the West Bank or Gaza Strip if they are not Non-Self-Governing Territories.

If they are NSGTs, then they cannot be competent to join the ICC or any other treaty. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim to be a NSGT and then turn around and claim the right to enter into treaties. You cannot claim to be denied the right of self-determination and still be able to enter into treaties. You cannot claim that Israel is denying the territories the right to self-determination, and yet perform inherently governmental functions.

Most Respectfully,
R

The various Resolutions mentioned applied to Oman and Algeria prior to their independence, not only Palestine and had force of law.

As usual you are laughably incorrect.

No UN general assembly resolution is binding or has the force of law.

All UN resolutions that may eventually become law must pass through the Security Council.

You've been informed of this countless times.

Why do you insist on lying about it ?

And your miles off topic again. Israel should a is legally able to enforce the GC in order to resolve the problem of terrorists and foreign combatants hiding within the civilian population.

 

[Phoenall]

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

And the arab muslims cant do a thing as they refused to take part in any debates on apportioning the land that was sovereign to the LoN. The arab muslims never owned the land they just lived there as tenants of the Ottomans. Stop trying to confuse the issue by using recently passed laws retrospectively, if the laws did not exist then they cant be enforced. A cablegram is not a law or a resolution it is just the demands of the arab muslims of what they would do if the LoN and the UN did not give in to their demands. These were declarations of war in any persons language.

 

[montelatici]

The Resolutions are just as binding as the list of non-governing territories, several large colonies were never on the list such as Algeria and Oman (and others) make it clear that in the case of colonies the Resolutions are binding not only with respect to Algeria and Oman, but Palestine too.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

No because the land was not fully sovereign and as such the mandate is still in place. The mandate did not run out when Israel declared independence as the land was still available under UN res 181. If you look you will see that the mandates ended only once the nation could show it was capable of standing on its own feet, In the case of Jordan this was not until 1946.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Which they had no right to do as they had declined to become involved, as such this then became an act of war as well as being a declaration of war under International law of that time.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arab Palestinians are always claiming soemone else is at fault or something is illegal that prevents them from doing this or that. It is in keeping directly with the perpetual victim position they hold.

And as you can see here, the Arab Palestinians do not want to honor their word (agreements) or accept responsibility for any outcome.

Oslo.

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.

ICRC service​

In my view, Oslo is illegal.

(COMMENT)

• The Nobel Peace Prize 1994: Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin

I find it interesting that the only Nobel Prize awarded to a person representing the Palestine was Yasser Arafat for the work on the "Oslo Accords." But according to some, the Oslo Accords are illegal, and thus the Palestinian Award should be rejected, just as they rejected so many other potential for peace.

Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights.
Khalid Mish’al, Head of the Political Bureau of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)
August 2010​

"Yasser Arafat received the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10, 1994. The ceremony which was held in Oslo, Norway, also saw Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres joining in the prize. "
SOURCE: Arafat and the Nobel Peace Prize

View attachment 70560
SOURCE: The Official Website for the Nobel Prize ​

Most Respectfully,
R

Controversy surrounded Oslo from the moment it saw the light of day. The 21 October 1993 issue of the London Review of Books ran two articles; Edward Said put the case against in the first. He called the agreement "an instrument of Palestinian surrender, a Palestinian Versailles", arguing that it set aside international legality and compromised the fundamental national rights of the Palestinian people. It could not advance genuine Palestinian self-determination because that meant freedom, sovereignty, and equality, rather than perpetual subservience to Israel.

It's now clear: the Oslo peace accords were wrecked by Netanyahu's bad faith | Avi Shlaim​

----------------------------

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.​

No matter how much smoke you blow at it, Oslo is illegal.

 

[Boston1]

The Resolutions are just as binding as the list of non-governing territories, several large colonies were never on the list such as Algeria and Oman (and others) make it clear that in the case of colonies the Resolutions are binding not only with respect to Algeria and Oman, but Palestine too.

You are certifiable.

The FACT is that general assembly resolutions HOVE NO POWER AS LAW

The FACT is that in a state of war the GENEVA CONVENTIONS are international law.

The FACT is that the Arab declaration of war in 1948 was a declaration of war because it was a formal announcement that a condition of war existed between the sovereign state of Israel and the states of the Arab League.

 

[montelatici]

Fact- The Resolutions that confirm territories as non-self governing have as much force of law as a table drawn up based on a Resolution.

Fact- Geneva Conventions are International Law

Fact- The Arab League intervened, as an International Organization, to prevent the massacre and/or expulsion of the non-Jewish native Palestinians from their homes by the European Jewish colonizers.

 

[Boston1]

Quote

Fact- The Resolutions that confirm territories as non-self governing have as much force of law as a table drawn up based on a Resolution

End Quote

Its gotta be the medications, try cutting back a little and see if you start making more sense to "normal" people.

The subject by the way is if Israel should simply adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Sounds like you agree they should ;--)

 

[montelatici]

Yes, the Israelis should repatriate the Palestinians to their native land and homes, now in Israel.

 

[Boston1]

Yes, the Israelis should repatriate the Palestinians to their native land and homes, now in Israel.

LOL No something like 80+% of the Arab Muslims in Israel today colonized the area in the early to mid 20th century. Many more are likely remnants of the Arab Armies that invaded in 1948 and 67.

Regardless of any of that the fact is that JORDAN gave ALL Arab Muslims in Israel citizenship going back to 1928. So their country of origin at this point is Jordan; even if the Jordanians illegally stripped them of that citizenship. Although I suppose we could take it back to Ottoman times when they'd be Syrians. Assuming the Arab Muslim immigrant colonists hadn't come from Egypt like Assafat did or Abbas who's likely either Lebanese or Syrian.

What we do know for certain is that the Arab Muslims came from Arabia, which isn't even remotely Judea. So the Arab Muslims in the area can at best only be maybe <10% original population and 0% indigenous peoples.

 

[Shusha]

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.​

No matter how much smoke you blow at it, Oslo is illegal.

What "legal rights" did the Oslo Accords curtail? Please be specific.

 

[Challenger]

Challenger et al,

Well, I'm not sure I agree with this...

Not surprising given the sources you use, talk about “twisting the facts and misleading people” let’s take this drivel apart bit by bit, shall we?

Supreme Arab Committee (SAC), which later came to be known as the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), under the presidency of the Mufti of Jerusalem (Hajj Amin al-Husseini).

“Supreme Arab committe”? No such thing (again). I’ll be generous and assume you meant to write “Supreme Muslim Council” but got over excited again. The Supreme Muslim Council never turned into anything but continues in existence to the present day despite being dissolved by Jordan in 1951, the Zionist resurrected it in 1967.

The Committee (SAC/AHC) decided that the Arab Strike and widespread violence which began on the 21 April 1936 should continue until Jewish immigration was suspended.

The Arab Higher Committee on the other hand was formed on 25th April 1936 to co-ordinate the various National Committees that sprang into existence as a result of the call for a General Strike on 19th April that year, so they couldn’t really have decided anything on the 21st April.

Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin al-Husseini was a former Enemy Officer of the Ottoman Army turned cleric.

Erm, Not quite. Hajj Amin al-Husseini served in the Ottoman Army until the Arab Revolt was declared and which as a Palestinian patriot he joined at the first opportunity (bit difficult for him as he was serving on the Black Sea coast at the time). For the rest of the war he fought FOR the Allies, so not really an “enemy”, neither did he “turn cleric”. At the end of the war he held several jobs including, for a short time, that of “Detective Agent” for the British administration!

He emerged as one of the key Arab leaders involved in promoting the 1920 Arab Riots --- inciting the Arab masses to murder Jews and encouraged the looting of Jewish homes and businesses.

No. wrong again. There is absolutely no credible (i.e. non-Zionist manufactured) evidence that he played a key role in the riots of April 1920. All he is known to have done was to make a pan-Arab inspired speech in favour of King Feisal as King of a united Syria and Palestine. He did however, help to organise anti-British demonstrations on 8th March 1920, all of which were orderly and passed peacefully. Neither the Palin nor the Haycroft commissions singled him out as inciting anything.

Hajj Amin al-Husseini used his influence as a radical religious cleric as a stepping stone to become the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

Still not a cleric, radical or otherwise, at this point in time.

Amin al-Husseini was appointed as Grand Mufti when the original elections were discovered to have been “fixed” by the rival Nashashibi clan to keep the Husseinis from any powerful positions in government. The British installed him because he was pro-British and would act as a useful counter to Nashashibi hegemony.

More to follow.

 

[Challenger]

First of all using racial slurs like "Spook" is highly offensive, even coming from a racist like yourself.

Only a true Racist would automatically assume the word "spook" to refer to black people in a derogatory fashion.

A 10 second internet search confirms RoccoR's service in Military Intelligence/Counterintelligence operations in the 1980's ( i.e.Senior Special Agent & TSCM Team Chief, US Army Counterintelligence, INSCOM) which I'm sure Rocco would not deny. People in the intelligence gathering business are often called "spooks" which is why I used the word.

Thanks for "outing" yourself though, and apologies to all idiots out there, Boston1 isn't one of you; he/she/it's a genuine moron.

 

[Challenger]

How about we reference the Damascus Affair 1840, and ask ourselves where was the Zionist movement then ?

Not a Pogrom. Next?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arab Palestinians are always claiming soemone else is at fault or something is illegal that prevents them from doing this or that. It is in keeping directly with the perpetual victim position they hold.

And as you can see here, the Arab Palestinians do not want to honor their word (agreements) or accept responsibility for any outcome.

Oslo.

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.

ICRC service​

In my view, Oslo is illegal.

(COMMENT)

• The Nobel Peace Prize 1994: Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin

I find it interesting that the only Nobel Prize awarded to a person representing the Palestine was Yasser Arafat for the work on the "Oslo Accords." But according to some, the Oslo Accords are illegal, and thus the Palestinian Award should be rejected, just as they rejected so many other potential for peace.

Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights.
Khalid Mish’al, Head of the Political Bureau of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)
August 2010​

"Yasser Arafat received the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10, 1994. The ceremony which was held in Oslo, Norway, also saw Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres joining in the prize. "
SOURCE: Arafat and the Nobel Peace Prize

View attachment 70560
SOURCE: The Official Website for the Nobel Prize ​

Most Respectfully,
R

Controversy surrounded Oslo from the moment it saw the light of day. The 21 October 1993 issue of the London Review of Books ran two articles; Edward Said put the case against in the first. He called the agreement "an instrument of Palestinian surrender, a Palestinian Versailles", arguing that it set aside international legality and compromised the fundamental national rights of the Palestinian people. It could not advance genuine Palestinian self-determination because that meant freedom, sovereignty, and equality, rather than perpetual subservience to Israel.

It's now clear: the Oslo peace accords were wrecked by Netanyahu's bad faith | Avi Shlaim​

----------------------------

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.​

No matter how much smoke you blow at it, Oslo is illegal.

Only to those who don't like what Arafat signed away for his blood money.

There was no compromising of the national rights as none were ever in place, so all you are doing is blowing smoke because you have nothing else to argue with

 

[Phoenall]

Fact- The Resolutions that confirm territories as non-self governing have as much force of law as a table drawn up based on a Resolution.

Fact- Geneva Conventions are International Law

Fact- The Arab League intervened, as an International Organization, to prevent the massacre and/or expulsion of the non-Jewish native Palestinians from their homes by the European Jewish colonizers.

WRONG as they are just recommendations, and say as much at the very beginning.

Correct and the Palestinians are in breach of them constantly

They invaded illegally with the intention of wiping out the Jews, this they made plain in 1947. It was only after they had failed to destroy the Jewish farmers on the first day and suffered many casualties that they saw they were going to lose that they changed their words.

A state of war existed from 1947 and is still in place today.

 

[Phoenall]

How about we reference the Damascus Affair 1840, and ask ourselves where was the Zionist movement then ?

Not a Pogrom. Next?

Yes a POGROM answer the question

 

[Phoenall]

Yes, the Israelis should repatriate the Palestinians to their native land and homes, now in Israel.

Not according to the Geneva conventions if you look, any found to be hostile enemy aliens can be evicted from Israel and have no legal redress to return. Once they produce their land titles to their property in Israel they will either be welcomed back under the UN rules or compensation paid by all parties.

Still cant see how a Syrian can point to a toilet window in a complex built in 1993 and claim that it was his bedroom window when he lived there in 1945. Maybe monte can help explain the discrepancies in the Palestinians stories ?