Interesting David! You are all over your view of any violation of Jewish rights? But seem to want to defend Israel, when she assumes carte blanch rights on "acquired" Palestinian territory?

This reminds me of the inner workings of (criminally corrupt?) President Nixon's mind, when he said, if a President does it, it's legal! (Watergate scandal)

Ditto ever expanding Jewish settlements on Palestinian land!

I wonder how many rights are violated as generational Palestinian homes and sustaining orchards are bulldozed with all the concern for the welfare of the displaced, only exceeded by Herr Hitler's SS storm troopers!

I suppose as long as it's legal? That's all that really matters?
Alan B.

Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 11 January 2017 9:56:08 AM

A legal system and a justice system are often two different things.

#Alan B

Your claim of "ever expanding settlements on Palestinian land" - is refuted by the following facts:

1. When the PLO was formed in 1964 – article 24 of its Charter proclaimed:
“Article 24. This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.”

2.The “West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” had been callled "Judea and Samaria" for 3000 years until Transjordan in 1948:
(i) conquered and occupied those areas ,

(ii) forcibly removed all the Jews living there,

then in 1950:

(iii) changed its own name to Jordan and

(iv) changed Judea and Samaria’s name to the “West Bank” to differentiate its newly acquired territory from the East Bank of the Jordan River and to erase any Jewish connection or identification of these areas as part of the Jewish ancient biblical, ancestral and legally mandated homeland.

3. Judea and Samaria were designated as areas within which the Jewish National Home was to be reconstituted under the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. These legal rights vested in the Jewish people are alive in 2016 by virtue of article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

4. In 1968 article 24 was dropped from the revised PLO Charter.

5.Jordan did not relinquish legal and administrative control of the West Bank until 31 July 1988.

Given the above facts how can you claim that the settlements are expanding on "Palestinian land"?

The Jewish people have claims as well - as I have enumerated above.

Just be honest and use a phrase like "expanding settlements in areas of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) disputed between Arabs and Jews"

That is accurate and reflects the current position today.

The term "Palestinian lands" only signifies how much misleading and deceptive Arab propaganda you have swallowed and the success of that propaganda.

If you want to be taken seriously - be careful in your choice of words.

It was all had been written. And it is fulfilling.

Legal...schmegal

The world's Jews have homelands in dozens of countries, living peacefully as equals with everyone else, and the "need" for a racist state of born overlords and submen is a con. The idea that Jews were excluded from residing in Palestine before Irgun and other foreign racist terrorists grabbed the territory in 1948 is a blatant lie, like the lie that foreigners whether in Britain or elsewhere had some extraterritorial "right" to make laws for disposal of Palestine. British "mandates" over Palestine have a much validity as their "mandate" over Rhodesia.

As for UN, the UN's jurisdiction over Palestine has been effectively abolished through a routine US veto over all its rulings. The power of America to veto decisions of the UN is itself an anachronism derived from the Allied victory over the Hun aggressors when it was a very different America from what it became after the war.

Mr Singer can keep referring to decisions which have long lost their moral and even legal validity but it has as much relevance as efforts to apply lipstick to a pig.

#Emperor Julian

Rubbish arguments as usual.

Seems you are unconcerned that there are 57 Islamic States in the world of which 22 are Arab. Yet the world has had to put up with the world demanding another one for the last 100 years and rejecting offer after offer that has been made.


Are these also "racist states of born overlords and submen"?

Your vitriol is spared for the only Jewish state in the world that has been legally reconstituted as the Jewish National Home by the League of Nations on its biblical and ancestral homeland.

The legal validity has been preserved in article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Your disregard for international law is disgraceful.

You can now add law-breaker to your Jew-hater credentials in your CV.

"Your disregard for international law is disgraceful"

Hypocrisy at its finest. How many UN resolutions have Israel ignored, except one that suits them.

The West Bank settlements, including East Jerusalem are illegal under International Law, unless you're Israeli of course, who believe they are above International Law because they are Jewish.

Billyd

Don't parrot the mantra that Israeli settlements are illegal in international law

They are legal under article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter except where they have been built on privately owned land without the consent of the owner.

Rubbish, they are illegal, and all the bullcrap in the world won't change it, even your puppet masters the US admit they are illegal.

//You can now add law-breaker to your Jew-hater credentials in your CV.//

Yeah of course, Dave. Everyone who disagrees with Israel is necessarily anti-semitic. Even the Jewish ones.

And everybody who disagrees with your interpretations of international law is necessarily guilty of actually breaking international law.

Give it a rest, you old fool. You're making an ass of yourself.

#Billyd

The repetition of your meaningless mantra is meaningless.

Put up some facts man or butt out.

#Toni Lavis

I have claimed the UN Security Council has violated article 80 of its own Charter and is therefore in breach of international law.

I have stated in my article:
" The questionable legality of Resolution 2334 needs to be urgently resolved by the Security Council itself seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice ("ICJ") under article 96(a) of the United Nations Charter."

That is my opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion - especially when he provides the facts to support that opinion.

What do you find objectionable in that?

Let the UN Security Council get an advisory opinion and see who is right or wrong.

Catching up with David Singer's studied avoidance of the elephant in his racist room:

"Seems you are unconcerned that there are 57 Islamic States in the world of which 22 are Arab. Yet the world has had to put up with the world demanding another one for the last 100 years and rejecting offer after offer that has been made.

"Are these also "racist states of born overlords and submen"?

"Your vitriol is spared for the only Jewish state in the world that has been legally reconstituted as the Jewish National Home by the League of Nations on its biblical and ancestral homeland."

--

It was constituted (sort of) - not REconstituted - by a shonky edict written entirely by foreigners - an extension of a colonial "Declaration" from the long defunct British Empire. Palestinians have NEVER been even peripherally involved in decisions giving their homeland to foreign terrorists. The result is a lot more than a "Jewish National (sic) Home" it's a STATE with a blatantly race-based "Law of Return" clearly demarking born overlords to rule over submen on the basis of race. It exists only by massive annual payments and military and diplomatic support from the USA. When that dies, so does the State of Israel.

The Islamic States are ruled by a religious cult and not one of them has an open invitation to foreigners with the right bloodlines to settle there and displace the locals. Israel does - the world's only state based on racial overlordship. That's why it's picked out for hostility and its self-proclaimed right to exist and grab ever new territory. No other state like it anywhere in the world. Uniquely 100% racist in its laws and what serves as its "constitution"

Singer: "Put up some facts man or butt out."

I did, the settlements are illegal under international law, international law says so, whether you agree or not.

Article 80 was superseded by the UN, who clearly marked out that territory which was to become Israel, and it did not include any of the West Bank. It guarantees Israel nothing.

I meant to say any decision by the League of Nations, whose edicts were not binding by law, was superseded by the UN Partition Plan for Palestine, adopted by the UN on 29 November 1947.

#Emperor Julian

You state:

"It was constituted (sort of) - not REconstituted - by a shonky edict written entirely by foreigners - an extension of a colonial "Declaration" from the long defunct British Empire. Palestinians have NEVER been even peripherally involved in decisions giving their homeland to foreign terrorists. The result is a lot more than a "Jewish National (sic) Home" it's a STATE"

My response:

1. The correct term is "REconstituted" - the preamble to the Mandate for Palestine stating:
"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for REconstituting their national home in that country;"

2. You ignore or deceptively mislead in attempting to cover up the Correspondence with the Palestine Arab Delegation and the Zionist Organisation presented to the British Parliament
https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/48A7E5584EE1403485256CD8006C3FBE
This correspondence debunks your claim that "Palestinians have NEVER been even peripherally involved in decisions giving their homeland to foreign terrorists"

3. You ignore or deceptively mislead in attempting to cover up the findings of the 1937 Peel Commission (pages 33 - 34) - quoted in my response to #imajulianutter on 10 June 2014 at 5:54:38.

"This definition of the National Home {in the White Paper} has been sometimes taken to preclude the establishment of a Jewish State. But, though the phraseology was clearly intended to conciliate, as far as might be, Arab antagonism to the National Home, there is nothing in it to prohibit the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State, and Mr. Churchill himself has told us in evidence that no such prohibition was intended."

Click on the following link to read what the Peel Commission said in further answer to this bogus claim by you:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16375&page=4

You are not forming your opinions on the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict from documents that clearly rebut and refute your unsubstantiated one sentence throwaways.

You are relying on false and misleading Arab propaganda that has radicalised and brainwashed you.

You can now add "intellectual fraudster" or "innocent dupe of Arab propaganda" to "law breaker" and "Jew-hater" in your CV.

#Billyd

You make the following claim:

"Article 80 was superseded by the UN, who clearly marked out that territory which was to become Israel, and it did not include any of the West Bank. It guarantees Israel nothing."

My response:

Article 80 is still in the UN Charter today and it requires compliance by all Member States - as Article 4 (1) states:
"Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations."

The vested rights of the Jewish people created by the 1922 Mandate for Palestine in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza remain alive and kicking in 2016 under article 80 of the UN Charter.

You omit to state that the UN Plan was accepted by the Jews but rejected by the Arabs in November 1947 and that such rejection was confirmed when six Arab armies invaded Western Palestine in May 1948.

Why would you do this? Was it deliberate on your part or did you not know about these very important facts?

#Billyd

You make the following further claim:

"I meant to say any decision by the League of Nations, whose edicts were not binding by law, was superseded by the UN Partition Plan for Palestine, adopted by the UN on 29 November 1947."

My response:

You fail to understand that article 80 was inserted in the UN Charter precisely to counter claims like yours that the rights vested in the Jewish people by the League of Nations terminated with the League's demise and the establishment of the United Nations.

The Mandate for Palestine's "edicts" are binding in international law - just as the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon's edicts and the Mandate for Mesopotamia's edicts are binding in international law - as indeed any "edicts" declared by the League of Nations during its existence.

You obviously rely on unsubstantiated throwaway statements in the PLO Covenant and Hamas Charter declaring null and void all international law concerning Palestine made since the Balfour Declaration.

The Arabs have never accepted the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine - as was their prerogative to do. But such rejection does not negate the Mandate's binding validity in international law - vesting legal rights in the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine.

Had the Arabs accepted the Mandate in 1922 establishing one homeland in 77% of Palestine for the Arabs and one homeland within 23% of Palestine for the Jews - the world could have been spared the following 95 years of conflict.

Indeed this two-state solution is once again looming as the only solution to end that conflict. The Arabs would be well advised to accept such a proposal to allow direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan to finally resolve this long running conflict.

Again you fail to mention that the UN Plan was accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs. Why?

You expose yourself as just another radicalised and brainwashed victim of Arab propaganda - believing that if you repeat lies often enough they will eventually become accepted as truth.