Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Four living hostages are back in Israel, and the Hamas lovers are furious
American Thinker ^ | 8 Jun, 2024 | Andrea Widburg

Posted on 06/09/2024 4:53:34 AM PDT by MtnClimber

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: Telepathic Intruder

I thought they were bombing NWRA terrorist supply and operations camps disguised as schools and hospitals.


21 posted on 06/09/2024 6:36:10 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

“Gazans promptly—and overwhelmingly—elected Hamas, a designated terrorist group that Iran funds, to govern them.”

To be fair.... did the Gazans ‘really’ elect Hamas to govern them? Or... was it kinda like the way “we” elected Joe Biden and the Democrats to govern us in 2020...?


22 posted on 06/09/2024 6:39:13 AM PDT by Danie_2023
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

Yes, they target terrorists. And terrorists use human shields. But according to CNN and others, Israel is just interested in bombing civilians, because that’s what Hamas tells them.


23 posted on 06/09/2024 6:39:29 AM PDT by Telepathic Intruder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

Kamallamma Harris was especially distraught about how many hamas operatives were killed during the rescue- (she cz..Ed them “innocent lives”, but we all onow that they were either hamas th3mselves or sympathisers/supporters


24 posted on 06/09/2024 6:57:42 AM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hardspunned

Hardspunned deeply saddened.


25 posted on 06/09/2024 6:59:52 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (Hineni!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

Screenshot from article: Medhi Hassan tweeted: Did he say anything about the dozens if innocent Pals. killed in the raid to rescue them [the Israelis taken hostage by Hamas in October 7th], a raid that would not have been necessary if Netanyahu had agreed to the hostage release deal — for all the hostages, not just four! — that Biden had claimed Netanyahu had agreed to?

Correction:
A raid that would not have been necessary ****had Hamas not taken the hostages on 10/7****


26 posted on 06/09/2024 7:10:19 AM PDT by Chicory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chicory
A raid that would not have been necessary ****had Hamas not taken the hostages on 10/7****

Correct. And the deaths in GAZA would not have happened if Hamas had not broken the truce they had with Israel.

27 posted on 06/09/2024 7:25:17 AM PDT by MtnClimber (For photos of scenery and wildlife, click on my screen name for my FR home page. More photos added.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

The solution to the Palestinian Problem is fewer Palestinians.


28 posted on 06/09/2024 7:44:18 AM PDT by Clioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

“as if Hamas voluntarily let them go”

From their cold, dead hands.


29 posted on 06/09/2024 7:57:51 AM PDT by Eleutheria5 (Every Goliath has his David. Child in need of a CGM system. https://gofund.me/6452dbf1. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

Why would you say something as ridiculous as that? I have always demanded that Bibi do what is necessary to get them ALL back alive. That would be negotiation. I am terribly saddened that so many died due to your hero, Netanyahu’s, incompetence from 10/SIX forward. If all but four die, that’s ok for you Bibi cheerleaders, just as long as the fig leaf over the genocide remains in place.


30 posted on 06/09/2024 9:52:17 AM PDT by hardspunned (Former DC GOP globalist stooge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

Gazans promptly—and overwhelmingly—elected Hamas, a designated terrorist group that Iran funds, to govern them. Hamas’s repeatedly stated goal is to erase the Nation of Israel. Gaza residents continue to love their terrorist government.

In some ways oranother they just act like liberals-socialists in this country. It may be bad for the economy as well as the country yet invariably they vote for it. In most cases it is ignorance as well as stupidity and always hoping for something what never comes instead in the end always gets worse.


31 posted on 06/09/2024 10:01:33 AM PDT by Saintgermain ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jaysin; woodpusher

Why didn’t you send your critical post to woodpusher?


32 posted on 06/09/2024 2:48:11 PM PDT by Jacquerie (ArticleVBlog.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie
Safe journey back tonight!

!נסיעה בטוחה

33 posted on 06/09/2024 10:21:00 PM PDT by kiryandil (FR Democrat Party operatives! Rally in defense of your Colombian cartel stooge Merchan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

because all he is going to do is post links to amnesty international and copy-paste a bunch of legalese spam to “prove” that he is right.

he’s incapable of actual discourse. if you look closely you’ll see that he’s incredibly silent regarding Israel except when he need to post spam to “prove” himself.
my suspicion is that he’s an arab because only they would use terms like “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” to describe the rightful self-defense of Israel.


34 posted on 06/10/2024 3:40:09 AM PDT by Jaysin (Trump can't be beat, unless the democrats cheat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Jaysin; MtnClimber; Jacquerie
just ask him and he’ll spam you with links to the nytimes and amnesty international to “prove” that “palestine” is a real country.

Not a mention of the New York Times or Amnesty International.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine

As of June 2024, the State of Palestine is recognized as a sovereign state by 144 of the 193 member states of the United Nations. It has been a non-member observer state of the United Nations General Assembly since November 2012.

Recent nations to formally recognize the State of Palestine are Ireland, Norway and Spain (28 May 2024), and most recently Slovenia (4 June 2024).

On 29 November 2012, in a 138–9 vote (with 41 abstaining) General Assembly resolution 67/19 passed, upgrading Palestine to "non-member observer state" status in the United Nations. The new status equated Palestine's with that of the Holy See. The change in status was described by The Independent as "de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine". Voting "no" were Israel, Canada, the Czech Republic, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama and the United States.

[...]

The UN has, after the resolution was passed, permitted Palestine to title its representative office to the UN as "The Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations", seen by many as a reflection of the UN's de facto position of recognizing the State of Palestine's sovereignty under international law, and Palestine started to re-title its name accordingly on postal stamps, official documents and passports. The Palestinian authorities also instructed its diplomats to officially represent the "State of Palestine", as opposed to the "Palestine National Authority". Additionally, on 17 December 2012, UN Chief of Protocol Yeocheol Yoon decided that "the designation of "State of Palestine" shall be used by the Secretariat in all official United Nations documents", recognizing the "State of Palestine" as the official name of the Palestinian nation.

But with or without the United Nations, nearly three-fourths of the world's nations recognize Palestine as a nation. Moreover, nations representing the vast majority of the world's population recognize the state of Palestine. These nations include China (1.4B), India (1.4B), Pakistan (235M), Indonesia (275M), Brazil (214M).

Opposed:
Canada, 38M
Czech Republic, 10.6M
Israel, 9.4M
Marshall Islands, 54K
Federated States of Micronesia, 105K
Nauru, 18K
Panama, 4.4M
Palau, 12K
United States 333.3M

The world population is 7.9B. The total population of the opposed states is 404.47M, or 5% of the world's population.

- - - - - - - - - -

https://press.un.org/en/2012/ga11317.doc.htm

Meetings Coverage
General Assembly Plenary
GA/11317
29 November 2012

General Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly to Accord Palestine ‘Non-Member Observer State’ Status in United Nations

29 November 2012

General Assembly GA/11317

Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York Sixty-seventh General Assembly

44th & 45th Meetings (PM & Night)

General Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly to Accord Palestine ‘Non-Member Observer State’ Status in United Nations

Voting by an overwhelming majority — 138 in favour to 9 against (Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Panama, Palau, United States), with 41 abstentions — the General Assembly today accorded Palestine non-Member Observer State status in the United Nations.

“The moment has arrived for the world to say clearly: enough of aggression, settlements and occupation,” said Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, as he called on the 193-member body to “issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine”. Indeed, following Israel’s latest aggression against the Gaza Strip, the international community now faced “the last chance” to save the long elusive two-State solution, he said, adding: “the window of opportunity is narrowing and time is quickly running out”.

[...]

Status of Palestine at United Nations

DAFF-ALLA ELHAG ALI OSMAN (Sudan), introducing the draft resolution on “status of Palestine in the United Nations” (document A/67/L.28), said the text aimed at taking a historic decision granting Palestine the status of non-Member Observer State. Its preamble reaffirmed the unacceptability of the acquisition of territory by force, and reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including to an independent State of Palestine. Several paragraphs of the text reaffirmed relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly concerning the peaceful settlement of the Question of Palestine, which mentioned, among other things, that Israel must withdraw from the Occupied Territory, including East Jerusalem.

Other references were made to the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, starting with the right to self-determination and that to an independent State, as well as the need for an equitable settlement for the refugees of Palestine and the complete cessation of Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Territory, including East Jerusalem. It recalled a General Assembly resolution which took note of the 1988 proclamation of a State of Palestine. Those paragraphs also reaffirmed the right of all States in the region to live in peace within safe and internationally recognized borders, and the right of those States to live side by side in peace and security.

Independence and freedom were enshrined in the United Nations Charter, he continued, emphasizing that today’s occasion was a chance to reaffirm those principles. Sixty-five years ago the United Nations had decided on the separation of two States, and one had waited until now, until this historic date. “The eyes of all the children of Palestine are directed towards us”, he said, adding that the resolution before the Assembly today was an additional milestone along the path to establishing the international will to realize real peace. He called on all States to contribute today “to make history” and to “pave the way for the future” by voting in favour of the resolution. Doing so would be a victory both for the value of truth and for the Palestinian people themselves, he said.

MAHMOUD ABBAS, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and President of the Palestinian Authority, said that Palestine came before the Assembly at a time when it was “still tending to its wounds” from the latest Israeli aggression in the Gaza Strip, which had wiped out entire families, murdering men, women and children along with their dreams, their hopes, their futures and their longing to live an ordinary life in freedom and peace. It came before the Assembly because it believed in peace, and because its people were in desperate need of it.

[...]

Following those statements, by a vote of 138 in favour to 9 against (Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Panama, Palau, United States) with 41 abstentions, the Assembly then adopted resolution A/67/L.28 (Annex).

Immediately after the vote, BAN KI-MOON, Secretary-General of the United Nations, said that the decision to accord Palestine non-Member Observer State status was the prerogative of Member States.

[...]

Statements on Question of Palestine

MOOTAZ AHMADEIN KHALIL (Egypt) congratulated the Palestinian people for having obtained the status of Non-Member Observer State. The adoption of the resolution by an enormous majority showed the international community’s recognition of the right of Palestine to have a Government and a territory with secure borders, in spite of the occupation and the occupying Power’s continuing acquisition of territory. The international community had affirmed that it was able to take the “right decision” when political will was present. He hoped that, in the near future, the Security Council would be able to undertake its responsibility through a similar decision, making Palestine a full Member State of the United Nations.

“It is clear that Israel is not serious when it comes to achieving peace,” he continued. Indeed, Israel based its methods on a strategy of negotiation “that leads nowhere”. Egypt, therefore, reaffirmed the importance of returning to the negotiating table on a stable basis and in agreement with the resolutions of the General Assembly. Those negotiations needed clear timelines, he said, adding that recent decisions leading to a cessation of hostilities in Gaza showed that it was possible to achieves peace “if all parties live up to their responsibilities”. Finally, he advised all parties, particularly Israel and the major donor countries, to not take unilateral measures or put pressure on the Palestinians to deter them from claiming their rights.

Speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, MOHAMMAD KHAZAEE (Iran) condemned Israel’s prolonged military occupation and illegal policies and practices, including its military raids and attacks against the Palestinian civilian population. Today’s meeting had occurred as Israel had escalated its military campaign against the Palestinians. While the Movement welcomed the Gaza ceasefire agreement, it had called on Israel to end its illegal blockade of the Strip and open all crossing points, in accordance with is obligations under international law, Security Council resolution 1860 2009 and all other relevant United Nations resolutions.

He said that the Movement remained firm in its condemnation of Israel’s illegal settlement policies and practices and stressed that all such unlawful attempts to alter the status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, should not be recognized by the international community. It stressed the need for intensified efforts to compel Israel to cease its illegal polices and genuinely commit to the peace process. It stressed the need for the international community to remain united in its demand that Israel had to respect its legal obligations as an occupying Power and cease all its violations, he said.

Speaking in his national capacity, he congratulated the Palestinian people on their historic achievement. For more than 60 years, the question of Palestine had been one of the main challenges facing the international community. The crisis in the region, which had lasted for decades, had been one of the “unpleasant consequences” of the occupation of Palestine by the Zionist regime. That regime had persisted with its aggression and uncivilized behaviour, disregarding the calls of the international community for it to cease such actions. Iran believed that ignoring the legitimate demands of the Palestinian people would hinder the steps towards a just solution to the question.

THOMAS MAYR-HARTING, Head of the Delegation of the European Union, said today’s decision to accord Non-Member Observer State status came as the latest escalation in the on-going Israeli-Palestinian conflict had caused the death of a large number of innocent civilians. “This is a bitter reminder of the urgent necessity to move forward towards the end of the conflict. Only a political solution to the conflict can bring lasting security, peace and prosperity to the Palestinians and Israelis,” he said. A comprehensive negotiated peace must and could be achieved on the basis of a two-State solution with the State of Israel and a sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine, both living in agreed borders and enjoying peace and security.

The European Union had repeatedly expressed its support and wish for Palestine to become a full member of the United Nations as part of a solution to the conflict. It had also consistently worked to advance the Palestinian Authority’s State-building efforts and would continue to do so. Recalling the Berlin Declaration of March 1999, the European Union reiterated its readiness to recognize a Palestinian State, when appropriate. After today’s vote, it was important for all to work towards a settlement of the conflict with renewed purpose and sense of urgency. He called on all parties to pursue actions conducive to an environment of confidence necessary to ensure meaningful negotiations and to refrain from actions that undermined the credibility of the process.

He urged both sides to seek constructive ways to overcome the current obstacles for a resumption of direct negotiations without delay or preconditions, and welcomed in that regard the positive statements previously made by President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu, urging them to maintain these commitments. Clear parameters defining the basis for negotiations were key for a successful outcome, together with avoiding unilateral measures and acts on the ground which undermined the viability of the two-State solution. The European Union reaffirmed it would not recognize any changes to the pre-1967 borders, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties. It would work actively, within the diplomatic Quartet on the Middle East peace process and with international partners, in support of efforts to bring about substantive negotiations in the coming months.

KADRA AHMED HASSAN (Djibouti), on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), said that the international community had an historic opportunity — and responsibility — to support Palestinians’ just cause for independence. Palestinians had been negotiating with Israel in good faith to live in peace in security, a goal which had not been achieved and did not appear to be within Palestinians’ grasp, given Israel’s policy of “shifting the goal posts”. The prospects for peace had been challenged by Israel’s settlement building, apartheid wall, escalating acts of violence by settlers against Palestinians and confiscation of Palestinian homes and lands. Such international law violations had systematically undermined prospects for a two-State solution.

She expressed the Group’s grave concern about the situation in East Jerusalem, where Israel’s settlement campaign was most intense. She called for an end to that construction, and condemned terrorist activities by extremist settlers against Palestinian homes, agricultural lands and holy sites. Further, Israel’s military aggression and illegal blockade constituted a collective punishment against 1.5 million Palestinians and a war crime. The international community, especially the Security Council, needed to take measures for a permanent cessation of Israeli aggression against Palestinians.

She said Palestinians’ accession to full membership to United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was an international recognition of their rights. Similarly, the positive assessment by the United Nations, World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) on the Palestinian Authority’s Implementation Plan for building the institutions for a State was another strong sign of their readiness for statehood. A permanent peace between Israel and Palestinians was essential for both peoples. Palestinians’ improved diplomatic status would bring Israelis and Palestinians a step closer to achieving a sustainable solution on the basis of two States living side by side in peace and security.

LI BAODONG (China) said the resolution adopted today was another positive step in Palestine’s progress towards statehood. Its adoption was the result of long-term efforts by the Arab community. He congratulated Palestine on becoming an Observer State of the United Nation. His country had long supported the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and an independent State of their own, with East Jerusalem as its capital. As early as 1988, China announced its recognition of the State of Palestine and established diplomatic relations with it.

Only when the question of Palestine was appropriately resolved, he continued, could the two-State solution be achieved. He expressed concern over the stalemate in that regard. Re-launching the peace talks between Israel and Palestine was all the more important. The international community must push Israel to return to the negotiating table in good faith. Concluding, he said that China would continue to play and active and constructive role to push for a just, comprehensive settlement of the Palestinian question.

MANSOUR ALOTAIBI (Kuwait) said today’s adoption of the resolution was a landmark achievement at the crossroads of Palestinians’ struggle. It was an extremely important stage in the lives of Palestinians, especially in recognition of independent Palestinian State along the 1967 borders. It sent a clear message of international support of their rights, as it called for the resumption of talks in line with the aims of the Madrid Conference, Arab Peace Initiative and other measures to address refugee return, the status of Jerusalem, settlements, security, water and other issues. He urged continuing moral and political support to Palestinians until their State was established with East Jerusalem as its capital.

He said Israel’s 14 November military aggression against Gaza had resulted in huge losses in life and property. The United Nations’ inability to bring Israel to bear its obligations had encouraged that country to continue its intransigence and apply hostile expansionist policies. There was no better example of that than its military campaign, a policy that flouted international norms and laws. Israel’s blockade against Gaza, continued arrests of Palestinians and limits on goods and persons were the main cause of instability in the region, and he renewed the call to pressure Israel to end such hostile practices. He urged Israel’s implementation of resolution 497 (1981) and return to 1967 borders, reaffirming its occupation of Syrian land was another obstacle to establishing peace in the Middle East.

U. JOY OGWU (Nigeria) noted the dawn may be closing on the two-State solution. Continued settlement-building by Israel threatened that objective. That impasse must be broken. Self-determination was the sole embodiment of the just, conscious expression of people to their dignity. To deny that right was to deny all other rights. She supported the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and statehood. Nigeria had recognized the State of Palestine and it had established diplomatic relations with it. Nigeria voted in favour of the admission of Palestine into UNESCO as a full Member State. She underscored the right of the Palestinians to live in freedom. It was fitting that today the international community had given Palestine non-Member Observer State status in the United Nations. “It was not only timely, it was right and it was just,” she said, pledging Nigeria’s commitment to work towards Palestine’s admission to the United Nations as a full Member State.

ZAHEER LAHER (South Africa) said that while his Government supported full membership of Palestine, it was satisfying that the United Nations had cemented that “Palestine is indeed a State”. He was certain that Palestinians would prevail in the quest for a viable State of their own and he urged the international community to avoid retributive actions that could stifle the existence of such a State. The Middle East peace process had been an agenda item for 65 years and he regretted there had been no significant movement in the long, drawn-out process towards a solution. The prospect for negotiations grew dimmer by the day amid Israel’s settlement building and restricting of Palestinians’ movement, among other measures. Settlements continued to threaten feasibility of a contiguous Palestinian State.

He went on to say that events in Gaza were a reminder of the fragile security situation, expressing pleasure that the ceasefire was holding. He welcomed mediation by Egypt, the League of Arab States and the Secretary-General that had led to the restoration of calm. He wondered where the Quartet had been during the crisis. Its silence showed its legitimacy should be addressed, perhaps by disbanding it. He was also disappointed the Security Council did not act at an appropriate time. He called for redoubled efforts for the implementation of a viable two-State solution, providing for a Palestinian State living alongside Israel based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. The blockade of Gaza had resulted in delays in the provision of humanitarian assistance and he called on Israel to end it. Conflict between Israel and Palestine had impacted regional stability. In closing, he recalled that resolution 181 had been a promissory note guaranteeing the creation of two States. Today’s text was a further fulfilment of that promise.

AHMED AL-JARMAN (United Arab Emirates) congratulated Palestine for being accorded non-Member Observer State status. The historic recognition was an important step towards the settlement of the Palestinian question and the consolidation of the right of the Palestinians to self-determination. “It represents a historical opportunity to overcome the present political crisis that has resulted from Israel’s continued occupation of the Palestinian lands, and should also be an exit out of the no-peace situation in the Middle East,” he said.

He went on to say that he hoped that an international move towards the formal acceptance to full membership would follow, since the Palestinian State now enjoyed the recognition of the overwhelming majority of Member States. He strongly condemned all hostile policies by Israel, emphasizing security for Israel and permanent cessation of violence in the region could not be achieved without imposing a just solution based on principles of international law. He also expressed deep concern over the current deadlock in peace negotiations, whose credibility was at stake due to breaches by the Israeli Government of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and terms of the peace process.

The international community should use influence on Israel, he said, to compel it to immediately stop all its unilateral policies which resulted in the freezing of peace negotiations. The United Arab Emirates would continue its political support and development aid to the Palestinian Authority, led by President Abbas. Israel must immediately end all its aggressive policies against the Palestinian people, and fully withdraw from all Palestinian and Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, the Syrian Golan Heights and the remaining occupied Lebanese territories.

MARIA LUIZA RIBIERO VIOTTI (Brazil) firmly supported Palestinians’ legitimate aspiration for a sovereign, independent democratic and viable Palestinian State on the basis of 1967 borders, living in peace and security alongside Israel. To this day, the question of Palestine was among the most important threats to international peace and security, and, as the Brazilian President had stated in September, only a free, sovereign Palestine could fulfil Israel’s legitimate desires for peace with its neighbours. The establishment of a Palestinian State had become more urgent in light of the expansion of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.

Establishing such a State was also the right response to the violence that had shortened the lives of innocent civilians, she said, citing the recent violence in Gaza as a reminder of the high human and political costs of a paralysed peace process. She called on all actors to fully commit to non-violence, dialogue and effective negotiations, as well as a lifting of the Gaza blockade. Reiterating that the Security Council must carry out its duties, she said an “inoperative Quartet and silent Security Council” did not serve the interests of peace. Turning to the United Nations, as President Abbas had done today, was consistent with Council and Assembly resolutions. Given the obstacles to the immediate admission of Palestine as a full United Nations Member, Brazil supported, as an interim measure, that Palestine be accorded non-Member State Observer status.

OSCAR LEÓN GONZÁLEZ (Cuba) lamented the absence of an effective solution to end Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people and its occupation of their land. He said that Israel continued to defy the international community and United Nations resolutions. It also continued to intensify settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel’s acts of violence against Palestinian civilians had increased. Palestinians lived in dire socio-economic circumstances. The situation of women and children in the region was alarming. Those were reasons enough to adopt political measures of condemnation. There should also be binding Council decisions to punish the perpetrators.

He asked why the Council was so inactive in the face of overwhelming evidence. He asked why the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) had taken no action. Such silence had laid bear the hypocrisy of several developed countries. During its recent siege of Gaza, Israel had once again used it military and technical superiority to brutalize the Palestinian population. He strongly condemned that aggression and called on international community to take firmest support for Palestine. He firmly supported an independent Palestinian State, with East Jerusalem as its capital. He supported today’s resolution and backed Palestine’s bid for full membership in the Organization, as well.

JORGE VALERO BRICEÑO (Venezuela) said Lebanese, Sephardic Jews and others had made his country their home and the three monotheistic religions existed there in peace. Some 1.5 million people in the Arab immigration lived in Venezuela. His country was committed to liberty, sovereignty, territorial integrity and respect for international law, which was why his Government supported the Palestinian cause. He hoped for a new era in which “swords would be beaten into plough shares”. The Gaza Strip was the “largest open air prison in the world”, he said, citing Noam Chomsky. The State of Israel had been proclaimed unilaterally in 1948 and al-Nakba had begun for Palestinians.

He said inhumane policies were used to control Palestinians within the colonized territory. Institutions had been created to undermine Palestinian rights to their land and property. Some 4,500 Palestinians were in Israeli prisons and he called for their release. The Israeli political and military elite had implemented apartheid, carried out ethnic cleansing, and used weapons banned by international law on civilians. Israel must be held accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against Palestinians and the Assembly could not remain indifferent to Palestinians’ suffering. Today’s resolution marked an important step on the road to recognizing Palestine as a full United Nations Member State.

Mr. HASSAN (Malaysia) said he was appalled that the global community took one week to stop Israel’s brutal, aggressive attack two weeks ago in Gaza, which killed 165 Palestinians and injured countless others. On 19 November, Malaysia’s Parliament passed a resolution condemning those attacks and stating its unwavering support for the Palestinians. The Parliament also called on the Council to fulfil its Charter responsibility and for Israel to be held accountable for the crimes committed against the Palestinians. He expressed sincere condolences to Palestinians who had died defending their homeland.

The report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People illustrated that the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory had not improved and Israel continued to violate international law, including humanitarian and human rights law. The occupying Power systematically continued to demolish Palestinian homes, displace Palestinians and intensify settlement building. In 2011, it had destroyed 110 homes. Israel clearly intended to change the demographic reality on the ground. It had further revoked the residency status of more than 14,000 Palestinians from Jerusalem without reason or discourse. He was equally appalled by the increasing number of settler violence incidents.

Israel’s blockade of Gaza had rendered 80 per cent of the population there dependent on humanitarian aid, he said. Another 44 per cent was food insecure; 39 per cent lived in poverty. He expressed concern over the Committee’s findings. If Israel was committed to a two-State solution, it must stop building settlements, dismantle existing ones, lift the blockade of Gaza, and allow aid to reach people. The international community must continue to support all recommendations in the Committee’s report to achieve the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and a negotiated settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict that resulted in creation of an independent Palestinian State, with East Jerusalem as its capital. He paid respect and tribute to the Palestinian people’s courage and strength in the face of immense hardship. He fully supported Palestine’s application as a Member State and welcomed adoption of today’s text enhancing its status to Observer State.

BASHAR JA’AFARI (Syria) said today’s adoption was further proof of the legitimacy of the Palestinian cause. “This is justice served,” he said, noting Syria’s support of Palestinian rights for the creation of a sovereign State with East Jerusalem as its capital, along borders decided upon in 1967, as well as the return of Palestinians to their homes and payment of reparations. He recalled resolution 20/73 in that regard, which defined Israel’s United Nations membership, calling on Israel to uphold its Charter obligations. Israel’s accession to the United Nations was contingent on its commitment to the creation of a Palestinian State and the return of refugees. But that commitment had been left aside.

Israel continued its hostile practices, refusing peace and viewing itself as a State above the law. Those protecting Israel had affirmed Israeli authorities would be protected at the United Nations, he said. Israel had applied an unjust settlement policy against Palestinians. It was the Palestinians’ right to live in freedom but that was impossible with Israel’s flouting of United Nations resolutions and pressure by some States to hamper the Palestinians’ full enjoyment of their rights. The Palestinian cause was a just one. Those that had voted against the resolution had failed the Palestinian people, as well as the “Palestinian Gandhi”, President Abbas. He asked how those States could be trusted when they talked about upholding international law, sovereignty and the rule of law. True justice required Palestine being accorded full Member status.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) welcomed the adoption by the great majority of Member States of the resolution providing Palestine the status of non-Member Observer State. Further, Morocco considered that negotiations were the only way to restore the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and the establishment of a sovereign State. Passage of the resolution was a logical result of the stalemate in the peace process. The time allocated to reach a peaceful settlement for a two-State solution had expired. The resolution was supported by all Palestinians and thus was a step towards Palestinian reconciliation.

Welcoming the ceasefire between Gaza and Israel, he commended the efforts of the international parties who had helped to achieve it, and expressed the hope that the international community would work to prevent Israeli aggression and that there would be a new approach that would lead to the opening of the crossings and ending the blockade of Gaza. While condemning Israel’s continued settlement activity, which further annexed Palestinian lands, he said that, nevertheless, the path to peace should not be abandoned.

MOHAMED KHALED KHIARI (Tunisia) reiterated his full support for the “heroic struggle of the Palestinian people to put an end” to the Israeli occupation. He noted that this was the Day of international Solidarity with the Palestinian People. Tunisia had supported an independent Palestine State with East Jerusalem as its capital. Congratulating on the “historic decision” taken by the General Assembly to grant Palestine non-Member Observer State status, he said that status would help Palestine play its role as a peace-loving nation internationally. However, he warned against complacency and the silence of the international community, saying that the Palestinian people continued to live under occupation.

Israeli settlers were trying to change the nature of Jerusalem by removing Arabic characteristics. The absence of a firm position by the international community could not continue. Given that the Palestinian people could not endure the ongoing situation, the international community was called on to take steps to break the stalemate in the negotiations. Efforts needed to be made to create a new dynamism to deal with the substantial issues. A two-State solution was essential.

JEROBEAM SHAANIKA (Namibia) said his country had followed the issues surrounding the confiscation of land and destruction of homes to make room for new Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Thus, it was puzzling how support for a resolution seeking Palestine’s recognition by the United Nations could be considered counterproductive to the two-State solution. Support for the resolution was meant to enhance efforts leading to the creation of an independent, sovereign, contiguous and viable Palestinian State, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and to coexist with Israel on the basis of the 1967 borders. Therefore, he did not consider voting for the resolution to be counterproductive to the peace process, which had been suspended for the past few years.

Namibia would continue to extend its unwavering support and solidarity with the people of Palestine as long as they were denied their right to self-determination, he said. His country fully supported the aspiration of Palestine for what the resolution had sought to achieve, and looked forward to the day when the State of Palestine finally joined the family of sovereign and independent nations. The United Nations Charter called on the international community “to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security”; it did not call for division through weakness and fear.

ANNEX

Vote on Status of Palestine at United Nations

The draft resolution on the Status of Palestine at the United Nations (document A/67/L.28) was adopted by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to 9 against, with 41 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States.

Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Estonia, Fiji, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malawi, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, United Kingdom, Vanuatu.

Absent: Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Ukraine.

- - - - - - - - -

Until 2012, Palestine had observer status in the UN General Assembly, but not as a State. ~United Nations

https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1148351

United Nations

Palestine’s status at the UN explained

Palestine’s current status

Right now, Palestine is a “Permanent Observer State” at the UN, enjoying the status that allows it to participate in all of the Organization’s proceedings, except for voting on draft resolutions and decisions in its main organs and bodies, from the Security Council to the General Assembly and its six main committees.

However, some other participation is off-limits to Permanent Observers. This was made clear by a General Assembly resolution, which temporarily, for the year 2019 during which Palestine served as chair of the Group of 77 developing countries and China (G77), accorded to Palestine additional rights: to submit proposals and amendments and introduce them, to exercise a right of reply and to raise procedural motions, including points of order and requests to put proposals to the vote. These rights temporarily accorded to Palestine then expired as of 2020.

On 2 April 2024, Palestine sent the UN Secretary-General a letter requesting renewed consideration be given to the application of Palestine for admission to membership in the UN, a request originally submitted in 2011. Upon receipt of the request, the UN chief forwarded it to the Security Council, which on 8 April took up the matter in an open meeting.

The process is a continuation of what happened in September 2011, when the Palestinian President sent a letter with the application request for UN membership to the UN chief, who promptly sent the application to the Security Council and the General Assembly. In accordance with the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, the Security Council referred the matter to its Committee on Admission of New Members, where members deliberated but were not unanimous on approving the request.

[...]

Non-member Permanent Observer status

In the case of Palestine, one year later in 2012, the General Assembly decided to recognise it as a “non-member Permanent Observer State”.

While the only other current non-member Observer State is the Holy See, representing the Vatican, the practice of according the status dates from 1946, when the Secretary-General accepted the designation of the Swiss Government as a Permanent Observer to the United Nations. Observers were subsequently put forward by certain States that later became UN Member States, including Austria, Finland, Italy and Japan.

As a Permanent Observer State, Palestine’s flag does fly outside the UN Secretariat building in New York, although it is slightly separated from the UN Member State flags and is not part of the alphabetic line-up.

How Palestine became a non-member Observer State

On 29 November 2012, the General Assembly adopted a resolution granting to Palestine the status of non-member observer State in the United Nations, with a vote of 138 for, nine against (Canada, Czech Republic, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Panama, Palau, United States), with 41 abstentions.

Until 2012, Palestine had observer status in the UN General Assembly, but not as a State.

The vote came on the same day that the UN observed the annual International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. Established in 1977, the Day marks the date in 1947 when the Assembly adopted a resolution partitioning then-mandated Palestine into two States, one Jewish and one Arab.

Upon the adoption in 2012, Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, said its aim in coming before the world body to change its status was to try to “breathe new life” into the peace process.


35 posted on 06/11/2024 12:48:06 AM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher; MtnClimber; Jacquerie

the BSpusher grand-spammer strikes again.

can you do ANYTHING other then spam this site with links to the UN and other unreliable sources?

do you really expect people to read your drivel you spam? no one does thats for sure.

why are you UTTERLY INCAPABLE of defending your points without legalese SPAM? you’re ruining the site

have fun enjoying your IMAGINERY state of “palestine”

BTW, the great IDF killed over 100 people the other day to rescue our civilians being held against their will and against the very protocols of the organizations that you link to in your pathetic spam. It must drive you crazy


36 posted on 06/11/2024 2:34:23 AM PDT by Jaysin (Trump can't be beat, unless the democrats cheat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Jaysin; Jacquerie
can you do ANYTHING other then spam this site with links to the UN and other unreliable sources?

Fact-laden posts quoting the most authoritative sources possible seem to leave you unable to make any substantive response.

The United Nations and its International Courts are the highest authorities on International Law.

As you know, the League of Nations was the birth mother to the territory of modern Israel. And the United Nations is the birth mother of the free territory of modern Israel.

Also as you know, when the United Nations ended its administratorship of the territory of Israel, the newly free territory of Israel declared statehood, and, eleven minutes later, was recognized by the United States. There was no war of independence for Israel. The territory was given to Israel by the United Nations. and now, Israel hates its mother.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine

As of June 2024, the State of Palestine is recognized as a sovereign state by 144 of the 193 member states of the United Nations. It has been a non-member observer state of the United Nations General Assembly since November 2012.

Recent nations to formally recognize the State of Palestine are Ireland, Norway and Spain (28 May 2024), and most recently Slovenia (4 June 2024).

The historical records are clear, you just do not like them.

In 1914, Herbert Samuel (1st Viscount Samuel, First High Commissioner of Mandatory Palestine) provided his memorandum called The Future of Palestine to his Cabinet colleagues. The memorandum stated: "I am assured that the solution of the problem of Palestine which would be much the most welcome to the leaders and supporters of the Zionist movement throughout the world would be the annexation of the country to the British Empire". Samuel spoke about it with Nathan Rothschild in February 1915, just before that Rothschild's death.

1915-1916 The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence

The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence is a series of letters that were exchanged during World War I in which the Government of the United Kingdom agreed to recognize Arab independence in a large region after the war in exchange for the Sharif of Mecca launching the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire.

Britain enlisted the aid of the Arabs to defeat the Ottoman Empire, but cut a secret deal with France that did not include them. It was actually Arabs who were solicited to fight, and did fight, for the independence of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire, upon a promise of a large region after the war.

The Ottoman Empire, an Islamic caliphate, had ruled the Palestinian area since 1517.

1916 SYKES-PICOT (Britain-France) SECRET AGREEMENT

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/sykes.asp

Plotting to carve up the Ottoman Empire in 1916.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement: 1916

It is accordingly understood between the French and British governments:

That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab states or a confederation of Arab states (a) and (b) marked on the annexed map, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) Great Britain, shall have priority of right of enterprise and local loans. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) Great Britain, shall alone supply advisers or foreign functionaries at the request of the Arab state or confederation of Arab states.

That in the blue area France, and in the red area Great Britain, shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab state or confederation of Arab states.

That in the brown area there shall be established an international administration, the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other allies, and the representatives of the Shereef of Mecca.

That Great Britain be accorded (1) the ports of Haifa and Acre, (2) guarantee of a given supply of water from the Tigres and Euphrates in area (a) for area (b). His Majesty's government, on their part, undertake that they will at no time enter into negotiations for the cession of Cyprus to any third power without the previous consent of the French government.

That Alexandretta shall be a free port as regards the trade of the British empire, and that there shall be no discrimination in port charges or facilities as regards British shipping and British goods; that there shall be freedom of transit for British goods through Alexandretta and by railway through the blue area, or (b) area, or area (a); and there shall be no discrimination, direct or indirect, against British goods on any railway or against British goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned.

That Haifa shall be a free port as regards the trade of France, her dominions and protectorates, and there shall be no discrimination in port charges or facilities as regards French shipping and French goods. There shall be freedom of transit for French goods through Haifa and by the British railway through the brown area, whether those goods are intended for or originate in the blue area, area (a), or area (b), and there shall be no discrimination, direct or indirect, against French goods on any railway, or against French goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned.

That in area (a) the Baghdad railway shall not be extended southwards beyond Mosul, and in area (b) northwards beyond Samarra, until a railway connecting Baghdad and Aleppo via the Euphrates valley has been completed, and then only with the concurrence of the two governments.

That Great Britain has the right to build, administer, and be sole owner of a railway connecting Haifa with area (b), and shall have a perpetual right to transport troops along such a line at all times. It is to be understood by both governments that this railway is to facilitate the connection of Baghdad with Haifa by rail, and it is further understood that, if the engineering difficulties and expense entailed by keeping this connecting line in the brown area only make the project unfeasible, that the French government shall be prepared to consider that the line in question may also traverse the Polgon Banias Keis Marib Salkhad tell Otsda Mesmie before reaching area (b).

For a period of twenty years the existing Turkish customs tariff shall remain in force throughout the whole of the blue and red areas, as well as in areas (a) and (b), and no increase in the rates of duty or conversions from ad valorem to specific rates shall be made except by agreement between the two powers.

There shall be no interior customs barriers between any of the above mentioned areas. The customs duties leviable on goods destined for the interior shall be collected at the port of entry and handed over to the administration of the area of destination.

It shall be agreed that the French government will at no time enter into any negotiations for the cession of their rights and will not cede such rights in the blue area to any third power, except the Arab state or confederation of Arab states, without the previous agreement of his majesty's government, who, on their part, will give a similar undertaking to the French government regarding the red area.

The British and French government, as the protectors of the Arab state, shall agree that they will not themselves acquire and will not consent to a third power acquiring territorial possessions in the Arabian peninsula, nor consent to a third power installing a naval base either on the east coast, or on the islands, of the red sea. This, however, shall not prevent such adjustment of the Aden frontier as may be necessary in consequence of recent Turkish aggression.

The negotiations with the Arabs as to the boundaries of the Arab states shall be continued through the same channel as heretofore on behalf of the two powers.

It is agreed that measures to control the importation of arms into the Arab territories will be considered by the two governments.

I have further the honor to state that, in order to make the agreement complete, his majesty's government are proposing to the Russian government to exchange notes analogous to those exchanged by the latter and your excellency's government on the 26th April last. Copies of these notes will be communicated to your excellency as soon as exchanged.I would also venture to remind your excellency that the conclusion of the present agreement raises, for practical consideration, the question of claims of Italy to a share in any partition or rearrangement of turkey in Asia, as formulated in article 9 of the agreement of the 26th April, 1915, between Italy and the allies.

His Majesty's government further consider that the Japanese government should be informed of the arrangements now concluded.

The Balfour Declaration was simply a private letter from Lord Balfour to Lord Rothschild.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

The BALFOUR DECLARATION of 1917

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917.

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,
/s/ Arthur James Balfour

Seriously, a British lord stating "His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," creates a right to possession of land that does not belong to the British? The British lord had no authority to give the land to anybody. Palestine was still part of the Ottoman Empire when the Balfour Declaration was written. And the British had already promised the land to the Arabs to stage the Arab uprising against the Turks. And then there was the Sykes-Picot; agreeent where the Frnch were promised a slice.

The Mandate for Palestine was issued in 1922, and it was not issued on the authority of a British lord, and did not assign all of Palestine to the Jewish people to form a state.

Israel declared independence, formally the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, and eleven minutes later the United States formally recognized the State of Israel and established diplomatic relations. Before any war, Israel was a recognized nation state. Not only that, they had a fully equipped army. As the mandate or administrator ceased to exist, Israel became a free territory and did not declare its independence from anybody; it declared the Establishment of the State of Israel. If Israel fought a war for independence, who did Israel become independent from?

Britain went bankrupt during World War I. They reached out to Lord Rothschild for help. And near the end of the war, Lord Balfour wrote a letter to Lord Rothschild which has been inflated into the Balfour Declaration. The only declaration was, "His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people...." Apparently, when His Majesty's Government view with favor, that is a contractual binding and enforceable guarantee for land that has never belonged to the British empire.

On December 11, 1947 it was announced that the British Mandate would end at midnight starting May 15, 1948. Eleven minutes after Israel declared itself to be the State of Israel, President Truman officially recognized Israel.

https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/recognition-israel

U.S. President Harry Truman was the first world leader to officially recognize Israel as a legitimate Jewish state on May 14, 1948, only eleven minutes after its creation.

Harry Truman acted on May 14 Washington time which was May 15 Israel time.

As for Israel being unlawfully occupied, your attention is invited to the undeniable fact that it is Israel which is officially unlawfully occupying Palestinian territory.

https://news.un.org/en/tags/occupied-palestinian-territory

Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory illegal: UN rights commission

20 October 2022

Human Rights

Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful under international law due to its permanence and the Israeli government’s de facto annexation policies, a UN-appointed Commission of Inquiry said in its first report, published on Thursday.

International law, as conveyed by the United Nations, is clear.

June 1922 The Partition of the Palestine Mandate

https://unispal.un.org/pdfs/Cmd5479.pdf

The Palestine Royal (Peel) Commission Report Cmd. 5479 (pg 38)

(3) The field in which the Jewish National Home was to be established was understood, at the time of the Balfour Declaraion, to be the whole of historic Palestine, and the Zionists were seriously disappointed when Trans-Jordan was cut away from that field under Article 25. This was done, as has been seen, in obedience to the McMahon Pledge, which was antecedent to the Balfour Declaration.

1915-1916 The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence

The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence is a series of letters that were exchanged during World War I in which the Government of the United Kingdom agreed to recognize Arab independence in a large region after the war in exchange for the Sharif of Mecca launching the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire.

It was Arabs who fought to liberate Palestine from the Turkish Ottoman Empire and were promised the land.

https://www.loc.gov/item/2021666887/

League of Nations

Mandate for Palestine

And Memorandum by the British Government Relating to its Application to Trans-Jordan, Approved by the Council of the League of Nations on September 16th, 1922.

Title Page plus six pages each English and French.

MANDATE FOR PALESTINE

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; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstructing their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22, (paragraph 8) it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;

Confirming the said mandate, defines its terms as follows:

Article 1

The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.

Article 2

The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as wll secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of raqce and religion

Article 3

The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.

[...]

Article 25

In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.

The cited Article 15, 16 and 18:

Article 15

The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.

The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.

Article 16

The Mandatory shall be responsible for exercising such supervision over religious or eleemosynary bodies of all faiths in Palestine as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government. Subject to such supervision, no measures shall be taken in Palestine to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of such bodies or to discriminate against any representative or member of them on the ground of his religion or nationality.

Article 18

The Mandatory shall see that there is no discrimination in Palestine against the nationals of any State Member of the League of Nations (including companies incorporated under its laws) as compared with those of the Mandatory or of any foreign State in matters concerning taxation, commerce or navigation, the exercise of industries or professions, or in the treatment of merchant vessels or civil aircraft. Similarly, there shall be no discrimination in Palestine against goods originating in or destined for any of the said States, and there shall be freedom of transit under equitable conditions across the mandated area.

Subject as aforesaid and to the other provisions of this mandate, the Administration of Palestine may, on the advice of the Mandatory, impose such taxes and customs duties as it may consider necessary, and take such steps as it may think best to promote the development of the natural resources of the country and to safeguard the interests of the population. It may also, on the advice of the Mandatory, conclude a special customs agreement with any State the territory of which in 1914 was wholly included in Asiatic Turkey or Arabia.

https://www.loc.gov/item/2021666887/

Title

Mandate for Palestine and Memorandum by the British Government Relating to its Application to Transjordan.

Summary

After World War I, the Covenant of the League of Nations established a system by which the League was empowered to confer upon certain of the victorious powers mandates to administer territories formerly ruled by Germany or the Ottoman Empire. Mandated territories were to be governed on behalf of the League, until such time as they could become independent. On September 16, 1922, the Council of the League approved a mandate to Great Britain for Palestine, previously part of the Ottoman Empire. The mandate provided for the eventual creation of a Jewish state, as specified in Article 2: "The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of a Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion." Successive articles dealt with Jewish immigration, public administration, access to holy places and religious buildings, public health, commerce, and other matters. Appended to the mandate was a memorandum by the British government, also approved by the Council of the League, stating its understanding that the provisions of the mandate relating to the establishment of a Jewish national home and the promotion of Jewish immigration were not to apply to that portion of the mandated territory known as Transjordan, i.e., territory east of the Jordan River. The texts are in French and English, on facing pages. The mandate is in the archives of the League, which were transferred to the United Nations in 1946 and are housed at the UN office in Geneva. The archives were inscribed on the UNESCO Memory of the World register in 2010.

Since 1967, Israel has illegally occupied a large swath of Palestinian territory. Israel was not attacked in 1967 but was the aggressor. They termed their action a pre-emptive strike, which under international law only means they certified they attacked first. Any lands occupied are not legally theirs.

The illegally occupied territory which was the area of the recent attacks cannot be cited for a claim of self-defense. Israel is not claiming to self-defense regarding the Gaza strip but what is an area that does not legally belong to them.

That Israel did, or did not, cede Gaza in 2005 is legally diversionary irrelevance.

https://news.un.org/en/tags/occupied-palestinian-territory

Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory illegal: UN rights commission

20 October 2022

Human Rights

Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful under international law due to its permanence and the Israeli government’s de facto annexation policies, a UN-appointed Commission of Inquiry said in its first report, published on Thursday.


37 posted on 06/11/2024 11:44:39 AM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

Yes, Hamas “released” them by being released from existence.


38 posted on 06/11/2024 11:47:36 AM PDT by Fledermaus (We Are Now In A Civil War!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber
The only way for the war to end is a complete defeat of Hamas similar to what the Russians did to Gronzy during the Chechen War.

So that means 200,000 casualties in Gaza. The Israelis are not ruthless enough to do that.

39 posted on 06/11/2024 11:53:40 AM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jaysin; Jacquerie
BTW, the great IDF killed over 100 people the other day to rescue our civilians being held against their will and against the very protocols of the organizations that you link to in your pathetic spam. It must drive you crazy

I do not love Hamas terrorists any more than I love depraved Israeli terrorists such as yourself. You nitwits have been killing each other for thousands of years and justifying every atrocity by citing the atrocitities of the other side. You can both carry on for another 3,000 years as far as I care. I don't want to pay for either side, nor do I care to entertain that the atrocities of one side make the atrocities of the other side less atrocious.

War crimes, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing by Israel are not made better because they are performed by God's Chosen People™.

You want to kill. Kill, kill, kill. Heaped dead burning bodies. Veins running through your teeth. Go sit on the Group W bench.

On Oct. 7, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Gazans would pay a “huge price” for the actions of Hamas and that the Israel Defense Forces, or I.D.F., would turn parts of Gaza’s densely populated urban centers “into rubble.” On Oct. 28, he added, citing Deuteronomy, “You must remember what Amalek did to you.” As many Israelis know, in revenge for the attack by Amalek, the Bible calls to “kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings.”

On Oct. 9, Israel’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant, said, “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly,” a statement indicating dehumanization, which has genocidal echoes.

[...]

The same day, retired Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland wrote in the daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, “The State of Israel has no choice but to turn Gaza into a place that is temporarily or permanently impossible to live in.” He added, “Creating a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza is a necessary means to achieving the goal.”

A major legal point is that Israel has never annexed the West Bank territory. Since 1967, it has been occupied territory, even by Israel's reckoning.

Absent annexation, it remains occupied Palestinian territory, not a part of Israel.

Menachim Begin speech delivered on Aug. 8, 1982, before the Israeli National Defense College.

https://www.wrmea.org/1994-july-august/begin-s-admission-in-1982-that-israel-started-three-of-its-wars.html

Begin’s Admission in 1982 That Israel Started Three of Its Wars

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July/August 1994, Page 73

Middle East History: It Happened in August
By Donald Neff

[excerpts]

At the time of Begin's speech, the Israeli siege of Muslim West Beirut was already five weeks old. Israeli U.S.-made aircraft were launching daily air strikes and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians throughout the country were being killed, wounded, starved, terrorized and uprooted from their homes, most of them by munitions made in America. On July 29, the United Nations Security Council demanded that Israel lift its siege. Only the United States abstained in the 14-0 vote. When Israel refused, the council voted again on Aug. 4 to censure Israel with a vote of 14-0, with the U.S. again abstaining. On Aug. 6, the United States exercised its veto to block a council resolution condemning Israel's occupation practices, the sixth time in 1982 the Reagan administration had used the veto to shield Israel from international criticism.

[...]

In November 1956 we had a choice. The reason for going to war then was the need to destroy the fedayeen, who did not represent a danger to the existence of the state. Thus we went off to the Sinai campaign. At that time we conquered most of the Sinai Peninsula and reached Sharm el Sheikh. Actually, we accepted and submitted to an American dictate, mainly regarding the Gaza Strip (which Ben-Gurion called 'the liberated portion of the homeland'). John Foster Dulles, the then-secretary of state, promised Ben-Gurion that an Egyptian army would not return to Gaza. The Egyptian army did enter Gaza .... After 1957, Israel had to wait 10 full years for its flag to fly again over that liberated portion of the homeland.

In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.


40 posted on 06/11/2024 12:00:21 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson