According to a recent survey, most Israelis simply don’t know that the Jordan Valley, the future Palestinians state’s only non-Israeli border, is part of the occupied West Bank. This trend confirms that retaining an Israeli presence in the valley is not likely to become a wedge issue in Israel any time soon.
A poll conducted by our esteemed Dahlia Scheindlin (for ACRI’s Action a Day campaign) indicates a sweeping majority of Israelis – 63.5%, to be exact – think the Jordan valley is part of Israel; in other words, not part of the West Bank; or, in plain words, don’t understand why or how Israeli presence there is being called into question.
The special status of the valley in the Israeli collective consciousness is nothing new. Partly thanks to a highly successful campaign of displacement, Palestinian residents of this occupied territory – as occupied as Jenin or East Jerusalem – are rarely heard about in the Israeli media, and Palestinian political violence of the kind that makes Israelis notice Palestinians has been negligible in the valley through both Intifadas. The Palestinians of the valley are so invisible to most Israelis that the poll indicates 34.5 percent thought Israelis formed an overwhelming majority in the valley, while in fact it’s the other way around, with Palestinians outnumbering Israelis 6 to 1. Settlements in the valley, more than anywhere else, are referred to as “yishuvim” (communities) or even kibbutzim, signalling their character is not as religious-nationalist as stereotypical settlers, and in fact lies close to the heart of the old Israeli mainstream, the secular-Labor-Zionist. Only recently, the left-leaning youth movement Bnei Hamoshavim has begun making plans to settle its alumni in the valley, through the mediation of the decidedly centre-Left Kibbutz Movement.
Dahlia’s poll sniffs out even the hope all of the above retained some faint whiff of cognitive dissonance for Israelis. For them, it’s a lot simpler – the Jordan valley is not part of the territories, period. This is important, because the fate of the valley forms a crucial part of the two-viable-state solution; it’s meant to serve as the only non-Israeli border of the Palestinian state. Without the valley, West Bank Palestine will be a landlocked enclave, completely and entirely dependent on Israeli good grace, and will not be able to conduct independent traffic across its own border – whether of people or of gods. The poll reaffirms, then, that pushing certain moves that are pre-requisite in a two-viable-states solution – such as complete withdrawal from the valley, retaining there only military presence and evicting its Jewish residents, or leaving the residents there under the guard of an international peacekeeping force – is unlikely to garner much support among Israelis.
This would have been bad news for the peace process if there was any indication any Israeli government ever meant to allow the valley to become a sovereign border of independent Palestine. Fortunately for the disappointment-prone, this was never the case; what’s more, at the risk of sounding undemocratic I’d speculate that what the majority of Israelis know or want about the valley comes secondary to the government line – not on point of principle, morality or justice, but in the simplest of practical terms. It may well be that when asked in future posts if they support a partial withdrawal from the valley for the sake of peace, Israelis will reply that they do; a majority of Israelis support a two state solution, and know the right answers necessary to confirm this believes in themselves and in their listeners. The more curious questions will be that of what they’re meaning to do about it: Would they take to the streets, go on strike, or bring down a government that would not withdraw from the valley? Would they make it a wedge issue in future elections and vote according to a given party’s stance on such a withdrawal – and if so, would they vote for a pro- or anti- withdrawal party?
I’m not a pollster, so I can only speculate what the exact percentages will be – but this particular poll appears to signal which kind of answers are likely to take the lead.
Michelle Bubis
Thanks, Dahlia and Dimi, for this important poll and insightful analysis. B’Tselem recently published an in-depth report on the troubling human rights aspects of this situation – extensive land barred completely to Palestinians (77.5%!), exploitation of water and other natural resources at the expense of Palestinian individuals and communities, the significance for the development of a viable Palestinian economy, and more. I recommend our interactive guide, which concisely covers the main issues, available at: http://www.btselem.org/sites/default/files/Campaigns/2011_Jordan_Valley/English/index.html
Ben Israel
Depends on how you use the word “occupied”. As far as the Palestnians are concerned, Tel Aviv is “occupied territory” as well. What you are saying is that most Israelis don’t see a difference between Tel Aviv (occupied in 1948) and the Jordan Valley (occupied in 1967). Well, neither do the Palestinians.
Michael W.
When you (and the pollsters) talk about the Jordan Valley, do you mean specifically of the Jordan Valley that is only in the West Bank, or of the entire Jordan Valley that comes down from the north (hakinneret) and of the kibbutznim north of the West Bank that hug the Jordan River (which is where I used was born), aka Israel proper?
ARTH
They regard it as a “natural” part of the territory of the State of Israel and therefore, it is unimaginable to imagine or conceive of a withdrawal from those areas. Even the secular Kibbutz movement has Kibbutzes there…
Mikkel
Two things – The state of Palestine already exists and more than 100 nations around the world have recognized it. Roughly the same number of states that recognize Israel. The State of Palestine is comprised of the West Bank (incl. East Jerusalem) and Gaza. So when you say “the future Palestinians state’s only non-Israeli border” you actually make two mistakes. First, you pretend there is no Palestinian state (which there is. It’s just occupied. Read John Quigly’s “The Statehood og Palestine” for more information.)Secondly, what about the border to Egypt? Are you accusing Israelis of being ignorant about the Jordan Valley but yet yourself forget about Gaza? Other than that – great article.
JD
Mikkel, these are reasonable objections to an article whose main point (that most Israelis can’t read a map and have lost their ethical compass) is very disturbing. If there IS a Palestinian state, then it must be held accountable for cross-border violence. Since Gaza is shelling Israelis with rockets, and its government has declared war on Israel, Israelis have the right (and obligation) to counterattack militarily. So be careful what you ask for. J.D.
directrob
Nothing makes things clearer than a good map (BTselem):
http://www.btselem.org/download/20110612_BTselem_Map_of_WB_Eng.pdf
.
Ben, JD, Art, time to forget two states and have one man one vote, one army for all and one justice system for all. The more you take, the nearer it gets.
Y.
“Without the valley, West Bank Palestine will be a landlocked enclave, completely and entirely dependent on Israeli good grace, and will not be able to conduct independent traffic across its own border – whether of people or of gods” [sic – but I really like this typo, and Dimi should consider keeping it]
.
Dimi’s objections are neither here nor there. Any WB in a would be Palestinian state would be landlocked by definition (the PA has little to do in the Dead Sea), would be unsustainable and completely economically dependent on Israel regardless of status of Jordan Valley, and the suggested controls on weapon smuggling would by nature make independent transport not-really-more-independent (or not-really-stopping-weapons).
.
I think these objections however signify why the two states solution as currently envisioned is itself unworkable. Israel wants security and the Palestinians want full independence. These demands are difficult to satisfy by themselves within WB, and both are contradictory.
.
Take a look at Dimi’s own ‘solutions’.
Would the Palestinians ever accept a foreign military (esp. Israeli) presence in PA territory? How would that work without causing massive frictions? What happens when some Palestinians get upset and start demonstrating in front of the military bases? This makes UNIFIL look effective and desirable… So this leaves full withdrawal, which means Israeli security is very badly affected – and makes the odds of Israeli agreement to this zero.
Ben Israel
Y’s point about any conceivable Palestinian state being dependent on Israel is a very important one. Leftist/progressives like Jerry Haber are always complaining that it is not enough for their to be 2 states, but the Palestinian state has to be “strong, independent, feel good about itself…etc, etc”.
There really can never be such a thing.
In addition, a Palestinian state with a direct border with Jordan opens the whole problem of Palestinian irredentism, and no matter what the little King in Jordan says, such a situation would be a nightmare for him. The Hashemites are aware that Israel is the only power in the area who can guarantee their continued rule on the throne.
max
Following Michael W.’s thread, I agree that it’s hard to understand the poll’s result, as it implies that so many people have neither never seen a “green-line” map nor rode on the road.
.
Fast forward a few years: how is Jordan going to look like? Will it still be a Hashemite Kingdom, or would it be a more democratic country, with a Palestinian majority?
Will the Palestinians there become less Palestinian?
Is it far fetched to foresee a confederation of a sort?
How would that affect the viability of a Palestinian state?
Eric
Interesting. It would be nice to have access to the poll, i.e., how the questions were phrased, and the demographic data. I can’t find this information anywhere.
Hugh Sansom
Imagine a poll finding that most New Yorkers think that the west side of the Hudson opposite Manhattan is part of New York! How is it possible that nearly two-thirds of Israelis are so grossly ill-informed?
kenny
@ Ben Israel, the primary difference between Tel Aviv and the Jordan valley, is that Tel Aviv is part of sovereign Israel as outlined in UNGA 181, the Jordan valley is not, it is part of Palestine, no part of Palestine has ever been legally annexed, and nor can it be legally annexed, without Palestinian approval, this has not been given, Israel is as allocated by UNGA 181, no more no less. The Jordan valley is not sovereign Israeli territory, it is occupied Palestinian land.
talknic
Quite so kenny. Confirmed by the Provisional Israeli Government May 22nd 1948 in a statement to the UNSC and again in the Knesset, albeit perhaps inadvertently, “As for the frontier between the State of Israel and the area west of the Jordan which is not included in Israel”>/em>
In fact any territory which was bound by and not a part of the actual declared, recognized sovereign territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan Egypt or Israel on May the 15th 1948, belongs to what remains of the Class A Provisional State of Palestine since those countries achieved independence.
Although it’s territories have diminished by Jordan and Israel being declared independent of it, Palestine’s status as a Provisional State has never been legally altered.
corpus separatum was not instituted in Jerusalem. Jerusalem has never had it’s status legally changed from being a part of what remained of the Provisional State of Palestine after Israel was declared independent of Palestine May 15th 1948.
Israel, has an obligation as the Occupying Power since 1949 (see also Israeli Govt Proclamation)and 1967 over the territories of what remains of Palestine, under the UN Charter Chapter XI Israel has // responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:
to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;
to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;
to further international peace and security;
to promote constructive measures of development, to encourage research, and to co-operate with one another and, when and where appropriate, with specialized international bodies with a view to the practical achievement of the social, economic, and scientific purposes set forth in this Article; and
to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social, and educational conditions in the territories for which they are respectively responsible other than those territories to which Chapters XII and XIII apply.//
Independence cannot be fully effective under occupation. Israel must eventually withdraw. Alas it’s ugly ‘facts on the ground’ have created a scenario detrimental to Israeli citizens now living outside of Israel in the territories of the Provisional State of Palestine. This amounts to some 1/3rd of the territory Israel has illegally claimed as it’s own since May 15th 1948. NONE of which has ever been legally annexed to Israel.
It is inadmissible to ‘acquire’ territory by war according to Professor S Schwebel
Y.
Yawn, the Arabs themselves disclaimed 181, and so did later the UN (e.g. the Bernadotte papers). To try to return to this is nothing short of breathtaking chutzpa.
@Talknic: I have never seen a web page with more lies and self-contradictions. I guess it deserves an award of some sort.
talknic
NOTE : Correction to the 2nd to last line of the previous post (oooops)
Should read ‘This amounts to about 1/3rd of the territory Israel claims as it’s own. Illegally acquired by war and NONE of which has ever been legally annexed to Israel’
—-
Israelis and alas most of the Western World, are ignorant of the status of Israel’s actual recognized and acknowledged Sovereign extent.
The Israeli Government DOES NOT include some of the most important documents relating to the recognition of Israel on it’s web site.
The propensity for adding words to UNSC Resolutions also adds to the ignorance. E.g., UNSC Res 242 does not call for ‘negotiating borders’ with the Palestinians UNSC Res 242 was only between already existing “states”, all of which already had ‘recognized’ borders.
UNSC Res called for “.. respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”
‘Acknowlegement of’. Not ‘negotiate’. Not ‘recognizable’ boundaries. ‘recognized’ boundaries. ‘recognized’ boundaries are boundaries that have been ‘recognized’. Past tense in the English language.
and “…respect for and acknowledgement of” … “their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”
It says nothing about ‘defensible borders’. No country has any more right to ‘defensible borders’ than any other country.
UNSC Res 1860 tells us that UNSC Res 242 left Israel as the Occupying Power over “territories occupied in the recent conflict” (being the ’67 war)
No borders were altered. The Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949 were redrawn to account for where opposing forces stood in ’67, leaving Israel as the Occupying Power over the Golan, the West bank, the Gaza strip.
As the Armistice Demarcation Lines were redrawn, not borders, they also included territories previously occupied by Israel from the 1948 war (see the British recognition).
A chunk of territory adjacent to the Gaza strip & bordering Egypt and territory to the north bordering Lebanon.
All of which was allocated for the Arab State. All of which was territory ‘acquired’ by war by Israel, but never legally annexed to Israel, never declared by Israel and confirmed by the Provisional Israeli Government on May 22nd 1948 as OUTSIDE of Israel in their statement to the UNSC.
The mess created by Israel’s ‘facts on the ground’ since 1948 has consequences too ugly to contemplate, FOR ISRAELIS.
Scenario A) If the Palestinians Declare Sovereign Independence by the ’67 Armistice Demarcation Lines, it leaves big chunks of territory, not legally annexed to Israel. Both entities would have the right to annex these territories. Legal annexation requires a referendum of the LEGITIMATE CITIZENS of those territories. ‘Legitimate Citizens’ precludes hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens living in territory outside of, never annexed to Israel.
Scenario B) Could a peace agreement lead to an Israeli civil war? What are the implications were it to happen?
Hundreds of thousands of illegal settlers ain’t gonna pick up and re-settle without a fight. Illegal settlers vs the State of Israel. An Israeli Civil War.
Under the UN Charter, which Israel voluntarily agreed to, the UN/UNSC and Regional Powers have a RIGHT to intervene when UN Member States act outside of their acknowledged sovereign territories. An Israeli civil war in “territories occupied” would be OUTSIDE of Israel’s sovereignty.
talknic
Y. June 13, 2011 7:33 am
“Yawn, the Arabs themselves disclaimed 181”
Irrelevant.. Israel accepted the legal conditions contained within UNGA Res 181 without any reservation and unilaterally declared itself a sovereign entity in accordance with those legal conditions, enshrining UNGA Res 181 in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel.
Israel was recognized “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, “ and accepted into the UN as a Member State (11 May 1949) BEFORE officially laying claim to any further territory on 31st Aug 1949. The territories Israel claimed lay outside of Israel according to the Israeli Government in it’s statement to the UNSC, May 22nd 1948.
“I have never seen a web page with more lies and self-contradictions
Strange that you’ve dis-proved no thing, shown no lies, sown no contradictions. Very cute.
talknic
Ben Israel June 12, 2011 11:59 am
“There really can never be such a thing”
Why not?
” a Palestinian state with a direct border with Jordan opens the whole problem of Palestinian irredentism, and no matter what the little King in Jordan says, such a situation would be a nightmare for him.”
Why? When Jordan became an independent state, only the Palestinians living within that area became Jordanian. Now they’re all Jordanian Citizens.
Those Palestinians who did not live in the area that became Jordan have no right or desire to be Jordanian (nor do the Palestine refugees who Jordan hosts) and I have yet to see a call by Jordanians for the ousting of the Jordanian Government or to become Palestinians. Is there some secessionist movement the world hasn’t been told about?
Furthermore how would Jordan go about legally annexing a new Independent state of Palestine? Jordan relinquished all control over the West Bank ….BTW the new State of Palestine will include Gaza (UNSC Res 1860 Jan 2009)
Jordan’s legal annexation of what became the West Bank was A)at the request of the Palestinians and B) at the demand of the Arab League, only as a temporary trustee,(Session: 12-I Date: May 1950) (in accordance with the UN Charter Chapt XI)
talknic
Ben Israel June 12, 2011 7:52 am
“As far as the Palestnians are concerned, Tel Aviv is “occupied territory” as well”
I’ve heard your kind say so many times. But I’ve yet to see such a official claim by the Palestinians. Please provide a quote, verbatim …. thx
Same as the ‘Palis want to kill all Jews’ twaddlespiel. Even the Hamas Charter contradicts the notion Article Thirty-One
“What you are saying is”
Er, no YOU’RE saying..
“.. that most Israelis don’t see a difference between Tel Aviv (occupied in 1948)”
If you say so. It was in fact within Israel’s declared territories, per UNGA Res 181.
“What you are saying is that most Israelis don’t see a difference between Tel Aviv …. and the Jordan Valley (occupied in 1967)”
Er no, the article (poll) says that.
You sure know how to mush things up.
Y.
Sigh. I didn’t want to get to the dung heap. Oh, well..
A) The page argues that a state can’t be declared unless it controls all its territory. This is nonsense with no basis in law. Indeed, the Jewish state did not control most of the Negev in May 1948 (IIRC over 50% of its allotted territory) along with some other areas – and this was far less a percent of territory controlled than the percent Palestinians would have controlled (comparing territory in possession of Arabs at the time to the Arab share in 181) had they accepted 181 and declared.
.
If the page accepts the Jewish declaration, why does it argue the Palestinians couldn’t declare? If it argues the Palestinians couldn’t declare, than the Jewish declaration is also invalid, and the page’s misleading interpretation of it (I’ll get to that) is invalid too.
B) Since the Palestinians never declared and in fact rejected asserting sovereignty, this creates a terra nullius which can be annexed, making the entire card heap of the page collapse. Indeed, the UN itself would decide these boundaries were irrelevant – e.g. the Bernadotte papers would suggest big changes. In a similar manner, the Israeli-Syrian negotiation during Barak’s time collapsed because the Syrians demanded receiving territory they occupied inside the mandate in 1948 and after – and the Syrians were condemned by no one in intl. community for this.
C) The page argues that the Jordanian annexation was legal, based on the Israeli-Jordanian armistice agreement.
This could make sense if it accepted B) above. Contradiction is that it also argues that a provisional Palestinian state existed since UNGA 181, ignoring Arab refusal. But the armistice agreement didn’t have Palestinians as a side, so it can’t possibly make a concession in their name… Unless there wasn’t any ‘provisional’ state.
D) The page simply lies about Arab motivation to invade Israel. Which part of ‘making a massacre which will be compared to the Mongols’ (quote of Arab League Secretary) is difficult to understand? In truth, they had oppose the creation of the state, and had acted against it from before the official end of the mandate.
I’m really wasting too much time on this, so this will do.
Eric
Isn’t it irresponsible (incorrect at best) to say that this survey indicates 63.5% of the respondents “don’t understand why or how Israeli presence there is being called into question” when the legal status of the West Bank is disputed by the Israeli government itself? To me, this particular question from the survey just as easily asks whether the respondents agree with the perspective of the international community or their own government, and therefore conclusions drawn about “knowledge” are completely invalid.
talknic
Y. June 13, 2011 9:26 am
“I didn’t want to get to the dung heap. Oh, well..”
Fine way to engage in intelligent debate…Oh, well, if that’s the way you wish to depict supporters for Israel (Sheeeeeesh)
“The page argues that a state can’t be declared unless it controls all its territory. This is nonsense with no basis in law.”
It argues that an ‘Independent State’ cannot be effectively declared. Don’t change what you read…
So, why wasn’t Israel declared before the British occupation under the LoN Mandate for Palestine expired May 15th 1948? Furthermore it’s the reason given here. The Traditional Criteria for Statehood 1. The entity must exercise effective and independent governmental control. Take it up with them.
“..the Jewish state did not control most of the Negev in May 1948 (IIRC over 50% of its allotted territory) along with some other areas – and this was far less a percent of territory controlled than the percent Palestinians would have controlled (comparing territory in possession of Arabs at the time to the Arab share in 181) had they accepted 181 and declared”
They couldn’t have effectively declared independence while Israel controlled any part of their rightful territory. Look up the word ‘independence’. They still can’t effectively declare Independent Statehood, because Israel occupies and illegally claims parts of their territories, which according to the law, not having ever been legally annexed are still under occupation from 1949
.
“If the page accepts the Jewish declaration, why does it argue the Palestinians couldn’t declare?”
See above. Effective Independence is impossible while any part of the territories being declared are under occupation. They still however, have a right to declare Independent Sovereignty over ALL of their rightful territories.
” If it argues the Palestinians couldn’t declare, than the Jewish declaration is also invalid”</em.
Israel controlled all of the territories it declared. However Israel only declared those territories allotted to it under UNGA Res 181. Israel later claimed other territories it controlled outside of Israel (according to the Provisional Israeli Government May 22nd 1948) and was rebuffed by the commission. Israel made these claims AFTER it had been recognized, based on it’s notification of declaration to the International Community of Nations. AFTER it had been accepted into the UN.
“Since the Palestinians never declared and in fact rejected asserting sovereignty, this creates a terra nullius”
Bullsh*te ..Read UN Charter Chapt XI
“which can be annexed”</em.
Legal annexation, since at least the mid 1800's when the US legally annexed parts of Mexico, required a referendum of the citizens of the territory to be annexed. The US legally annexed Texas after a referendum was held of the Mexican Citizens of Texas.
“the UN itself would decide these boundaries were irrelevant – e.g. the Bernadotte papers would suggest big changes”
‘suggest’ Weren’t instituted. He was murdered by Jewish terrorists
” In a similar manner, the Israeli-Syrian negotiation during Barak’s time collapsed because the Syrians demanded receiving territory they occupied inside the mandate in 1948″
Twaddle.. show your sources. Syria was declared Independent 1946. Israel occupies the Golan which is Sovereign Syrian territory. UNSC Resolution 497
“and the Syrians were condemned by no one in intl. community for this”
According to UNSC Res 497 it’s Syrian territory, why would anyone condemn them?
“The page argues that the Jordanian annexation was legal, based on the Israeli-Jordanian armistice agreement.”
No it doesn’t. It argues that Jordanian ‘occupation’ was legal, agreed in the Israeli/Jordanian Armistice Agreement. Get a new spectacle for your eye or open the other too. Failing that, get your guide dog to read things for you
Annexation was by consent of the Palestinians. I gave the link. Was it too Antisemitic for you?
“Contradiction is that it also argues that a provisional Palestinian state existed since UNGA 181”
It argues no such thing. Palestine was a Class A Provisional State from the beginning of the LoN Mandate for Palestine. The territory has diminished, but the status has a Class A Provisional State has never been changed.
“But the armistice agreement didn’t have Palestinians as a side, so it can’t possibly make a concession in their name… Unless there wasn’t any ‘provisional’ state”
The Armistice agreements were between the signatories to the Armistice Agreements only. All existing Independent States. Palestine as a Provisional State falls under UN Charter Chapt XI. To be protected by any UN Member State that controls it and assisted to independent statehood.
“The page simply lies about Arab motivation to invade Israel”
Exactly what Sovereign Israeli territory did they invade? Where is the UNSC Resolution condemning the Arab States for invading Israel? Why do the UNSC Resolutions call for ‘peace in Palestine’ instead of ‘peace in Israel’ if it was Israel that was invaded? What sovereign Israeli territory have any UNSC Resolutions demanded the Arab States withdraw from?
“Which part of ‘making a massacre which will be compared to the Mongols’ (quote of Arab League Secretary)”
Allegedly. Never given in context. No primary source available and not said in any official statement of the Arab League. The Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine was submitted to and accepted by the UNSC without condemnation. No condemnation because Israel had just been declared independent of Palestine yet there were Jewish forces already outside of the legal extent of Israeli Sovereignty even as it was being declared. The Regional Powers under the UN Charter, had a right to attempt to expel foreign forces in the territory of what remained of the Provisional State of Palestine.
“In truth, they had oppose the creation of the state, and had acted against it from before the official end of the mandate”
They opposed before actually, from the 1920’s, on the LEGAL basis that the citizens, Arab, Jew, Muslim, Bedouin, Christian et al, of the Provisional State of Palestine had not been consulted, which was contrary to the Lon Charter and later the UN Charter in regard to self determination. There was never in all their legal argument, any objection to Jewish folk. The Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine says this “The Governments of the Arab States emphasise, on this occasion, what they have already declared before the London Conference and the United Nations, that the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed”
Democracy!! Equal rights!! How dare they! Nowhere did the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine threaten Israel or threaten to actually institute the legal basis of their argument. It merely stated the legal case as a basis for protecting their ward as regional powers per the UN Charter. Israel was no longer a part of Palestine on the 15th May 1949. The Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine was given to the UNSC, making the war a legally declared defensive war. Which is why there is no UNSC resolution condemning it.
It was in fact the last legal declaration of war ever presented to the UNSC. It undoubtedly embarrassed the warmongers of the world into waging undeclared wars for the past 63 years. For them to do likewise, outlining an actual valid legal basis for war, would show unparalleled hypocrisy for how they have blamed the Arabs for 63 years or result in their declarations being rejected by the UNSC as invalid.
“I’m really wasting too much time on this, so this will do”
What a pity, you provided no substantiation for any of it. Not one source. NADA. Thy Hasbarrow is, predictably, empty.
talknic
Oooops ‘scuse my formatting errors.
Y.
Yawn, simply repeating your arguments does not make less false.
A) “They couldn’t have effectively declared independence while Israel controlled any part of their rightful territory.” Funny, the Arabs were controlling some parts of Israel (per even 181), and that didn’t stop anyone from recognizing Israel – not even your funny page. Even funnier, The Palestinian leadership rejected having a state in the 181 lines, and kept rejecting it even when it had even more territory in May 1948. The obvious explanation to all this is that there was no restriction in intl. law preventing them from doing this – they simply did not want to.
B) Read up on terra nullius before continuing with irrelevant stuff.
C) The difference in the Kinneret is well known (e.g. [1]), and not recognizing it simply affirms your ignorance. Syria demands territory inside the former Palestine Mandate borders, and the fact they have not been condemned by anyone simply shows both how dead these borders are, and that ‘no territory changes after war’ idea isn’t exactly a good reflection of intl. law.
D) What consent of Palestinians are you talking about? There was no referendum in WB about neither occupation or annexation. They were not a party. Jordan just did it, and they did not have any intention of allowing a Palestinian state there. Which again proves the ‘Provisional’ state simply did not exist in intl. law.
E) I’m not going to do your homework for you (one link is on the house). Most of the stuff I wrote is common knowledge among people educated on intl. law. If you can’t even use google, you’re in tough shape.
[1] http://www.ilanberman.com/6514/the-geopolitics-of-water
“Israel’s position is that the internationally recognized border between Syria and Israel is the demarcation line between Syria and Palestine drawn by the British and French colonial powers in 1923. This line runs 10 meters beyond the high water mark of Lake Kinneret. Syria’s position is that a return to the June 4, 1967 borders (i.e. to the very edge of the lake’s low water mark) is a prerequisite for any peace agreement with Israel.”
max
Sometimes, much TALK makes a Proust 🙂
“Provisional State of Palestine” seems to be a central point. Alas, it doesn’t and never did exist.
That would’ve been akin to accepting the Jewish state of Israel.
Y.
“They were not a party.” should be ” They were not a party in the armistice agreements”.
Ben Israel
Kenny-
According to UN GA Resolution 181, as you put it, the following cities INSIDE the GREEN LINE are not legally part of Israel…Yafo, Lod, Ramla, Beersheva, Ashdod, Ashqelon, Nahariya, Mevasseret Zion, etc, etc.
Ben Israel
Talknic=
THe Palestinians do NOT recognize Israel as having total sovereign control of Tel Aviv because they demand the return of tens of thousands of refugees to Yafo , Ramat Aviv (was Sheikh Munis) and dozens of other Arab villages which were located in what is now the Tel Aviv metropolitan area.
talknic
max June 13, 2011 12:58 pm
“Provisional State of Palestine” seems to be a central point. Alas, it doesn’t and never did exist”
Uh huh….
LEAGUE OF NATIONS MANDATE FOR PALESTINE http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/2FCA2C68106F11AB05256BCF007BF3CB
//The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;//
Now see League of Nations Convenant Article 22 : http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#art22
// Article 22. Part I. (4th paragraph) “Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.”//
talknic
Ben Israel June 13, 2011 2:00 pm
“THe Palestinians do NOT recognize Israel as having total sovereign control of Tel Aviv because they demand the return of tens of thousands of refugees to Yafo , Ramat Aviv (was Sheikh Munis) and dozens of other Arab villages which were located in what is now the Tel Aviv metropolitan area”
The Palestinian call for RoR is based in UNGA res 194, which is in turn based on the UN definition of a refugee under the Statute of the UNHCR which says person must have LIVED in the region of return. It does not and never has included lineal descendants.
Simple maths tells us that the MINIMUM age of a Palestine refugee who actually lived in the region of return in 1948, is now 63 years of age. The life expectancy TODAY for a Palestine refugee is 73yrs. In 1948 it was far lower. There are but a few thousand left in total who actually qualify for RoR to what is now the ACTUAL sovereign territory of Israel. Most have passed away due to natural attrition well below TODAY’s life expectancy.
Furthermore, Israel was guaranteed and had majority of Jewish folk in it’s actual territories on May 15th 1948. Only A PART of THE MINORITY of non-Jewish folk fled the violence. If ONLY A PART OF A MINORITY fled, they would not have been a demographic threat iwere they to have returned in 1948.
Now 63 years later, after all those who were over 10-12 years of age in 1948 are dead, those that are still alive cannot possibly number enough to be a demographic threat to Israel. Simple maths.
Those who might still return are ALL over the age of 63, past the age of rampant procreation.
There is no official claim by the Palestinians for all lineal descendants to return to what is actual Israeli sovereign territory.
The “RoR is a demographic threat to Israel” is a fallacy. It has always been a fallacy. A PART OF a MINORITY returning cannot be a threat to demographics. It simply does not add up.
The most bizarre Israeli condition surrounding RoR is that of a Peace Agreement with Palestine. Any folk who do return under such an agreement, will be ISRAELI CITIZENS, not Palestinians……Think about it.
Added to which… RoR is an individual right. The Palestinians authorities can only negotiate with Israel to ensure that they have that right. They cannot negotiate for individuals who in the final run, must decide to a return and live in peace in the country of return or take compensation.
Finally, those 63yr+ olde souls who do choose to return can be vetted by the country of return and refused by the country of return if they do not fulfill the criteria. In that manner, basic RoR has safe guards for the country of return.
What is threatened by RoR are the territories Israel illegally acquired by war by 1949 and has never legally annexed and those territories Israel occupies and has illegally annexed, none of which is actually legally Israeli territory. So there again, the threat is not actually to Israeli sovereignty. MORE
max
“The Palestinian call for RoR is based in UNGA res 194, which is in turn based on the UN definition of a refugee under the Statute of the UNHCR which says person must have LIVED in the region of return. It does not and never has included lineal descendants. ”
Wrong, as is practically every single “fact” you brought. The Palestinians follow the UNRWA rule crafted specifically for Palestinians, which also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees. Fact.
talknic
Y. June 13, 2011 12:54 pm
“Yawn, simply repeating your arguments does not make less false”
Your boring yawns have yet to prove any false arguments on my part.
“Funny, the Arabs were controlling some parts of Israel (per even 181)”
On the 15th May 1948 what parts of Sovereign Israeli territory were they controlling exactly? Making a statement without anything to substantiate it does not make a substantial argument.
“Even funnier, The Palestinian leadership rejected having a state in the 181 lines”
What is even funnier, is that the Palestinians had no say. It was the Arab States who represented the New Arab State, not the Palestinians themselves. Follow the UNSC resolutions from 1945 till Jordan relinquished control to the PA.
“The obvious explanation to all this is that there was no restriction in intl. law preventing them from doing this “
You didn’t read what was provided. What a pity. Here again.
http://www.jcpa.org/art/becker2.htm
Furthermore no entity is required to declare independence, it goes against the very notion of independence itself. It does not negate their right to their territories. (UN Charter Chapter XI)
“Read up on terra nullius before continuing with irrelevant stuff”
You made the claim, you try to provide.
BTW The LoN Mandate didn’t consider it terra nullius. Nor Balfour. Nor Herzl.
“The difference in the Kinneret is well known “
You didn’t mention the Kinneret before. I am not a mind reader
“What consent of Palestinians are you talking about?”
I gave the link… you didn’t read it. Here again http://www.jcpa.org.il/art/knesset6.htm
“Most of the stuff I wrote is common knowledge among people educated on intl. law. If you can’t even use google, you’re in tough shape”
Save your stupid sarcasm. Most of the stuff you wrote is Hasbara twaddle, disproven by the sources I have provided here and in detail on my site.
“Israel’s position is that the internationally recognized border between Syria and Israel is the demarcation line between Syria and Palestine drawn by the British and French colonial powers in 1923”
It was Syria’s Internationally recognized border by 1946, when Syria gained independence, BEFORE Israel existed or the proposed Jewish state was allocated any territory under UNGA res 181 in 1947. I do believe 1946 precedes 1947 and certainly May 15th 1948. Maybe Israel’s and you are still having difficulties but the rest of the world seems to have mastered numbers that precede and those that follow.
” Syria’s position is that a return to the June 4, 1967 borders (i.e. to the very edge of the lake’s low water mark) is a prerequisite for any peace agreement with Israel”
So? It was Sovereign Syrian territory in 1946, before Israel existed.
Peace agreements between states see the occupier withdraw BEFORE Peaceful relations resume Simple really.
talknic
max June 13, 2011 4:05 pm
“Wrong, as is practically every single “fact” you brought”
Disprove one….. go ahead..I’ll wait..
“The Palestinians follow the UNRWA rule crafted specifically for Palestinians, which also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees. Fact”
Wrong yourself. The ‘Fact’ is… UNRWA’s definition is only to ascertain who qualifies for assistance whilst they are refugees. It’s mandate does not extend to final status or negotiations. http://www.unrwa.org/etemplate.php?id=87#final_status
//(Q) Is UNRWA involved in the Middle East peace negotiations and in the discussions on a solution to the refugee issue?
(A) No. UNRWA is a humanitarian agency and its mandate defines its role as one of providing services to the refugees. However, UNRWA highlights the international community’s obligation to provide a just and durable solution for Palestine refugees.//
UNGA Res 194 was passed by the UN General Assembly on December 11, 1948, BEFORE the United Nations established UNRWA under UNGA res 302 (IV), of 8 December 1949
UNGA’s definition was based on this http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/type,INTINSTRUMENT,UN,,3ae6b37810,0.html (Which can now be read as incorporated into the UNHCR statute http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3628.html)
//ARTICLE 2
(a) to encouraging and assisting in every way possible the early return to their country of nationality, or former habitual residence//
Failing a country of nationality because of circumstances such as the change of status of Palestinian territory that became Israel on May 15th 1948, they must have had a former habitual residence. I.e., they must have lived in the territory of return.
When you can produce an Official Palestinian claim for RoR for all lineal descendants, you might have a case. Their Official claim is under UNGA res 194, no lineal descendants.
talknic
Y. June 13, 2011 1:08 pm
“They were not a party.” should be ” They were not a party in the armistice agreements”
Correct. They fall under the UN Charter Chapter XI.
The armistice agreements were between High Contracting Powers. Being between High Contracting Powers (states) means, contrary to the Hasbara, that the GC’s do apply. As confirmed by the UNSC and the ICJ and the ICRC.
Under both the UN Charter Chapt XI and the GC’s the Occupying Power has responsibility to protect the occupied, their property and their territory. Not to illegally ‘acquire’ their territory, or usurp them or illegally annex or illegally settle on their lands
Y.
Talknic, you seem to be unable to read links or my posts.
A) If you do not believe the Palestinians have demanded lineal descendants in RoR, you simply have not ever read any official (or unofficial) Palestinian document and have never talked with any of them. They do make that demand, legal or not. I won’t help you with google, or even with asking some of the Palestinian contributors to the site.
B) “On the 15th May 1948 what parts of Sovereign Israeli territory were they controlling exactly?” I already mentioned they controlled almost the entire Negev (except for 11 points in the north of it). Israel did not conquer it until October 1948.
C) The Palestinian actually had no different say that then-Jews until the Jews declared. Both sent representatives to the paritition committee (the Mufti all but refused to make an argument and said they’ll fight any partition – he had to be pressured by the arab league to reappear). Later on, they kept this low status because there was no nonexistent ‘provisional state’, which is because they rejected the entire partition idea and made no attempt to form a state.
D) The Syrian demand is _across its 46 borders_, if you had bothered to read the link you’d know that (the 46 border was exactly the mandate border, Syria demands more territory that the 46 border in the Kinneret and in some other areas like Hamat Gader, becuase they conquered it up to 67. No one has ever condemned them for it). Again, I won’t help you with google.
E) You seem to be confused about independence, annexation etc. First, annexation is simply applying one’s civil laws to a territory. Check for example Israel’s annexation law for the Golan, which simply applied civil law and did not mention the word ‘annex’ yet was understood by everyone to be actually an annexation (which is why there was a UNSC resolution against it). In the same manner, Israel had already annexed the 1949 lines by the time its admission to the UN since civil law was applied there. Second, maybe you should read your own link about independence. Becker does not argue an entity has to control all its territory before declaring, which means the Palestinians could have declared – they did not want to. Since the mandate expired in May 1948 and there was no claim over (at least) the non-in-the-Jewish-part-of-181 territory these were nullius. Later, Jordan made a claim, but that was only on not-green-line area and was abandoned in 1988.
F) You are confused about chronology. It is true that 194 was passed before UNRWA existed, but 194 was passed before UNHRC too (1951). In a similar manner, the 4th GC (Oct. 49) did not exist till then. If you want to claim no retroactivity, than apply this to all said documents.
talknic
Y June 14, 2011 7:45 am
“you seem to be unable to read links or my posts”
Odd I answered to them very exactingly
“A) If you do not believe the Palestinians have demanded lineal descendants in RoR, you simply have not ever read any official (or unofficial) Palestinian document and have never talked with any of them.”
Prove your point…show the alleged official demands…thx
“B) I already mentioned they controlled almost the entire Negev (except for 11 points in the north of it). Israel did not conquer it until October 1948”
Statements by the Provisional Israeli Government to the UNSC on May 22nd 1948, contradict your unsubstantiated twaddle http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/B4085A930E0529C98025649D00410973
C) According to the UNSC Resolutions at the time http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm the Arab states represented the Palestinians. The Mufti was removed from all his representative positions by the British in 1937.
“there was no nonexistent ‘provisional state’”
The LoN Mandate for Palestine referring to the LoN Charter Article 22, says otherwise. I gave the articles. ‘you seem to be unable to read links or my posts’
D) The Syrian border is AS YOU described it.
“E) .. annexation is simply applying one’s civil laws to a territory.”
Laws of war Article 55 and legal annexation requires a referendum of the actual citizens of the territory to be annexed.
“Check for example Israel’s annexation law for the Golan..”
Illegal according to UNSC Res 497. Reason – Laws of War Article 55
” In the same manner, Israel had already annexed the 1949 lines by the time its admission to the UN since civil law was applied there.”
If Israel had already annexed it, why did it claim the territories AFTER the date you claim it was annexed, AFTER being admitted to the UN ? http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/fd807e46661e3689852570d00069e918/c96e0252e7710bce85256d95006bc157?OpenDocument
“Becker does not argue an entity has to control all its territory before declaring”
That’s not what I asserted. ‘you seem to be unable to read links or my posts’
“F)..It is true that 194 was passed before UNRWA existed, but 194 was passed before UNHRC too (1951)”
That’s NOT the convention I cited. ‘you seem to be unable to read links or my posts’
No points for stupid denialists who spout unsubstantiated drivel and who can’t read what was actually written
azi sadan israel
No it’s not occupied,you can’t occupy your own country.The Jordan Valley and the West Bank are part and parcel of the ancestral Jewish home land…..
talknic
azi sadan israel June 17, 2011 1:32 am
“No it’s not occupied,you can’t occupy your own country.The Jordan Valley and the West Bank are part and parcel of the ancestral Jewish home land…..”
UNSC Res 1860 says you are talking twaddle.
azi sadan
This comment was deleted