Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? (long)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Ned, there was no Palestine. There was a Mandate of Palestine. When the partition plan was announced, but more importantly when the Jews decalered the new state of Israel, they were stating that they were not Palestinians, but Israelis. they gave up the notion of being Palestinians. Do th settlers call themselves Jewish Palestinians? or Israelis?

Now, personally, I think the partition was a terrible plan and idea, but it creates the new legal definitoons we must work under.

the league mandate which the zionist accepted called only for a Jewish national home. They didnt press for statehood and partition until it became clear that the arabs would not accept unlimited jewish immigration. and in fact that the arabs would riot to press the mandatory authority to virtually halt Jewish immigration.

[GePap]

And where the Arabs wrong to ask for such a thing, given that they had no democratic choice over the actions of a foreign mandate government, and that it is within the rights of peoples to close their doors (such as the US geenrally did in the 1920's) if they feel their way of life being threatened, erroded, by others?

This always astounds me: can anyone else think of any people in the world who were forced to accept mass immigration by foreigners seeking not to be part of thier community, but to create seperate and new communities of their own, to th every possible detriment of the local's way of life, and to be happy about it? To say "hey, that's OK with us"?

If you were a palestinains living in haifa in 1947, would YOU have backed the partition plan? Would you have accepted and endless string of new migrants? Specially, fi you had no democratic say in the matter????

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Ned, there was no Palestine. There was a Mandate of Palestine. When the partition plan was announced, but more importantly when the Jews decalered the new state of Israel, they were stating that they were not Palestinians, but Israelis. they gave up the notion of being Palestinians. Do th settlers call themselves Jewish Palestinians? or Israelis?

Now, personally, I think the partition was a terrible plan and idea, but it creates the new legal definitoons we must work under.

Here is a snippet from UN General Assembly resolution 181 that clearly demonstrates that Jews were citizens of Palestine:

"The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall, not later than two months after the withdrawal of the armed forces of the mandatory Power, hold elections to the Constituent Assembly which shall be conducted on democratic lines.
The election regulations in each State shall be drawn up by the Provisional Council of Government and approved by the Commission. Qualified voters for each State for this election shall be persons over eighteen years of age who are (a) Palestinian citizens residing in that State; and (b) Arabs and Jews residing in the State, although not Palestinian citizens, who, before voting, have signed a notice of intention to become citizens of such State."

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00ps0

The question remains, how did they lose their Palestinian citizenship?

[GePap]

The resoltuion was writen before the declaration of the state of Israel. You ask how the Jews lost Palestinain citizenship? well, why don;t Palestinains have Israeli citizenship? Is that a different question?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Please!

Sorry, but that 'explinatio" ignores many salient facts.

1. In 1948 Israel declared its independence without declaring borders. The 1950 armistice lines have been agreed to be the borders of the state of Israel since then, just as the armistice line between Norht and South k0rea is seen as the border. if NK troops cressed into the South, under the DMZ, at least according to this way of thinking, they would not be occupiers, noly in "despitued territory".

2. UNSCR 242 states Israel must withdrwa from occupied territories. Fine, quible over the abscensce of a "the", but it is clear that in 1967, before any settlements were built, Isreal was already seen as being an occupying power.

3. If what you say is correct, ALL of ISREAL is disputed territory, plus, the Plaestinians still ahe the right to returns, and since the borders of Israel, according to you, are not set, what argument can Jews make about their state being inudated by Arabs? Just et the Palestinains back, then finalize a set of borders that gives you a mojority Jewsish state, NO?

Israel is seen as the occupying power. UNSCR are the laws. Settlements are, until a final agreemn is reached, ILLEGAL.

1. yes with regard to korea you are absolutely correct.

If Nkor were to take over Seoul, and were to establish settlements there people by North koreans, that would not be a violation of the geneva convention. That would hardly be the most important issue for the world community at such a time, i think.

2. Non use of the word the is NOT a quibble. It was a matter of heated discussion among the UNSC members at the time. US diplomats have subsequently made it clear that if "the" had been included, they would have vetoed 242. Ergo no borders, despite use of term occupying power.

3. Israels objection to the Pal right of return is a prudential one, based on israels security. Israel has NOT, AFAIK invoked the geneva convention as a rationale against the Pal right of return. Which it could not, since, as you point out, all of Israel is disputed territory.

so again - israel has never declared the 1948 lines as a formal boundary. The PLO did not. Jordan did not. The UN did not. They are NOT a formal boundary.

Therefore if the argument is to be made that the settlements are illegal under international law, it must be made on the UNSC resolutions alone, and not in relation to the geneva convention. Which would require a close reading of those resolutions, the relevant section of the charter under which they were passed, and the legal implications of those resolutions.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
The resoltuion was writen before the declaration of the state of Israel. You ask how the Jews lost Palestinain citizenship? well, why don;t Palestinains have Israeli citizenship? Is that a different question?

Umm, many do.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

This always astounds me: can anyone else think of any people in the world who were forced to accept mass immigration by foreigners seeking not to be part of thier community, but to create seperate and new communities of their own, to th every possible detriment of the local's way of life, and to be happy about it? To say "hey, that's OK with us"?

The balfour declaration and the League mandate, by establishing a jewish national home, recognizes the international community's understanding that the Jews were NOT foreigners, but were an indigenous people.

There is no parallel (and thus no precedent in international law) as there is no other example of a people expelled and dispersed and yet retaining its identity over 1800 years through numerous changes of international legal regimes.

I would also note that during that period there were many cases of arabs conquering lands, migrating into settlements, seizing land, and pressuring the locals to convert to islam and/or adapt to muslim culture. In fact this has occured regulartly through the centuries, in cases where the interlopers were not indigenous people returning from exile.

and by the way arabs were not expected to be happy about it. Merely to not respond with violence, violence principally directed against civilians.

[GePap]

But not all, not most. That is the question.

LoTM:

So youw oudl agree that the entirety of the mandate of palestinbe area is up for renogotiation, since ht borders are not set?

Sorry, but I find this argument facitious. Isreal has utter and complete civil control over the ands within the green line: why? after all, it is simply "dsiputed territory. Why is there an israeli civl authority in 78% of the disputed areas, but a military one in the rest? After all, no set borders......

Israel has not right to deny the right of return: it is a bacis right of refugees. All refugees have the right of return, whether Israel cares to accept it or not. The only ones that can negotiate that right away are the palestinians. The 4th geneva convention has nothing to do with it.

Therefore if the argument is to be made that the settlements are illegal under international law, it must be made on the UNSC resolutions alone, and not in relation to the geneva convention. Which would require a close reading of those resolutions, the relevant section of the charter under which they were passed, and the legal implications of those resolutions.

UNSCR are international law! If there is a UNSCR saying that the settlements are illegal, then it is illegal for member states to have such settlements. And the UNSC came to that conclusion by reading the 4th Geneva convention. Nowhere in the geneva convention does it state that a military occupant can only be such if they are beyond authortized borders. The Pals have no Israeli citizenship: the Israeli authority oevr them is MIlitary, hence, it is a military occupation. It is obvious, ecept to those that want to create some sort of legal loophole for these settlements to fall through.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
But not all, not most. That is the question.

LoTM:

So youw oudl agree that the entirety of the mandate of palestinbe area is up for renogotiation, since ht borders are not set?
.

yup - the pals could make a proposal asking for Haifa. Just as the israelis could make a proposal claiming the pal state should be limited to Gaza only. In neither case would the proposal be serious - because of the facts on the ground, not any formal border.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

Israel has not right to deny the right of return: it is a bacis right of refugees. All refugees have the right of return, whether Israel cares to accept it or not. The only ones that can negotiate that right away are the palestinians. The 4th geneva convention has nothing to do with it.

[.

excuse me, youre the one who brought this up in the context of the discussion of the 4th geneva convention, not me.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The balfour declaration and the League mandate, by establishing a jewish national home, recognizes the international community's understanding that the Jews were NOT foreigners, but were an indigenous people.

The Balfour decaration has little if any legal stading. it was a statement of policy at a time Britian did not even have control over the lands It was "giving away". As for the League Mandate, it was imposed upon the local populace. Last time I checked, the Palestinians did not vote to become a mandate. It, and all mandates, were inherently undemocratic, against the very notion of self-determination.

I would also note that during that period there were many cases of arabs conquering lands, migrating into settlements, seizing land, and pressuring the locals to convert to islam and/or adapt to muslim culture. In fact this has occured regulartly through the centuries, in cases where the interlopers were not indigenous people returning from exile.

There is no such thing as indegenous people in exile. Second, the line of logic that "hey, they (not Plas, but Arabs..so the case is even less logical) were doign ti eslewhere, so we can do it here" is wrong. If the Arabs were doign ti eslewher,e then they were euqally as wrong in the places they were doing it! So if everyone is murdering someone else, it is legal all of a sudden?
(I am interested in hearing the examples of this Arab perfidity in the 1920's)

and by the way arabs were not expected to be happy about it. Merely to not respond with violence, violence principally directed against civilians.

How civilized of you
Obviosuly violence against innocents was wrong, but there was no effective way for them to counteract this, given that peacefull portest would lead nowhere, given the uttery undemocratic nature of the mandate regime.

[lord of the mark]

"Sorry, but I find this argument facitious. Isreal has utter and complete civil control over the ands within the green line: why? after all, it is simply "dsiputed territory. Why is there an israeli civl authority in 78% of the disputed areas, but a military one in the rest? After all, no set borders......"

that distinction was made by the Oslo agreements, which specifically left the question of formal borders to final status negotiations.

[GePap]

No, that distinction was made every day, and by the Israleis, since 1950, gievn that they patrol Tel aviv with civil police,and use civil courts, not military ones. What right do any states have to set up embassies in disputed territory? Aren;t they picking sides by doing so? and if Tel aviv is dispted? Obviosuly then, the world must back the Jews, sicne they are willing to open embassies in clearly disputed territory, and side with the Israeli claim...all these notion of an international bias against the Jews must then be crap, given the facts in the ground.......

The green line has become the internationally recognized borders of Israel, the land in which the Israeli goevrnment has full control and authority. This international recognition ends at the green line. The territories (OCCUPIED TERRITORIES) are not accepted as part of Israel, and hence, the Geneva convention applies (which should be obvious by the ery acts of the Israeli, and thier using of the IDF to enforece the laws there).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


The Balfour decaration has little if any legal stading. it was a statement of policy at a time Britian did not even have control over the lands It was "giving away". As for the League Mandate, it was imposed upon the local populace. Last time I checked, the Palestinians did not vote to become a mandate. It, and all mandates, were inherently undemocratic, against the very notion of self-determination.

I would also note that during that period there were many cases of arabs conquering lands, migrating into settlements, seizing land, and pressuring the locals to convert to islam and/or adapt to muslim culture. In fact this has occured regulartly through the centuries, in cases where the interlopers were not indigenous people returning from exile.

There is no such thing as indegenous people in exile. Second, the line of logic that "hey, they (not Plas, but Arabs..so the case is even less logical) were doign ti eslewhere, so we can do it here" is wrong. If the Arabs were doign ti eslewher,e then they were euqally as wrong in the places they were doing it! So if everyone is murdering someone else, it is legal all of a sudden?
(I am interested in hearing the examples of this Arab perfidity in the 1920's)



How civilized of you
Obviosuly violence against innocents was wrong, but there was no effective way for them to counteract this, given that peacefull portest would lead nowhere, given the uttery undemocratic nature of the mandate regime.

1.you have repatedly stated that UNSC resolutions are law - i have thus far accepted this, and have not critiqued those resolutions based on equity. Yet you deny the similar validity of League mandates. Which is it - does international law matter or not? Or only when it supports your position?

2. there is no such thing as indigenous populations in exile - didnt you just state that there is a right of refugees to return, which cannot be given up except by that people?

3. The mandate regime was no more undemocratic than the British raj in India, and non-violent means proved very effective there.

I would also point out (given how much you emphasize the undemocratic nature of the mandatory regime) that it was at least as democractic as any regime established in Palestine since the muslim conquest.


The key is your assertion that the Jews were not an indigenous people to palestine = the essence of the Zionist claim is that they are, and this was recognized by the league of nations, and was effectively reaffirmed by the UNSC in 1948.

The question of the justice of that claim is the "ur question" of the dispute. I respectfully suggest that we agree to disagree on that, i see no argument on that here as being fruitful. The achievement of Oslo, such as it was, was to move past historical narratives, the Pal claim that the Jews were foreigner, the claims of some zionists that the Pals were not really a distinct people, and to proceed on the working assumption that both are distinct and indigenous peoples. This implies i think, accepting the league mandate as law, just as much as any recent UNSC resolutions criticizing israel.

Ultimately the Israelis and Palestinians must live in peace together. when that happens, any settlements which remain will be those on that portion of the disputed land that both sides agree should be annexed to israel. all others will be dismantled. Meanwhile it is clear that either expansion of OR dismantlement of settlements is prejudicial to the final boundary. It is therefore appropriate that Israel build no more settlements, and that the Pals make every reasonable effort to limit terrorism. It is not unreasonable, given that a new settlement can yet be dismantled, but that an innocent life cannot be returned, that Israel insist that one action take priority over the other.

Now where were we?

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
The green line has become the internationally recognized borders of Israel

Same old false statement. Bored now.