Palestines march towards statehood, or not.

135 states already recognize "Palestine" on the 1967 cease fire lines. Obama has stated the basis for a peace agreement should be based on the 1967 lines with land swaps to accomodate the large settlement blocks. The EU has come out in support of Obamas statement. Seems like a "done deal", or does it?

Even if the vote is successful at the UN for the Palestinians it doesn't mean there will be a Palestinian state. It simply gives recognition to the establishment of such a state. A far cry from an actual state. so whats the problem for Israel and the US? Well, Israel MUST have negotiations with the Palestinians to legitimize Israels illegal land grab. Once the Palestinians agree, Israel suddenly becomes legitimate on the borders agreed to. THAT is why the US wants Israel and the Palestinians to negotiate a deal together.

For the US's part, IF they in fact veto the recognition of a Palestinian state on the '67 lines they are forever out of the peace process. The US should simply abstain and not use their veto. It changes NOTHING on the ground. Israel will continue to build more settlements and expand existing ones. They will remain occupiers of the West Bank, it will be business as usual. BUT, and its a big "but", Israel will for all time be illegitimate beyond the '67 lines. The EU, Israels largest trading partner may cease trade with them which would be devastating to Israel.

For the Palestinian part they should word their request for statehood in such a way to invoke international law. Cite all UN Resolutions Israel is in violation of. They need to remind the UN that as a condition of Israels membership in the UN Israel AGREED in writing to facilitate the return of all refugees to their land and homes at the earliest possible time. Point out that the "road map" Israel agreed to prohibited the expansion of settlements or the establishment of new ones and cite each example of violation. Refer to the Oslo Accord and point out each violation. The Palestinians would do well to make known their own violations as well. Remind the UN that Israel has spent 50 years building "facts on the ground' to steal palestinian lands set aside by UN mandate in 1947 for a Palestinian state and if allowed to violate international law with impunity other states could use this precedent to do the same. Although doing this will not change any votes, it will put Israel in the light it has created for itself.

reply to post by gem_man


What is the general consensus regarding the `uniting for peace` mechanism - in your opinion can/will it be utilised in the likelihood of a security council veto in September?

[]Originally posted by UmbraSumus
What is the general consensus regarding the `uniting for peace` mechanism - in your opinion can/will it be utilised in the likelihood of a security council veto in September?

Well UmbraSumus


:The general assembly can use "Uniting for peace" to circumvent the Security Council but that is unlikely. They COULD however vote to recind Res 181 which actually created the State of Israel. Doing so will totally de-ligitimize Israel as a state. That too is unlikely. No, the vote will be merely symbolic.

The US wants the Palestinians to negotiate a settlement so the Palestinians will waive their rights under international law. The Palestinians should stand fast and simply tell the UN that Israel must be FORCED to adhere to international law and the covenants of the Geneva conventions. There is much more at stake then just borders. The key issues are:

1. Borders
2. EastJerusalem
3. Water
4, Security
5. Sovergnity of airspace
6, Natural Resources
7. Political Prisoners.
8. Right of Return

The Palestinians are in a terrific political position and should not waste this opportunity. They, for the first time can negotiate from a position of strength. I believe their position in negotiations should be.

Borders. Israel withdraws to the 1967 lines with EQUAL territory swaps to accomodate settlements built ON or VERY near the '67 lines. Anything else MUST be evacuated. Forget the "facts on the ground" as Jews living over the line can become Palestinian citizens. The borders must be secure for both parties. Both sides must respect the territorial integrity of the other. That means NO ISRAELI FLYOVERS. The airspace of each is sovergyn territory.

East Jerusalem. Since under international law no country can annex or settle land occupied in war, Israel must withdraw to West Jerusalem. and East Jerusalem will be the capitol of the new state.

Water. Water on Palestinian land belongs to the Palestinian State. Israel has no right to it. IF the Palestinians choose to sell Israel water they will.

Security. Both sides need security from the other.Since the Palestinians will be unable to have an army the burden of Palestinian security must fall on the UN.

Political prisoners. The Palestinians should require all to be released.

Right of Return. This is an individual right that cannot be negotiated away. Israel agreed as a condition of their membership in the UN to "allow the refugees to return at the earliest possible time" The Palestinians should tell Israel that, that time is now. Perhaps the refugees wil accept compensation but under current international law it would be up to each refugee to decide.

Natural resources. The gas fields off Gaza belong to the people of Palestine, period. If Israel wishes to buy gas that could probably be arranged.
Just my thoughts. The Palestinians could have different ideas.

fProfessor Stephen Schwebel, former judge on the Hague’s International Court of Justice (1981-2000), distinguished between territory acquired in an "aggressive conquest" (such as Japanese conquests during the 1930s and Nazi conquests during World War II) and territory taken in a war of self-defense (for example, Israel’s capture of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967 war). He also distinguished between the taking of territory that is legally held by another nation (such as the Japanese occupation of Chinese territory and the Nazi Germany occupation of France, Holland, Belgium and other European lands) as opposed to the taking of territory illegally held. The latter applies to the West Bank and Gaza, which were not considered the legal territories of any High Contracting Party when Israel won control of them. The West Bank and Gaza were never the territory of a High Contracting Party; the occupation after 1948 by Jordan and Egypt was illegal and neither country ever had lawful or recognized sovereignty. The last legal sovereignty over the territories was that of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate which encouraged Jewish settlement of the land.

But it is much more popular to hate on Israel and ignore the facts.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
fProfessor Stephen Schwebel, former judge on the Hague’s International Court of Justice (1981-2000), distinguished between territory acquired in an "aggressive conquest" (such as Japanese conquests during the 1930s and Nazi conquests during World War II) and territory taken in a war of self-defense (for example, Israel’s capture of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967 war). He also distinguished between the taking of territory that is legally held by another nation (such as the Japanese occupation of Chinese territory and the Nazi Germany occupation of France, Holland, Belgium and other European lands) as opposed to the taking of territory illegally held. The latter applies to the West Bank and Gaza, which were not considered the legal territories of any High Contracting Party when Israel won control of them. The West Bank and Gaza were never the territory of a High Contracting Party; the occupation after 1948 by Jordan and Egypt was illegal and neither country ever had lawful or recognized sovereignty. The last legal sovereignty over the territories was that of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate which encouraged Jewish settlement of the land.

But it is much more popular to hate on Israel and ignore the facts.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

This Jurist issued an unsolicited private opinion. which has no weight in law. Which is why to this moment in history EVERY nation save Israel does not recognize Israels illegal annexation of the Golan or East Jerusalem. It is interresting to note the wording of the relevant covenants of the Geneva convention were not changed to reflect the Judges opinion.

Once The UN vote for statehood and admittance into The UN goes through The Nation of Palestine will be a fully recognized and sanctioned nation which directly puts it underneath the protective umbrella of The UN.

Palestinian statehood is imminent!

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
fProfessor Stephen Schwebel, former judge on the Hague’s International Court of Justice (1981-2000), distinguished between territory acquired in an "aggressive conquest" (such as Japanese conquests during the 1930s and Nazi conquests during World War II) and territory taken in a war of self-defense (for example, Israel’s capture of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967 war). He also distinguished between the taking of territory that is legally held by another nation (such as the Japanese occupation of Chinese territory and the Nazi Germany occupation of France, Holland, Belgium and other European lands) as opposed to the taking of territory illegally held. The latter applies to the West Bank and Gaza, which were not considered the legal territories of any High Contracting Party when Israel won control of them. The West Bank and Gaza were never the territory of a High Contracting Party; the occupation after 1948 by Jordan and Egypt was illegal and neither country ever had lawful or recognized sovereignty. The last legal sovereignty over the territories was that of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate which encouraged Jewish settlement of the land.

But it is much more popular to hate on Israel and ignore the facts.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

How could the silly argument you posted about territory taken in a war of self-defense hold any water in this legal case, since the 1967 war was a pre-emptive attack on the Arab states and the Palestinians by Israel in a war of aggression?

In 1967 Israel attacked first in a war of aggression which is without the legal justification of self-defense in International Law.

And since Israel didn't owned those territories in the first place before 1967, which is now territory illegally held and gained by a war of aggression - any such insane legal arguments about justifying self-defence in regard to those illegally acquired territories, should be disregarded in an International court as a non-valid legal argument regarding those illegally held territories.

Therefore, your legal argument is void and your posted example to justify any territory acquired during Israel's war of aggression 1967 as soley an act self-defence is not a 100% correct, and a clear valid legal claim according to International Law, since Israel attacked first in the 1967 war.

A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense usually for territorial gain and subjugation. The phrase is distinctly modern and diametrically opposed to the prior legal international standard of "might makes right", under the medieval and pre-historic beliefs of right of conquest. Since the Korean War of the early 1950s, waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law.

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."[1] Article 39 of the United Nations Charter provides that the UN Security Council shall determine the existence of any act of aggression and "shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court refers to the crime of aggression as one of the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community”, and provides that the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

en.wikipedia.org...

The Six-Day War (Hebrew: מלחמת ששת הימים, Milhemet Sheshet Ha Yamim; Arabic: النكسة, an-Naksah, "The Setback," or حرب 1967, Ḥarb 1967, "War of 1967"), also known as the June War, 1967 Arab-Israeli War, or Third Arab-Israeli War, was fought between June 5 and June 10, 1967, by Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt (known at the time as the United Arab Republic), Jordan, and Syria

The war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise air strikes against Arab forces. The outcome was a swift and decisive Israeli victory. Israel took effective control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.

The status of the territories captured by Israel during the war and the concurrent refugee problem are central concerns in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, raising issues in international law, and having far-reaching consequences in global affairs.

en.wikipedia.org...

Peace!

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Its pretty ridiculous to build residential settlements in areas held for self defence/security .....

Israel did not launch a preemptive strike against Jordan. On June 5th at exactly 10:00 Jordan began an artillery strike against Israel, after being convinced by the Egyptian high command that they have the upper hand and that Jordan should join the party.

By international law, the west bank (Judea and Samara) are lands in dispute, not illegally occupied.
I'm sure that fact alone saddens some of you.

Do you people ever open a history book, or just puke whatever comes to mind ?

Originally posted by gravitational
Israel did not launch a preemptive strike against Jordan. On June 5th at exactly 10:00 Jordan began an artillery strike against Israel, after being convinced by the Egyptian high command that they have the upper hand and that Jordan should join the party.

By international law, the west bank (Judea and Samara) are lands in dispute, not illegally occupied.
I'm sure that fact alone saddens some of you.

Do you people ever open a history book, or just puke whatever comes to mind ?

Of course YOU are right and wikipedia and the rest of the world are wrong! By international law the lands are NOT in "dispute" as ONLY Israel disputes the ownership of this land. Ever wonder why the UN as a body has called Israels annexing of East Jerusalem and the Golan ILLEGAL? Let me help you with that question. Because they are NOT disputed. All settlements beyond the '67 lines are ALSO considered ILLEGAL under international law. THIS is why Israel is desperate to "negotiate" with the Palestinians. Onece the Palestinians AGREE to allow certain settlements they become legal and lose their illegitimate status. Speaking of "history books" take the time to read Benny Morris version of Israeli history where he documents the illegal genocide and forced expulsion of the indiginous Arab population. 367 villages razed to the ground and renamed and populated with Israelis. Why do you feel it is necessary to vilify posters who make anti Israeli comments? You could be civil and simply put forth an intelligent argument in rebuttal. That way you may have a chance to change the minds of some people. If they get their facts wrong simply point out a correction. Most people do not hate Jews but most people DO have a dislike for the actions of the IDF and the Israeli government. My opinion only.

reply to post by gem_man


Everything you just stated is based on your opinion (and many Israeli haters) and has no relevance to international law:

Facts – history and the law...and please read them carefully.

1- Jordan annexed Judea and Samaria in 1948
2- except Pakistan and GB, no country -including Arab countries - accepted their ownership on the land.
3- Israel concurred Judea and Samaria in 1967 after being attacked by Jordan.
4- Going to war to annihilate another country is illegal.
5- Jordan has no legal claims over Judea and Samaria.
6- if no land was occupied from a legal owner, how is it there is an “ occupier”?
7- The Geneva convention makes a clear distinction between an aggressor and a defender.
8- There was no Palestinian state or any other Palestinian entity prior to 1967 or 1948 or ever.
9- The Arabs who lived in that land, refused to accept the partition plan. Arabs, not Palestinians. Look it up in the partition resolution.
10- Judea and Samaria are – by international law -land in dispute, just like Kashmir, western Sahara and more.
11- Legally, resolution 181 has legal validity as long as both parties agree to it. The refusal of the Arabs to accept this plan means, the resolution has no, I repeat NO, validity.
12- resolution 242 dose NOT call for Israel to withdraw from ALL the “ occupied territories”, but from “occupied territories” as long as it establishes a secure borders.
13- nine miles strip of land in the hearts of Israel is indefensible.

Benny Moris, Ilan Pappe and a few other so called Historians, openly admitted to not writing the truth and changing facts because it fits their agenda.
So spare me...