Yadda
|
moses wrote on Jun 6 th, 2014 at 3:11pm: The Palestine Mandate. July 24, 1922. In July 1922, the League of Nations entrusted the Great Britain with The Palestine Mandate. Recognizing "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine," Great Britain was called upon to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine - Eretz Israel (Land of Israel).General Assembly resolution 181, of Nov. 29, 1947: It calls for the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem to be controlled by a "special international regime" to protect its holy places. The Zionist movement seeking to establish a Jewish state accepted the partition, the Arabs rejected it. The resolution was not carried out: After Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, war broke out pitting the embryonic state against surrounding 7 Arab states. Israel gained more land than it would have had under the partition resolution. Neither Israel nor Jordan, which controlled the divided parts of Jerusalem after the war, accepted control of the holy city by an international body. Security Council resolution 242, Nov. 22, 1967: It calls for "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied" in the 1967 Six Day War and for "respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." The resolution was not carried out because the Arab side did not recognize Israel, and Israel refused to withdraw. Source Under international law, ...Israel has no obligation to withdraw from captured territory [e.g. territories won in 1967], if doing so would threaten the security and safety of the state of Israel. Israel has rights, under plain, simple, existing international law, relating to all of the territory which was captured by Israel, in the aftermath of attacks upon Israel, by Arab/moslem aggressors..... islam and jews http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1299665041/39#39 Quote:......international law allows nations who are attacked [e.g. the state of Israel, 1948, 1967, 1973], to occupy and annex land that was previously recognised as being a part of another state [e.g. Arab states, 1948] because of aggression and attacks, upon a neighbouring state [Israel, 1948]. And international laws does not prohibit a state which was attacked [e.g. the state of Israel, 1948], from occupying and annexing the lands of an aggressor, so as to prevent further attacks. ......"ISRAEL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW.... Israel’s presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defence. International law forbids acquisition by unlawful force, but not where, as in the case of Israel’s self-defence in 1967, the entry on the territory was lawful. It does not so forbid it,.... for the effect of such prohibition would be to guarantee to all potential aggressors that, even if their aggression failed, all territory lost in the attempt would be automatically returned to them.
Such a rule would be absurd to the point of lunacy.There is no such rule..." http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1528
|