Congratulations! Palestine is now a UN non-member state

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Agema:

Lil devils x:

I don't think there would be peace even with a two state soltution. I mean that is like dreaming that people all over the world will just join together in peace and harmony and love one another and treat each other as family. That has about as much chance of happening as stopping the conflict there. Say Israel was your nation, look at the map from 1967, how the hell would you defend that? That is a mess.

That a country has messy and strategically unenviable borders is not justification for it to take other people's land until it is satisfied.

At some point, a historical line is advantageous because it attempts to ensure some degree of sustainable territory. If the Palestinians cannot have territory that makes a viable state, they can never have a viable state. Israel could theoretically repopulate the West Bank in such a way that the Palestinians are all crammed into a few disconnected, worthless, Gaza-style, urban "reservations" that are incapable of functioning as an independent state or providing for their populations.

In fact, some suspect that is actually precisely what Israel is attempting.

The building in E1 will effectively prevent a contiguous Palestinian state from existing and in so doing completely fuck over any two state solution leaving as you've put, reservations, fort he Palestinians without any of their own infrastructure etc.
The UK is considering recalling it's ambassador to Tel-Aviv over this latest land-grab and there other EU countries have expressed distaste at the Israeli action and at least Sweden has also called the Israeli diplomat stationed there for a chat.

Have you even looked at a map? E1 will not prevent a contiguous Palestinian state, it will how ever cut them off from access to Jerusalem, which in Israel's mind-set was always off the table.
BTW the UK has not recalled any one as of yet.

Verbatim:

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Agema:

That a country has messy and strategically unenviable borders is not justification for it to take other people's land until it is satisfied.

At some point, a historical line is advantageous because it attempts to ensure some degree of sustainable territory. If the Palestinians cannot have territory that makes a viable state, they can never have a viable state. Israel could theoretically repopulate the West Bank in such a way that the Palestinians are all crammed into a few disconnected, worthless, Gaza-style, urban "reservations" that are incapable of functioning as an independent state or providing for their populations.

In fact, some suspect that is actually precisely what Israel is attempting.

The building in E1 will effectively prevent a contiguous Palestinian state from existing and in so doing completely fuck over any two state solution leaving as you've put, reservations, fort he Palestinians without any of their own infrastructure etc.
The UK is considering recalling it's ambassador to Tel-Aviv over this latest land-grab and there other EU countries have expressed distaste at the Israeli action and at least Sweden has also called the Israeli diplomat stationed there for a chat.

Have you even looked at a map? E1 will not prevent a contiguous Palestinian state, it will how ever cut them off from access to Jerusalem, which in Israel's mind-set was always off the table.
BTW the UK has not recalled any one as of yet.

.
I think he got a mixed-up report from earlier, I saw it too but they corrected themselves. The UK had a chat with the Israeli ambassador and said they will consider further actions, but they haven't called them back... yet.

Hey, are there any other roads going around E1? I wonder what they will say to Gaza and the West Bank being apart from each other. Hell, Olmert suggested building a god-damned highway between the two.

TheIronRuler:

At the bottom line - you're right, however, if you see the response coming from Europe and the USA - this have been the mindset of Israel's allies for more than a decade now, meaning that Israel couldn't expand as much as it did earlier without damaging its relationship with its allies so here your theory fails.

Realistically, neither the USA nor Europe really commit themselves to restraining Israel's settlement of the West Bank. If they did, we'd really know about it as there would be public threats of sanctions and withholding aid.

The concept of a historical border is actually quite important. If everyone decides there is none, then the Palestinians have no territorial rights at all. So how would anyone argue that Israeli settlements are wrong? If the settlements are deemed just, Europeans and Americans would not pressure their governments to block settlements.

Agema:

TheIronRuler:

At the bottom line - you're right, however, if you see the response coming from Europe and the USA - this have been the mindset of Israel's allies for more than a decade now, meaning that Israel couldn't expand as much as it did earlier without damaging its relationship with its allies so here your theory fails.

Realistically, neither the USA nor Europe really commit themselves to restraining Israel's settlement of the West Bank. If they did, we'd really know about it as there would be public threats of sanctions and withholding aid.

The concept of a historical border is actually quite important. If everyone decides there is none, then the Palestinians have no territorial rights at all. So how would anyone argue that Israeli settlements are wrong? If the settlements are deemed just, Europeans and Americans would not pressure their governments to block settlements.

.
The historic borders of Palestine vary depending on who you ask. Some call it the borders the British drew for the whole mandate, others call it the borders the UN committee drew for half of the mandate, and some call it the borders that Israel ended up in after its war of independence. The mandate territories that were not Israel were absorbed into other nations, so Palestine doesn't have any historic borders. However, since the declaration in the UN a few days ago, they did unilaterally announce the '49 armistice lines as their borders and east Jerusalem as their capital, to which Israel said "lol, no" and decided to build on the E1 area. Israel could have built there sine the early 2000s but the fact was that it was stopped by its allies.

EDIT: How about the 10 month settlement freeze in the west bank forced upon Israel by the USA so that the Palestinians would go in and negotiate?

TheIronRuler:

The historic borders of Palestine vary depending on who you ask.

Mandate Palestine was the authority of the UN. Most of that territory was granted to new countries, Israel and Jordan. The designated state to occupy the rest failed to come into existence, and so in its continued absence that territory is therefore still the authority of the UN.

Consequently you might consider the border to be disputed between Israel and the UN. As the UN has authority over the territory, the border claim is where it says it is: i.e. the 1967 border. (The UN has already conceded to Israel the territory that Israel claimed by conflict in 1948 from the legally-arranged 1947 borders.)

The UN is evidently not willing to concede the borders of the rest without the agreement of the putative Palestinian state that they hope will fill them. Furthermore, it does not recognise that Israel has the sovereign right to decide who builds what on it, hence why it calls the settlements illegal.

Agema:

TheIronRuler:

The historic borders of Palestine vary depending on who you ask.

Mandate Palestine was the authority of the UN. Most of that territory was granted to new countries, Israel and Jordan. The designated state to occupy the rest failed to come into existence, and so in its continued absence that territory is therefore still the authority of the UN.

Consequently you might consider the border to be disputed between Israel and the UN. As the UN has authority over the territory, the border claim is where it says it is: i.e. the 1967 border. (The UN has already conceded to Israel the territory that Israel claimed by conflict in 1948 from the legally-arranged 1947 borders.)

The UN is evidently not willing to concede the borders of the rest without the agreement of the putative Palestinian state that they hope will fill them. Furthermore, it does not recognise that Israel has the sovereign right to decide who builds what on it, hence why it calls the settlements illegal.

.
I can't believe I did so much digging just for you. Here are my findings.

UN? Are you perhaps referring to the League of Nations? The UN was introduced in 1945, while the mandate of Palestine ended in 1948. For the majority of the mandate time, it was the League of Nations that gave the authority to Britain.

The mandate was established under article 22 of The Covenant of the League of Nations. It reads:

ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

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.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.

In every case of mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.

The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.

A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates.

Alright.. Where was I? Ah, yes. Mandate of Palestine wasn't the authority of the UN. Not at all. It was (formally) under the authority of the British since 1923, that willingly ended the mandate in May 15th, 1948 due to the ongoing fighting between the Jews and the Arabs within the mandate. They already gave the UN (a bit more than a year before that) the authority to try and find a settlement that both sides within the mandate territory could agree to. The recommendation of the UN to try and partition the territory failed, and it is not valid since both sides didn't agree to it.

The legitimacy of these mandates?
I put some parts in bold text.

Legitimacy of the allocations

Article 22 was written two months before the signing of the peace treaty, before it was known what "communities", "peoples", or "territories" were related to sub-paragraphs 4, 5, and 6. The treaty was signed, and the peace conference had been adjourned, before a formal decision was made. The mandates were arrangements guaranteed by, or arising out of the general treaty which stipulated that mandates were to be exercised on behalf of the League.

The treaty contained no provision for the mandates to be allocated on the basis of decisions taken by four members of the League acting in the name of the so-called "Principal Allied and Associated Powers". The decisions taken at the conferences of the Council of Four were not made on the basis of consultation or League unanimity as stipulated by the Covenant. As a result, the actions of the conferees were viewed by some as having no legitimacy.

In testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations a former US State Department official who had been a member of the American Commission at Paris, testified that the United Kingdom and France had simply gone ahead and arranged the world to suit themselves. He pointed out that the League of Nations could do nothing to alter their arrangements, since the League could only act by unanimous consent of its members - including the UK and France.

United States Secretary of State Robert Lansing was a member of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace at Paris in 1919. He explained that the system of mandates was a device created by the Great Powers to conceal their division of the spoils of war under the color of international law. If the former German and Ottoman territories had been ceded to the victorious powers directly, their economic value would have been credited to offset the Allies' claims for war reparations. Article 243 of the treaty instructed the Reparations Commission that non-mandate areas of the Saar Valley and Alsace-Lorraine were to be reckoned as credits to Germany in respect of its reparation obligations.

So what happened after the British left? Was the territory under the responsibility of the UN? Errrr.... Nope. Since the League of Nations fell apart in favor of the UN, all of its authorities were clumsily transferred to the UN. The mandate of Palestine wasn't under the authority of the UN as it was under the direct rule of the British. Since the British left and the state of Israel was formed two seconds later, the legitimacy of the mandate and the state of Israel was unknown. There were various attempts by the UN for ceasefires and truces, but all in all you're wrong.

Transjordan was under the British, but had an autonomous rule headed by a Hashmite king, while Palestine which was meant to become the homeland of the Jewish people was under direct control of the British. In the eyes of the British they did their part of the bargain - the mandate territory east of the Jordan became an Arab 'independent' state along with the territory of Iraq, while west of the Jordan would become a national home for the Jewish people, as mentioned in the Balfour papers.

TheIronRuler:

So what happened after the British left? Was the territory under the responsibility of the UN? Errrr.... Nope. Since the League of Nations fell apart in favor of the UN, all of its authorities were clumsily transferred to the UN. The mandate of Palestine wasn't under the authority of the UN as it was under the direct rule of the British. Since the British left and the state of Israel was formed two seconds later, the legitimacy of the mandate and the state of Israel was unknown. There were various attempts by the UN for ceasefires and truces, but all in all you're wrong.

Transjordan was under the British, but had an autonomous rule headed by a Hashmite king, while Palestine which was meant to become the homeland of the Jewish people was under direct control of the British. In the eyes of the British they did their part of the bargain - the mandate territory east of the Jordan became an Arab 'independent' state along with the territory of Iraq, while west of the Jordan would become a national home for the Jewish people, as mentioned in the Balfour papers.

The UN itself, even if it did mandate it, does not have the most rock solid foundations for legitmency on the matter. Israel has effectively expanded it's borders since it became a country, administrating some territory that the U.N. officially says still belongs to the people they conquered it from (such as that area that was accidentally shelled last month). There are many border disputes around the globe where one country administers what "legally" is territory of another nation (China and India, for example, each have areas that officially belongs to one but unofficially belongs to another), but the UN has never been very good at fixing these incidences.

Agema:

Mandate Palestine was the authority of the UN. Most of that territory was granted to new countries, Israel and Jordan. The designated state to occupy the rest failed to come into existence, and so in its continued absence that territory is therefore still the authority of the UN.

Consequently you might consider the border to be disputed between Israel and the UN. As the UN has authority over the territory, the border claim is where it says it is: i.e. the 1967 border. (The UN has already conceded to Israel the territory that Israel claimed by conflict in 1948 from the legally-arranged 1947 borders.)

Since when does the UN have the ultimate authority over any country? Look at my own countries history, America has done what it wants regardless of what the UN wants.

Helmholtz Watson:
Since when does the UN have the ultimate authority over any country? Look at my own countries history, America has done what it wants regardless of what the UN wants.

Essentially, a country owns what all other relevant countries agree it owns. The system by which this is arranged has been determined by international treaty and international law.

These laws and treaties that govern ownership are to a large extent embodied in the UN. In the case of Palestine, there is no state to assert a border claim over the occupied territories. However, the UN (and therefore the other countries that constitute the wider international community) hold an official line on what it thinks the case is according to international law.

The UN of course does not reliably enforce rulings, so they may be and frequently are flouted.

TheIronRuler:
[snip]

The mandate was possessed by the UK, but it had handed the partition plan, resolution and execution to the UN. The British motivation was just to depart as quickly as possible: the UK cut and run leaving even more chaos in Israel/Palestine than it did in India/Pakistan.

As to why the UN is relevant, see above.

Agema:

Helmholtz Watson:
Since when does the UN have the ultimate authority over any country? Look at my own countries history, America has done what it wants regardless of what the UN wants.

Essentially, a country owns what all other relevant countries agree it owns. The system by which this is arranged has been determined by international treaty and international law.

These laws and treaties that govern ownership are to a large extent embodied in the UN. In the case of Palestine, there is no state to assert a border claim over the occupied territories. However, the UN (and therefore the other countries that constitute the wider international community) hold an official line on what it thinks the case is according to international law.

The UN of course does not reliably enforce rulings, so they may be and frequently are flouted.

TheIronRuler:
[snip]

The mandate was possessed by the UK, but it had handed the partition plan, resolution and execution to the UN. The British motivation was just to depart as quickly as possible: the UK cut and run leaving even more chaos in Israel/Palestine than it did in India/Pakistan.

As to why the UN is relevant, see above.

.
The UK giving the UN the trouble of finding a solution to the Palestine problem was due to pressure from the USA (because of the Jewish refugees after the Holocaust), not tensions among the the two factions in the mandate territory boiling over (thought it did help a bit). The UK didn't give the UN the mandate - fact was that the UK stayed there till 1948 even while the UN formed a plan and recommended it in a resolution. When the UK left it left behind it left a vacuum of power - the authority for the mandate territory wasn't in the hands of the UN, since the resolution it passed to divide the country didn't come into effect and instead fighting ensued between the two factions there.

Chaos in India/the two Pakistans was because of the new borders and the ethnic/religious minorities fleeing over the border fearing the new governments rising above them.

TheIronRuler:

The UK giving the UN the trouble of finding a solution to the Palestine problem was due to pressure from the USA (because of the Jewish refugees after the Holocaust), not tensions among the the two factions in the mandate territory boiling over (thought it did help a bit). The UK didn't give the UN the mandate - fact was that the UK stayed there till 1948 even while the UN formed a plan and recommended it in a resolution. When the UK left it left behind it left a vacuum of power - the authority for the mandate territory wasn't in the hands of the UN, since the resolution it passed to divide the country didn't come into effect and instead fighting ensued between the two factions there.

Chaos in India/the two Pakistans was because of the new borders and the ethnic/religious minorities fleeing over the border fearing the new governments rising above them.

Yes, the UK did bow to pressure from the USA.

On the other hand, I see no particular reason to excuse the UK for absolving itself of its duty to ensure an orderly and peaceful transition in either case. In both, the UK rushed through the exit door leaving insufficient time for the nascent states to prepare (if not even impeding their preparation) and heedless of the consequences which they would bear for it.

Agema:

TheIronRuler:

The UK giving the UN the trouble of finding a solution to the Palestine problem was due to pressure from the USA (because of the Jewish refugees after the Holocaust), not tensions among the the two factions in the mandate territory boiling over (thought it did help a bit). The UK didn't give the UN the mandate - fact was that the UK stayed there till 1948 even while the UN formed a plan and recommended it in a resolution. When the UK left it left behind it left a vacuum of power - the authority for the mandate territory wasn't in the hands of the UN, since the resolution it passed to divide the country didn't come into effect and instead fighting ensued between the two factions there.

Chaos in India/the two Pakistans was because of the new borders and the ethnic/religious minorities fleeing over the border fearing the new governments rising above them.

Yes, the UK did bow to pressure from the USA.

On the other hand, I see no particular reason to excuse the UK for absolving itself of its duty to ensure an orderly and peaceful transition in either case. In both, the UK rushed through the exit door leaving insufficient time for the nascent states to prepare (if not even impeding their preparation) and heedless of the consequences which they would bear for it.

.
After the war the UK was somewhat broken...
Anyway, my previous statement - you were wrong when you said this post, and I backed it up with my arguments:

Agema:

TheIronRuler:

The historic borders of Palestine vary depending on who you ask.

Mandate Palestine was the authority of the UN. Most of that territory was granted to new countries, Israel and Jordan. The designated state to occupy the rest failed to come into existence, and so in its continued absence that territory is therefore still the authority of the UN.

Consequently you might consider the border to be disputed between Israel and the UN. As the UN has authority over the territory, the border claim is where it says it is: i.e. the 1967 border. (The UN has already conceded to Israel the territory that Israel claimed by conflict in 1948 from the legally-arranged 1947 borders.)

The UN is evidently not willing to concede the borders of the rest without the agreement of the putative Palestinian state that they hope will fill them. Furthermore, it does not recognise that Israel has the sovereign right to decide who builds what on it, hence why it calls the settlements illegal.

.
Do you still agree to what you've written down here or did i change your mind?

Agema:

TheIronRuler:

The UK giving the UN the trouble of finding a solution to the Palestine problem was due to pressure from the USA (because of the Jewish refugees after the Holocaust), not tensions among the the two factions in the mandate territory boiling over (thought it did help a bit). The UK didn't give the UN the mandate - fact was that the UK stayed there till 1948 even while the UN formed a plan and recommended it in a resolution. When the UK left it left behind it left a vacuum of power - the authority for the mandate territory wasn't in the hands of the UN, since the resolution it passed to divide the country didn't come into effect and instead fighting ensued between the two factions there.

Chaos in India/the two Pakistans was because of the new borders and the ethnic/religious minorities fleeing over the border fearing the new governments rising above them.

Yes, the UK did bow to pressure from the USA.

On the other hand, I see no particular reason to excuse the UK for absolving itself of its duty to ensure an orderly and peaceful transition in either case. In both, the UK rushed through the exit door leaving insufficient time for the nascent states to prepare (if not even impeding their preparation) and heedless of the consequences which they would bear for it.

Actually to a point the US was against the whole partition plan, the CIA report from 1947 pretty much predicted every thing that happened till date..

Verbatim:

Agema:

TheIronRuler:

The UK giving the UN the trouble of finding a solution to the Palestine problem was due to pressure from the USA (because of the Jewish refugees after the Holocaust), not tensions among the the two factions in the mandate territory boiling over (thought it did help a bit). The UK didn't give the UN the mandate - fact was that the UK stayed there till 1948 even while the UN formed a plan and recommended it in a resolution. When the UK left it left behind it left a vacuum of power - the authority for the mandate territory wasn't in the hands of the UN, since the resolution it passed to divide the country didn't come into effect and instead fighting ensued between the two factions there.

Chaos in India/the two Pakistans was because of the new borders and the ethnic/religious minorities fleeing over the border fearing the new governments rising above them.

Yes, the UK did bow to pressure from the USA.

On the other hand, I see no particular reason to excuse the UK for absolving itself of its duty to ensure an orderly and peaceful transition in either case. In both, the UK rushed through the exit door leaving insufficient time for the nascent states to prepare (if not even impeding their preparation) and heedless of the consequences which they would bear for it.

Actually to a point the US was against the whole partition plan, the CIA report from 1947 pretty much predicted every thing that happened till date..

.
It wasn't the partition plan the USA was for, it was removing the cap on immigration to Palestine so that the Jewish refugees from Europe (some in prison camps in Cyprus) could find a home in Palestine. The decision of the partition plan came from a committee in the UN, not the UK or the USA.

TheIronRuler:

Do you still agree to what you've written down here or did i change your mind?

Yes and no respectively. I was very unclear, and you therefore understandably misunderstood me.

Verbatim:

Actually to a point the US was against the whole partition plan, the CIA report from 1947 pretty much predicted every thing that happened till date..

Which seems odd, considering they voted in favour of partition.

Agema:

TheIronRuler:

Do you still agree to what you've written down here or did i change your mind?

Yes and no respectively. I was very unclear, and you therefore understandably misunderstood me.

Verbatim:

Actually to a point the US was against the whole partition plan, the CIA report from 1947 pretty much predicted every thing that happened till date..

Which seems odd, considering they voted in favour of partition.

.
The USSR also voted in favor, which didn't stop it from selling guns&shiny things to Israel's enemies.

The USSR and the USA were both in favor of the dismantling of Britain's overseas empire. Hell, their intelligence agencies pushed for the '52 coup in Egypt.

TheIronRuler:

The USSR also voted in favor, which didn't stop it from selling guns&shiny things to Israel's enemies.

The USSR and the USA were both in favor of the dismantling of Britain's overseas empire. Hell, their intelligence agencies pushed for the '52 coup in Egypt.

The USSR always had pretentions towards being egalitarian, anti-racist, anti-sexist etc. Beyond appearances, I doubt they cared. Their real attitude to Jews is perhaps better indicated by the oblast they offered near the Mongolian border. One could most optimistically say that it held the promise of exciting, pioneering challenges.

Yes, the USSR and USA were very keen to destroy the European influence in global affairs - because after all, which powers were going to fill the vacuum? This was particularly true of the Middle East, as it had lots of oil. Early British ambivalence to Israel is possibly also indicative of its desire to keep the Arabs friendly, as in the longer term they were more advantageous than Israel. Perhaps the Foreign Office really did feel guilty about failing to deliver on its WWI promises to the locals, although I'm not inclined to think such sentiment was high in their considerations. As it is, the Suez fiasco destroyed British and French influence, not just locally but globally. I suppose it saved the pain of a slow decline.

An article from the economist:

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked