US vetoes UN resolution condemning ethnic cleansing

[Machjo]

Hmmm. I am tired so I may have missed it, but I got quite the opposite impression from the article. (Interesting read, btw, thanks).

Particularly from:


The question arose at the time as to whether these acts constituted annexation of the eastern parts of Jerusalem. The then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Abba Eban, informed the U.N. Secretary General in writing in July, 1967 that they did not constitute annexation, but only administrative and municipal integration. On the other hand, from the point of view of Israeli law, it was held in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court that the eastern sectors of Jerusalem had become a part of the State of Israel. The 1970 case of Ruidi and Maches v. Military Court of Hebron illustrates this attitude.

In the opinion of the Government of Israel, Jordan never acquired sovereignty over the eastern part of the city since it took control of it in 1948 by an act of aggression, whereas Israel has a better right, since it conquered east Jerusalem in 1967 during the course of a war of self- defence.

When the fighting was over, the Knesset passed the Law and Administration Ordinance (Amendment No. 11) Law, 1967, authorizing the Government to apply the law, jurisdiction and administration of Israel to any area which was formerly part of Mandatory Palestine. Likewise, the Municipalities Ordinance was amended so as to allow for the extension of the bounds of a municipality where a decision has been made as to the application of Israel's jurisdiction to a certain area, as referred to above. And indeed, the Government issued an appropriate order as a result of which Israeli law was made to apply to the eastern sector of Jerusalem, which was also included within the jurisdiction of the Jerusalem municipality.
A special arrangement has also been followed in matters of nationality. Israeli nationality is not imposed on residents of east Jerusalem, but it can be acquired by application on their part.


Israeli rhetoric for the most part seems to indicate a strong desire to retain Jerusalem undivided under Israeli control in any future agreements. If the Arab Palestinians ever decide they want to talk about anything, that is.

(Bolded part bolded by myself)

If you read the part before that, it's quite clear that...


"In 1947, after the Second World War, Great Britain requested the General Assembly of the U.N. to consider the Palestinian question. The General Assembly appointed a special committee -- the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine or UNSCOP -- to investigate the matter, and following the recommendation of the majority of the Committee, the General Assembly adopted on the 29th November, 1947 its famous resolution on the future government of Palestine (Resolution 181 (II)). Part III of the resolution dealt with the City of Jerusalem. The General Assembly recommended the establishment of a corpus separatum (a separate entity) which would be under a special international regime and be administered by the U.N. through the Trusteeship Council and a Governor to be appointed by it. Powers of local government and administration were to be conferred on the local autonomous units that existed in the area. The city was to be demilitarized and neutral. For the purpose of maintaining internal order and especially for the protection of the Holy Places, a special police force consisting of members to be recruited outside Palestine was to be established. Legislative powers were to be conferred on a Legislative Council to be elected by the residents of the city on the basis of proportional representation. The U.N. Governor would have the power to veto laws inconsistent with the Statute of the city as well as the power to promulgate temporary ordinances in case the Legislative Council failed to fulfill its function. The city was also supposed to maintain a judiciary system."

Again, the article is very much round about, so to get the full picture you do have tor read it all. However, it's quite clear that Israel felt the need to argue that they weren't 'annexing' Jerusalem, but merely 'integrating' it 'administratively'. In short, they're saying that they're annexing it but won't call it that. That's what I meant when I'd said that the site tries to wiggle around the law while still being truthful. Weasel words. And this coming from an Israeli-government website.

 

[petros]

lol ummm, yeah, that's what the UN resolution was all about. lol The UN said go ahead and build a state. The Jews did. The Arabs didn't. Ergo, there is an Israel. Thre is not a Palestine. That's not asterisked up at all, really. Funny how UN resolutions only seem to matter when thry're AGAINST Istael. lol

lol ummmm....There already was a Palestine long before there every was an Israel or a Zionist dream of ever being one.

You can't declare a Jewish State within Palestine without there first being a Palestine to declare independance within and from.

 

[Just the Facts]

Yes according to the original plan, before the Jews built a state and the Arabs built a war, Jerusalem was meant to be a neutral zone. No argument there.

 

[petros]

Yes according to the original plan, before the Jews built a state and the Arabs built a war, Jerusalem was meant to be a neutral zone. No argument there.

Israel has never stuck to the "original plan" mandated and afforded to them by the people of the planet Earth out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[Just the Facts]

lol ummmm....There already was a Palestine long before there every was an Israel or a Zionist dream of ever being one.

You can't declare a Jewish State within Palestine without there first being a Palestine to declare independance within and from.

Lol, the word Palestine itself was designed to obfuscate the existance of Israel, by the Romans. Thanks for playing, though.

 

[Machjo]

There already was a Palestine long before there every was an Israel or a Zionist dream of ever being one.

You can't declare a Jewish State within Palestine without there first being a Palestine to declare independance within and from.

We could argue that the UN was wrong to establish the state of Israel. But what's done is done, and now that Israel's right to exist within its pre-1967 borders has already been established under international law, we ought to respect that.Even if at some point the UN decided to reverse that decision and go back to what, a British Mandate, Palestine, the Ottoman Empire? still Jews living in the region would have every right to remain there, putting the onus on whatever new state emerges to accept them and integrate them and guarantee their freedom of religion, etc.

But honestly, I don't think dismantling Israel ought to be a priority for many, many reasons. I'd say respect the current official position of pre-1967 borders and leave it at that. I think that's a reasonable compromise given the current reality.

 

[Just the Facts]

Israel has never stuck to the "original plan" mandated and afforded to them by the people of the planet Earth out of the goodness of their hearts.

No? How so? By defending themselves from a full frontal assault by what, 5 Arab nations?

lol. That's like getting mugged on the way to the store, then being chastised for not sticking to your plan of walking to the store.

 

[Machjo]

Yes according to the original plan, before the Jews built a state and the Arabs built a war, Jerusalem was meant to be a neutral zone. No argument there.

So if that's what it's supposed to be, then why not uphold that?

 

[Johnny Utah]

This resolution about settlements is a <censored> joke because it takes the focus off the real problem. The Palestinians have no one to blame for their current situation but themselves, they blindly followed Arafat while he robbed them blind to the tune of Billions, they elected Hamas to a position of power rivaling Abbas. If they want real change and a real future they need to rise up against Hamas supporting Abbas.

 

[Just the Facts]

So if that's what it's supposed to be, then why not uphold that?

That's what is WAS SUPPOSED to be. Instead there was war.

One reason to why not uphold that is to stop rewarding aggressors for starting wars. The lesson seems to be, go ahead and attack Israel, if you win you keep the land. If you lose, you get your land back anyway. lol

I think a neutral Jerusalem would have been a good idea, but it's an idea whose time has passed. Too much has transpired for that to happen peacefully.

 

[Machjo]

That's what is WAS SUPPOSED to be. Instead there was war.

One reason to why not uphold that is to stop rewarding aggressors for starting wars. The lesson seems to be, go ahead and attack Israel, if you win you keep the land. If you lose, you get your land back anyway. lol

I think a neutral Jerusalem would have been a good idea, but it's an idea whose time has passed. Too much has transpired for that to happen peacefully.

On the one hand, I agree the Arabs were wrong in starting that war. On the other, I can also understand why they'd started the war. Clearly the people living there before the foundation of the state of Israel would have found it a scary thought that their map was being so drastically redrawn.

I could see us acknowledging that they would most certainly have been terrified by this and so fought out of fear, but that the past is the past and let's go back to the originally agreed-upon status.

 

[petros]

Lol, the word Palestine itself was designed to obfuscate the existance of Israel, by the Romans. Thanks for playing, though.

Ohhhhh It's the Roman's fault now? Well then Jerusalem was never part of Israel then. It was Judea.

 

[Just the Facts]

I think there are some serious trust issues. I suspect the Israeli's fear if they leave Jerusalem, it will quickly become another Hamas territory from which rockets will be launched at Israel. I suspect their fear would be correct. A lot of politics must take place before we can entertain the idea of an international zone Jersalem without a ton of bloodshed.

 

[petros]

This resolution about settlements is a <censored> joke because it takes the focus off the real problem. The Palestinians have no one to blame for their current situation but themselves, they blindly followed Arafat while he robbed them blind to the tune of Billions, they elected Hamas to a position of power rivaling Abbas. If they want real change and a real future they need to rise up against Hamas supporting Abbas.

Isreal has been ocupying and taking more and land because of Arafat stealing money? Palestine was to do what with whatever money he supposedly stole? Reclaim land from the sea for Israel instead of getting invaded?

 

[ironsides]

What would happen if we did cut aid? Would the Palestinians stop their daily battles with Israel, and who would insure that peace? I know the U.S. probably would, but that would anger everyone else, will the U,N. or any other country? I don't think so (by the way, I do think Canada would support the U.S.), talking peace and enforcing it against a strong opponent is not in the UNs book of honor. Wonder what the Palestinians thought when they found out that no other country wanted them within their borders.

Israel has never stuck to the "original plan" mandated and afforded to them by the people of the planet Earth out of the goodness of their hearts.

When you start a shooting war and lose, expect to lose at least a toe.

 

[Johnny Utah]

Isreal has been ocupying and taking more and land because of Arafat stealing money? Palestine was to do what with whatever money he supposedly stole? Reclaim land from the sea for Israel instead of getting invaded?

Had they actually followed a leader who wanted real peace unlike Arafat who was a Terrorist they would have been in a better place. As I said they have no one to blame but themselves and now they're probably starting to realize it.

 

[Machjo]

What would happen if we did cut aid? Would the Palestinians stop their daily battles with Israel, and who would insure that peace?

How's this for a just compromise:

1. As long as the fighters are targeting the Israel military only, and only on internationality-recognized occupied territories, we recognize the right of Palestinians to fight for their land back. And should they target civilians or cross into internationally-recognized Israeli-territory, we aid Israel militarily.

Heck, even that would lean towards a pro-Israel stance seeing that we would Israel to defend its rightful territory but not Palestine to defend its. Yet sadly enough even that would be an improvement.

 

[Colpy]

Decisions of the Supreme Court of Israel don't mean jack **** when it comes to International law.

No....International Law means Jack.

Obviously, there is no way to enforce it....therefore....jack.

 

[Machjo]

I know the U.S. probably would, but that would anger everyone else, will the U,N. or any other country? I don't think so (by the way, I do think Canada would support the U.S.), talking peace and enforcing it against a strong opponent is not in the UNs book of honor. Wonder what the Palestinians thought when they found out that no other country wanted them within their borders.

I remember one documentary awhile back showing how many Palestinians, though Muslim, often show customs in common with Jews that are different from other Arabs. This suggested that many of them might very well be descendants of Jewish converts to Islam in history. Of course more research would likely have to be done on this, but if this is the case, then certainly they have a right to that same land too. Maybe we could keep Israel as per its pre-1967 borders, give the rest of the land to neighbouring states, and grant all Palestinians the right to choose their citizenship. Those who feel closer ties to their ancestral homeland might choose Israeli citizenship, while those who feel closer to other Arabs might choose that of neighbouring countries. Just throwing the idea out ther.

No....International Law means Jack.

Obviously, there is no way to enforce it....therefore....jack.

Well, seeing that it was international law that gave birth to Israel in the first place, then if it means Jack, then so does Israel, which would therefore mean that Palestinians have every right to fight for their whole land back. Ironically enough though, I thought you defended Israel. Strange that you should oppose international law when that is about the only grounds on which Israel can claim any legal legitimacy on the world stage to begin with.

 

[Just the Facts]

Isreal has been ocupying and taking more and land because of Arafat stealing money? Palestine was to do what with whatever money he supposedly stole? Reclaim land from the sea for Israel instead of getting invaded?

Ummm....follow up with Oslo and build a state, instead of starting the second intifada, because Arafat knew that establishing a Palestinian state would expose his corruption? lol ok I'm done pwning you for tonight, I grow weary.