The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Palestine, UNESCO and Legal Realities > Comments

Palestine, UNESCO and Legal Realities : Comments

By David Singer, published 16/11/2010

Palestinians are trying to obliterate any sense of Jewish history in the West Bank.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
thnak god for Israel...a beacon of sanity in the middle east. Until the arabs state that they believe Israel has the right to exist, there will be no long term peace. I wouldn't be too happy if my next door neighbour wanted to exterminate me
Posted by peter piper, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 9:06:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice.
The world is more and more coming to see the reality of the situation is the middle east and how much of it is driven by zionists like Mr Singer here.
For too long has the world turned a blind eye, like they said they never would again after what happened in WWII, but now the tide has turned and no matter how much you bleat David the expansion will end. Israel will finally have to set its borders and the Palestinians will have a state of their own. Im sure that wont be the end of it but it will be a start.
Posted by mikk, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 9:48:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I admit I do not possess detailed knowledge of all that goes on in the Israel/Palestine saga. But I find the mention of "Jewish rights" in the article a little unnerving. If we go back in history far enough...what about "Catholic rights" to most of Italy or "Islamic rights" to parts of Spain? Why stop at religion? "English rights" to most of France...

I have no qualms with Israel, despite internal issues it remains a free and democratic nation but the issue of peace (in whatever form that takes) seems to always be derailed by the construction of new settlements. As with Cyprus, the issue of property rights from people who fled across the border is an issue that remains unsolved. As for religious sites...is it really that hard for all parties to share their ownership and subsequent responsibilities? Sometimes reminds of toddlers.

I realise negotiations may be done differently in the Middle East, due to cultural and historical norms, but this saga has been going on for decades! At least we should be grateful that the sides keep talking with each other but can we really expect to see any form of agreement in our lifetimes?

The US, Europe, UN have spent countless hours (over so many years) and resources on this issue. Is this the best use of everyone's time? Perhaps in a few more decades, when (if predictions are correct) Middle East oil is not such a vital component of our economies will we see new developments...Perhaps not?

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/
Posted by jorge, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 1:00:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
# jorge

Why do you find the mention of "Jewish rights" unnerving?

You only have to go back to 1920 to find when those rights were created in international law when the League of Nations unanimously agreed to the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine after 2000 years of occupation by a host of different conquerors. Palestine comprised a mere 0.001% of the Ottoman Empire lost by Turkey to Britain and France as a result of World War 1

At the very same time "Arab rights" were created in the remaining 99.99% of the conquered Ottoman Empire in the form of Mandates for Syria and Mesopotamia giving the Arabs living there the similar right to self determination after 400 years of Ottoman occupation.

The Arab States of Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq were subsequently created pursuant to the Arab Mandates. Jordan was created from the Mandate for Palestine.

Of course these crucial facts are totally ignored by Arab propagandists who never refer to the vast area of land opened up to them for self determination but only concentrate on the sliver of land given for Jewish self-determination which they have vehemently opposed since the Mandate for Palestine was created.

The Arab refusal to accept this division of the Ottoman Empire by the League of Nations is the root cause of the current conflict.

Understanding this inability of the Arabs to give the Jews such an infinitesmal share of the Ottoman pie - and still exhibiting such greed in 2010 might enable you to look at the conflict in a different light and understand how this continuing intransigence is the enduring obstacle to peace.

(To be continued
Posted by david singer, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 5:27:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
# To jorge - Part 2

You state:

"but the issue of peace (in whatever form that takes) seems to always be derailed by the construction of new settlements."

Your understanding is incorrect.

There were no settlements in 1937 when the Peel Committee recommended partition, nor in 1947 when the UN recommended partition - both of which were accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs.

There were no settlements between 1948-1967 when the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Egypt and the Arabs could have with the stroke of a pen created the independent and Jew free State of Palestine they now are negotiating in 2010. 60 years of fighting and bloodshed that could have been avoided by Arab action without Jewish approval has been the result.

Certainly the settlements complicate a solution but remember - Jews had the legal right to settle in the West Bank pursuant to the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter and have continued to do so in ever increasing numbers since 1967 as the Arabs refused to negotiate with or recognize Israel after the Six Day War.

Settlements would not have occurred on the territorial landscape if the Arabs had grabbed the baton between 1937-1967 and accepted the opportunities given to them to compromise.

They have indeed become the architects of their own misfortune. They have no one but themselves to blame for their current situation as a result of so many missed opportunities.

I agree that the inordinate amount of international time and effort - not to mention the billions of dollars ploughed into the region - could have been better spent elsewhere. If this latest effort by Obama fails they should leave the parties to their own devices and deal with far more dangerous issues such as Darfur, Yemen, Pakistan, Myanmar, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan
Posted by david singer, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 5:42:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not sure why the editors of OLO publish so many of Singer's articles.

David,

You always seems so concerned with Israel. Wouldn't you be happier if you just moved there?

My advice would be to wait until Iran gets the bomb. When Israel is confronted with an opponent who can actually fight back, it will decide peace is the best option. Until then, I guess you will keep banging on about Israel from the safety of Oz. Good luck.
Posted by dane, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 6:41:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The League of Nations and the United Nations were not and are not infallible. They made many mistakes. One of them was to continue to support the establishment of" A Jewish State " Worldwide there was compassion and support for Jewish people after the Holocaust. The problem arose when Zionists pursued a policy of ethnic cleansing and expulsion of Palestinians from THEIR homelands. There would not have emerged a problem if the Jewish people had fostered a secular state in what they believe is a God given mandate.
What the UN has created is a new colony that now has to be de-colonised.
The UN also made a serious mistake in permitting Indonesia to colonise West Papua by the same methods: transmigration and genocide, theft of resources and unabated killings of West Papuans demanding freedom and a new and fair referendum unlike the 1967 " act of no choice".

David, just because you continue to defend the establishment of Israel under conditions where the Palestinians were not consulted, does not mean that such an act of invasion and dispossession of Palestinians will endure into the future. Either Israel will participate in a peaceful solution or else vanish into the sands of time when the rest of the world no longer supports their criminal behaviour.
Posted by maracas1, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 12:57:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#Dane

It would be more constructive if you attacked the contents of my article rather than having a go at me.

I guess OLO publish my articles because the editor believes I have something constructive to say.

Your silence as to its contents also indicates you don't like the message but are unable to dispute its veracity.

The truth hurts - and you sure are hurting.
Posted by david singer, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 2:32:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Maracas: you say:

//David, just because you continue to defend the establishment of Israel under conditions where the Palestinians were not consulted//

The "palestinians" were under Ottoman rule. They did not need to be 'consulted' as you suggest. Their attitude to Jews was well established in the massacre of Hebron in 1929 LONGGGGGG before Israel was established. If you read the facts you will see that this massaccre occurred on the strength (weakness) of a RUMOR!

If you realize just how sensitive is the Muslim/Arab mind to ANYthing non Islamic you would do 2 things.

1/ Realize that it's never about "justice and land" in the middle east. Those ideas are just a cloak for hate, fear and loathing of anything perceived to be the slightest threat to Islamic dominance.

2/ Realize that when people like myself and Proxy and others stand strongly against any "Islamization" of Australia it is for very very good reason. Just read about Hebron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

Personal attack is the last refuge of a polemically poverty stricken person.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 7:13:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you David for simplifying the situation:

If that's what the whole Middle-East conflict and wars are all about, sacred tombs, then modern science has the answer: dig and find who or what is buried there.

As those fictional patriarchs were never born, neither did they die and left any bones behind, so what archeologists will find there by carbon-testing is likely to be some 1000-year old corpses of an Arab Sheich and his wife, or perhaps just the bones of a donkey or a camel.

Either way, let the findings decide who owns that land, then the conflict is over!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 1:38:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu

you say:

"If that's what the whole Middle-East conflict and wars are all about, sacred tombs, then modern science has the answer: dig and find who or what is buried there."

A point you appear not to realize is that the Palestinians are very busy like beavers REMOVING any possibility of discovering anything which might point to Israeli pre-existence. That's the whole point of David's post. It's not that there 'isn't' anything..it's that one side is intent on making sure that what IS there would NEVER support Israel's claims.

But archeological digs are well established so as to confirm so much of the Old Testament, it's a silly exercise to try to suddenly call for new ones. (they are going on all the time) Just familiarize yourself with the academic literature please.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 3:19:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A_BASIS_FOR_HOSTILITY in Palestine. Much as we would wish 'utopia' to arrive... there are factors which those unfamiliar with the true teachings of Islam simply "don't get" and it is those ideas which are driving the Palestinians. (more so than land)

I've often quoted chapter 9 v 29 from the Quran. Here it is.

9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, [even if they are] of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Here is a commentary from a widely respected Western based Muslim cleric who would be termed a 'moderate'.

http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=414&subsection=Misconceptions#13

"Some people have falsely concluded from verse 9:29, that Muslims are commanded to attack all non-Muslims until they pay money. In fact, such an interpretation is completely false and contradicts authentic Islamic teachings. Commenting on this verse, Shaykh Jalal Abualrub writes":

MY_COMMENT. You need to ponder this above paragraph for a moment.. let it sink in....THEN read the man they refer to(below).

These Ayat (Quranic verses) stress the necessity of fighting against the People of the Scripture, but under what conditions? We previously established the fact that the Islamic State is not permitted to attack non-Muslims who are not hostile to Islam, who do not oppress Muslims, or try to convert Muslims by force from their religion, or expel them from their lands, or wage war against them, or prepare for attacks against them. If any of these offenses occurs, however, Muslims are permitted to defend themselves and protect their religion. Muslims are not permitted to attack non-Muslims who signed peace pacts with them, or non-Muslims who live under the protection of the Islamic State.

MY_COMMENT. If you look 'closely' at the conditions which justify v 29 being applied, they include "prepare for attacks" and THIS...is the point where subjective value judgements come in. It is also why and how radical Muslims can easily justify their attacks on places like the MCG and Holsworthy.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 3:28:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While the tomb of Abraham in Hebron and Rachel in Bethlehem are biblical sites sacred to Jews they are no less sacred to Christians and Muslims and of great historical interest to people of all faiths and none. Since they are located in the Occupied Palestinian Territories then under international law Israel has no claim to sovereignty over these sites (nor any other part of the West Bank).

David claims that "the Jews" have a legal rights to settle on the West Bank "for the declared purpose of reconstituting their national home in accordance with Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter."

Mate you can't have it both ways. Under the partition Israel also had obligations. Under the laws relating to military occupation there are obligations. How many of these responsibilities has Israel shouldered?

And David, Israel has never declared the borders of this national homeland - where do you think they should be? How much Palestinian and other Arab land should Israel be permitted to colonise?

As for this nonsense that we should recognise Israel as a Jewish state, I have a lot of respect for those who support democracy in Israel and the idea that Israel should be a state for all its citizens rather than a theocracy that discriminates in favour of the 80% who are Jewish.
Posted by Mona, Thursday, 25 November 2010 7:57:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
# Mona

(Part 1)

Your attempt to suggest the religious significance of the tombs in Hebron and Bethlehem are equal for Jews, Christians and Moslems is rubbish that does not merit a response.

The tombs are not situated in Occupied Palestinian Territory. They are situated in territory whose sovereignty remains in dispute and undetermined. That is what the current negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are supposed to resolve. You have jumped the gun in seeking to predetermine the outcome of those negotiations. Take a cold shower and cool down.

Israel has a claim in international law to sovereignty in the West Bank pursuant to the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter. Read the sections.

Israel's right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the West Bank is to be without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities that live there. 95% of the non-Jewish communities living there are under the administrative control of the Palestinian Authority - not Israel. If there are any breaches of those civil and religious rights then those aggrieved should look to the PA to address them - not Israel.

(To be continued)
Posted by david singer, Thursday, 25 November 2010 8:30:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
# Mona

(Part 2)

I believe the borders of the Jewish National Home will ultimately be determined in negotiations between Israel and Jordan since the current negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have not even got the parties to first base after 17 fruitless years of on and off negotiations .

The West Bank, Gaza and Israel comprise just 0.001% of the Ottoman Empire captured by Great Britain and France from Turkey during World War 1. The Arab people already have attained sovereignty in the remaining 99.999% in many Arab states - Lebanon, Syria,Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Jordan.

The West Bank is 1/12th the size of Tasmania. Israel has already offered to cede its claims in 90% of the West Bank. The Arab insistence on 100% or nothing remains a major stumbling block to ending the conflict.

Remember too the Arabs had 100% of the West Bank between 1948-1967 when not one Jew lived there as they had all been kicked out by the Jordanian army in the 1948 War. The Arabs did not attempt to create a new Arab State in all the West Bank. That opportunity will not return again.

Israel's demand that the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as the Jewish State is necessitated because of the provisions of Article 20 of the PLO Covenant which states:

"Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong."

Whilst this racist attitude prevails any hopes of ever finally ending the conflict between Arabs and Jews remains very bleak indeed.

Israel is a state for all its citizens - 20% of whom are Arab. It is a democratic republic - not a theocracy. Many of its Arab neighbours would do well to emulate its example rather than continuing to plot its annihilation and elimination.
Posted by david singer, Thursday, 25 November 2010 8:50:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Sleeping man acquitted of drink-driving" - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/24/3075421.htm

[A man has been acquitted of high-range drink-driving because police could not prove exactly when he started his car.

The Darwin Magistrates Court heard police found 35-year-old Ilija Jacobs asleep at the wheel of his car at 8:00am in May.

The court heard the engine was still running and it took officers five minutes to wake him up.

Police turned off the engine and arrested Mr Jacobs.

He later recorded a blood-alcohol reading of 0.15 per cent.

Mr Jacobs fought the matter in court.

His lawyer Peter Maley argued that police could not prove if he had started the car within the four-hour time limit that a person can be legally breathalysed after starting or driving a car.

The magistrate agreed and today acquitted him of the charge.]

So innocent Mr. Jacobs turned on his car while sober, then sat inside and drank without driving, then fell asleep for over 4 hours, all while the engine kept going, so the 0.15 reading is invalid and he was never officially drunk despite it being clear to any sensible person that he was in fact drink-driving.

Before even attempting to approach the subject-matter whether Israel is innocent or not, just the need to resort to (and repeat many times over on this forum) this type of arguments, as constructed by the shrewdest of lawyers, based on an obscure and petty interpertation of antiquated documents from 1922 and 1945 despite the reality that the middle-east has changed so dramatically since, way beyond anything the delegates of the early 20th century could ever imagine, makes Israel's innocence seem just as fantastic as Mr. Jacobs' - That causes Israel great injustice, for even IF the argument is technically correct, with such a solicitor, who needs the prosecution?

Now claiming that those patriarchs ever existed and were buried approximately 3500 years ago in these particular spots, is also at least as fantastic as Mr. Jacob's innocence.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 25 November 2010 10:32:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
# Yuyutsu

You claim my arguments are based on an "obscure and petty interpretation of antiquated documents from 1922 and 1945" without any attempt to particularize your specific objections to anything I have written.

What part of my interpretation do you find obscure and petty?

When you let me know then I will be more than happy to respond.

Many of our laws are of much older vintage than 1922 or 1945 but remain in force until repealed. Respect for the law and the rule of law - however imperfect or unjust it might be - remains one of the fundamentals of most democratic societies.

The legal rights created in favour of the Jewish people in 0.001% of the conquered Ottoman Empire took place simultaneously with the legal rights created in favour of the Arab people in 99.999% of that conquered Ottoman Empire.

The Arab inability to accept the justice or equity of this legal carve up by the League of Nations still remains the major stumbling block to resolving the conflict between Arabs and Jews.

Put simply in language you can understand - The Arabs are not satisfied with 99.999% of the land given to them for self determination after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. They want 100%.

The Arabs have suffered a lot of indigestion in indulging their gluttony for an extra 0.001% - equivalent in size to 1/12th of Tasmania - the greater portion of which still looks like it did 3000 years ago when Abraham,Isaac and Jacob trekked across it as the Old Testament relates.

The Arabs relentless pursuit of this objective will no doubt cause a lot more suffering for both Jews and Arabs.

People like you who apparently believe such Arab claim should be supported and maintained in the face of what was legally decided by the League of Nations and the United Nations are either brain dead or brainwashed. That is your perfect entitlement.

It is not my view.
Posted by david singer, Friday, 26 November 2010 7:47:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

I never said that I believe the Arab claim - I don't.

But I believe that the Israeli Jews are driving like drunkards.

Perhaps the Arabs, given their large numbers and reserves of oil, can afford to be stupid, but the Jews, with smaller numbers and no oil to export, cannot afford to immitate them.

Take what you wrote, starting from "The Arab inability to accept" up to "will no doubt cause a lot more suffering for both Jews and Arabs", substitue "Arabs" for "Jews", adjust the percentages accordingly, and voila, it fits!

Respect for the law and the rule of law even when the law is unjust, is evil. Isn't that what most Germans just did in the 1930's and 1940's?

Notwithstanding this, even IF the law ALLOWS many unwholesome actions (which it probably doesn't, but I am tired of delving into the legal details right now), no current international law REQUIRES Israel to keep occupying any of the territories it took in 1967, or to be cruel in its occupation, or to unnecessarily provoke the local inhabitants, or to take away their land and water, or to restrict their movements.

It is your perfect entitlement to abandon common-sense and try to use complicated international-law formalizations as a fig leaf, but we can all see through it.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 26 November 2010 9:04:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#Yuyutsu

Until the Arabs accept that Jews are entitled to self determination in their ancient biblical and historical homeland pursuant to the decisions of the League of Nations and the United Nations the murder, violence and inevitable suffering of both Jews and Arabs will continue
Posted by david singer, Saturday, 27 November 2010 8:19:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy