Abu Mazen: Pre-67 Land Also "Occupied"

the majority of the Green Line is now the official international border of Israel.

 

Is it? Who says?

 

Egypt and Jordan say so.

they now recognize their sections of the Green line, as the international borders of Israel.

and the UN has registered those peace treaties as being legit.

 

Challenger, et al,

You read things strangely. The most dangerous kind of propaganda, is the misinformation mixed with truth.

(COMMENT)

Part of what you say is true. But what does the Article actually say in its entirety?

Article II - Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.
​

This means that: "permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel" = "international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine"

The "former Mandate Territory" means the Mandate Territory that no longer exists. And the "former Mandate Territory" was within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers. It had nothing to do with the state of Palestine.

(REFERENCES)

Are you absolutely sure of what you are saying here? I would very much like to see the language in UN General Assembly 181(II) that addressed post-War boundaries after the Armistice is set.

The Armistice holds as the established demarcation line until the re-opening of hostilities, or the establishment of individual Peace Treaties. It is in Article XII(2) of the:

02/23/1949 S/1264/Corr.1 Egypt-Israel General Armistice Agreement

04/03/1949 S/1302/Rev.1 Israel-Jordan General Armistice Agreement - Cablegram from UN Acting Mediator, Map (Green Line)

As far as your claim to the limitation that "it is inadmissible to acquire territory through any form of warfare, defensive or not," that is not what the "Customary Law" actually says. Normally, what the pro-Palestinians use to justify this modification of the Law Are:

o #1 UN Charter, Article 2, Para. 4 (1945)

Article 2 --- Chapter I
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

4 All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​

o #2 Declaration On Principles Of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States (1970),
UN General Assembly Resolution 2625(XXV)

Having considered the principles of international law relating to friendly relations and co-operation among States,

1.Solemnly proclaims the following principles:

The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations ​

o #3 Hague Regulations IV (1907), articles 43 & 55

Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

Article 43 The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Article 55: The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.
​

o #4 Geneva Conventions IV (1949), article 47 & 54

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

ARTICLE 47 Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

ARTICLE 54 The Occupying Power may not alter the status of public officials or judges in the occupied territories, or in any way apply sanctions to or take any measures of coercion or discrimination against them, should they abstain from fulfilling their functions for reasons of conscience.
This prohibition does not prejudice the application of the second paragraph of Article 51. It does not affect the right of the Occupying Power to remove public officials from their posts.
​

(COMMENT)

Relative to claim #1:

In terms of the Arab Palestinians and the Palestinians State, the West Bank was never a separate state until 1988; and that is still under question. When the Israeli's entered the West Bank, it was Sovereign Jordanian Territory. When the King of Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank, the territory was unclaimed by any sovereign, but under the absolute and effective control of the Israelis. The Israelis did not "take by force" the West Band from the Palestinians, but from Jordan. And that issue was resolved by the Peace Treaty of 1994.

Similarly, when Israel took control of the Gaza Strip, it took control from the Egyptian Military Governorship, and not the All Palestine Government, dissolved in 1959. The Israelis did not "take by force" the West Band from the Palestinians, but from Egypt. That issue was resolved in 1979 by a Peace Treaty.
​

Relative to claim #2: Declaration On Principles Of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States is NOT law; and even if it was, it comes after 1967. Additionally, the A/RES/2625 mimics the Charter in its language: "Threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State." In 1948 or 1967, there was not State of Palestine.

Relative to claim #3:

I have noting to refute: I have heard no complaint from the Palestinians that Israel needs to more rigorously enforce Jordanian Law of 1967.

I have heard no complaint that the Israeli right to enjoy the use and advantages of another's property short of the destruction or waste of its substance has been violated. Is there a "wasteful use" problem or some manner of destruction?

Relative to claim #4: Annexation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip have not been pursued. The use of the West Bank is in accordance with the Oslo Accords. The Israelis have withdrawn from the Gaza Strip.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

I tend to agree with the above statement... I hope in your mind that the above statement applies also to Europe after WWII...

Now if the ceasefire lines do not automatically define the borders of a Nation what does Abu Mazen (the one who subsidized the Munich Massacre) insist exactly that the ceasefire lines are part of the future <so called Palestinian realm>?

 

No it was not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_occupation_of_the_West_Bank
Only Britain and the US recognised this so called sovereignty. Those two renegades do not formulate world opinion nor are they authorised to violate the UN Charter which both of them signed.
With that absence of Jordan Ian sovereignty, the rest of your reasoning is nullified.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_occupation_of_the_West_Bank
But there is more reason yet for its nullified ti on ..... TBC

 

so wait, when Israel uniliaterally annexes Occupied Land, its legal...but not when Jordan does it??????

LOL!!!

 

Gideon Levy, correspondent for Haaretz, who has Hebrew as his mother tongue, agrees with the essence of Ron star's posts up until now:


/// Gideon Levy Jul 15, 2010 3:14 AM
(*)
This video should have been banned for broadcast to minors. This video should have been shown in every home in Israel, then sent to Washington and Ramallah. Banned for viewing by children so as not to corrupt them, and distributed around the country and the world so that everyone will know who leads the government of Israel. Channel 10 presented: The real (and deceitful ) face of Binyamin Netanyahu. Broadcast on Friday night on "This Week with Miki Rosenthal," it was filmed secretly in 2001, during a visit by Citizen Netanyahu to the home of a bereaved family in the settlement of Ofra, and astoundingly, it has not created a stir.
The scene was both pathetic and outrageous. The last of Netanyahu's devoted followers, who believe he is the man who will bring peace, would have immediately changed their minds. Presidents Barack Obama and Shimon Peres, who continue to maintain that Netanyahu will bring peace, would be talking differently had they seen this secretly filmed video clip. Even the objection of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to conducting direct negotiations with the man from the video would be understandable. What is there to discuss with a huckster whose sole purpose is "to give 2 percent in order to prevent 100 percent," as his father told him, quoting his grandfather.
Israel has had many rightist leaders since Menachem Begin promised "many Elon Morehs," but there has never been one like Netanyahu, who wants to do it by deceit, to mock America, trick the Palestinians and lead us all astray. The man in the video betrays himself in his own words as a con artist, and now he is again prime minister of Israel. Don't try to claim that he has changed since then. Such a crooked way of thinking does not change over the years.
Forget the Bar-Ilan University speech, forget the virtual achievements in his last visit to the United States; this is the real Netanyahu. No more claims that the Palestinians are to blame for the failure of the Oslo Accords. Netanyahu exposed the naked truth to his hosts at Ofra: he destroyed the Oslo accords with his own hands and deeds, and he's even proud of it. After years in which we were told that the Palestinians are to blame, the truth has emerged from the horse's mouth. ///

WOW!!! That is somewhat different from the noble benign Bibs that you portray.

 

Indeed, Ronstar. It is so often the case that there are rules for all countries, except for the USA and Israel.

Until the UN gets off its butt, the non-Israeli part of the Mandate remains League of Nations territory = UN trusteeship. They just don't seem to realise it. It has never been allocated by the UN to any other country, Which means that Israel is a belligerant occupying power, and the defunct moot Oslo agreements will not change that one iota.

In support of you position, and notwithstanding internal USA views, the concept of a defensive war has no standing under international law. Besides which, Israel started the 1967 was in May when it attacked Syria. Day an and the Israel media are on record as having expressed that opinion at the time. Defensive war .... pure Hasbara.

 

the Mandate ended in 1948, bro.

- - - Updated - - -

now now, we all know Israel urged Jordan to stay out of it but Hussein said "the die had been cast", and started shelling West Jerusalem.

 

This illegal annexation of the territories conquered by the British led Arab Legionnaires was not recognized by the 'Arab League' but ONLY Britain and Pakistan...

 

klipkap; et al,

Yes this is a controversial issue.

(REFERENCE)

Jordan formally annexed the West Bank on April 24, 1950. The annexation was regarded as illegal and void by the Arab League and others. It was recognized only by Britain, Iraq and Pakistan. The annexation of the West Bank more than doubled the population of Jordan.

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.

on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This disengagement decision marks the turning point that launched the current democratic process, and began a new stage in Jordan’s relationship with West Bank Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

Yes,in 1950, there were a number of arguments, both pro and con regarding the Annexation.

• On the one hand, the Arab-Palestinians had equal representation in the Jordanian Parliament and were exercising their right to self-determination. Additionally the Arab-Palestinian of the West Bank pick-up Jordanian Citizenship.
• On the other hand, Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 is relevant to the question of how an occupation ends. It takes account inter alia of two possibilities, the first being an occupation in which the authorities of the occupied territory remain in post, and the second being an attempted annexation by the occupant of the whole or part of the occupied territory. The article specifies that in neither case can such changes deprive protected persons of the benefits of the Convention.
​

When Jordan cut all ties, the Arab-Palestinians lost their citizenship with Jordan. The West Bank was essentially abandon Arab Authorities and left to the effective control of Israel.

It will take a court to unravel this.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

In 1949, Israel told the UN that they had no problem with the West Bank becoming part of Jordan, if that is what the people of the West Bank wanted. But they prefered to see it become a Palestinian state.

 

First of all, where is your opinion in the metter? Dont use others words, but use your own.
Secondly, Gideon Levy in this article you provided did not talk or mentioning what he said or didnt say in the video, but only brought one qoute that wasnt even Bibi's qoute, but his grandfather's qoute. What Gideon Levy said here does not contradict that Bibi said that until he approved the fulfillment of the Hebron Agreement, the process that Oslo started was stopped. It's according the video.

I dont like Bibi, and thus would never "noble benign bibs".