Jewish Terrorism ....

Palestinian people, culture and politics

Ptolemy
The struggle between the government and the settler camp apparently is heading
for an explosion that will involve the Israel Defense Forces and other security
forces. As of right now, the settlers have the upper hand. The government talks
a lot while the settlers act, based on overall planning. They are better at
maneuvering and establishing facts on the ground.

The Americans are asking who paved the roads to the illegal outposts and who
provides them with electricity.

While those signs are in the air, the settlers are are busy with the great
trailer scam. The defense minister approved 220 trailers over the past few
months, for designated places. But 75 of them are not where they were supposed
to go. That's how they deceive the IDF and the Defense Ministry. Their agreement
says a jeep accompanies the truck transporting the mobile home until it is
unloaded, but it is obvious what happens when the jeep leaves. The army says
that until the settlers are caught doing it, nothing can be done about it.

Upon asking for a reaction to the question of why obviously illegal outposts are
not being evacuated, the answer is that there will be a world war - among the
Jews - if we try to dismantle Migron. In other words, fear of the settlers,
giving up on obeying the law and perpetuating the approach that violence gets
whatever you want.


MAKE NO BONES ABOUT IT - THIS IS A FORM OF JEWISH TERRORISM WHERE JEWISH
ASPIRATIONS BEGETS MORE INJUSTICE AND VIOLENCE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD !!!

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/462533.html
                                            
bckwrds
take your meds.....and then take them again.......


heading
security
talks
at
who
supposed
agreement
says
outposts are
the
settlers,
gets
                                            
mikeburtixnetcomcom
Sounds like good advice.
                                            
Ptolemy
I think its the Israelis who are the ones "flying over the cookos nest".
Someday the world is gonna wake up and see what has transpired over there.
                                            
Glenn
You mean like defending themselves from, and fighting terrorists, of course
!

<snip>
                                            
Ptolemy
The reason the Israelis see violence is because they are stealing other peoples
property.
If the Israelis really want peace, then they should treat their neighbors with
justice and compassion - i.e. don't covet your neighbors property.
                                            
Glenn
nest".
there.
course
peoples

Can't steal what is already yours.

with

Neighbors as in people who don't live in your house


Good idea, tell that to the Syrians who call themselves "Palestinians"
                                            
Terrell
That's not entirely accurate.  The Israelis acquired the land as a
result of withstanding several attacks on multiple fronts from their
neighbors ... while, if they had been the one doing the attacking,
they would be required to return it, no nation has ever returned
property gained while defending itself (and very few have returned
land when they were the aggressor).

What Israel should do is obey the Old Testament law and deport or
execute all non-Israelis -- the Palestinians already have a country in
Jordan, send them all there --- then, simply permit as many Arabs in
Israel as Saudia Arabia allows Jews in Saudia Arabia.


©¿©
Terrell
                                            
Glenn
I stand corrected, Jordanians not Syrians (see other post)

nest".
there.
course
peoples
with
                                            
Ptolemy
there.
peoples
with

We all live by laws.  Even the Jews live by laws called the "Law".  Laws are a
set of rules that groups abide by.  Countries should abide by International Law.
It was by International Law that modern day Israel was created and it should be
by Internation Laws that Israel should act.  Displacing existing people and
building Jewish only settlements on other peoples lands is a clear violation of
International Law.  So, by doing this Israel has committed crimes against the
humanity of the Palestinian peoples and the world itself.  America, by vetoing
UN Resolutions that seek justice, is also party to this criminal behavior.  Some
day this criminal behavior will be exposed for what it is and this generation
will be looked upon with disgust.  Recall how people perceived during the height
of oppression against 'Negros' in this country and how people perceived during
the height of Apartheid in South Africa.  The perception that things should be
as they are finally were overcome with a new enlightment.





You believe what you stated is 'Christian'?

I have this theory that Christians either look for guidance in the Old Testament
or they look for guidance from the New Testament.  As one who puts greatest
emphasis on the NT, I find it hard to perceive that Jesus would advocate what
you say that " What Israel should do is obey the Old Testament law and deport or
execute all non-Israelis".
                                            
dsharavihotmailcom
Imagine that.


Israel was not created by international law; western Palestine was
partitioned into an Arab state and a Jewish state by vote of the UN
General Assembly. The Jews chose to establish their state. The Arabs
opted for a war to "finish Hitler's work". They lost. Get over it.


Specify the international law that violates, and how Saudi Arabia does
not violate international law by maintaining itself as a Muslim Arab
only country, where only Muslim Arab males have any rights.


An alleged "violation of international law" hardly constitutes any
"crime against humanity".

behavior.  Some

Some day, some people will open a book or two and educate themselves
so that they won't sound like blithering idiots.


Really?

"These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, "Go nowhere among the
Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matthew 10.5
 
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not
come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10.34

Deborah
                                            
gespalderyahoocom
violation of
-> The Hague and Geneva Conventions, the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights

Want a list of other International Law violations Israel has committed?

Steve
                                            
dsharavihotmailcom
and

Specify the international law that Israel has violated. 

A blanket statement that Israel has violated "Hague and Geneva
Conventions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights" is
tantamount to saying one violates the entire body of American laws by
getting a speeding ticket. Since the state of Israel did not exist at
the time of, and therefore could not be a signatory to, the 13 Hague
Conventions of 18 October 1907, those Conventions are irrelevant. If
Israel has violated any of the 36 Hague Conventions of July 1955 to
January 2000, specify the provision(s) of those 36 conventions Israel
has violated.

A full list of the 36 Hague Conventions 1955-2000 is found at:
http://www.hcch.net/e/conventions/

committed?

Reference to the SPECIFIC int'l law Israel has allegedly violated, as
previously indicated, would be preferrable. Which of the Geneva
Conventions has Israel violated? Convention I (Amelioration of the
Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field)?
Convention II (Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and
Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea)? Convention III (Treatment
of Prisoners of War)? Convention IV (Protection of Civilian Persons in
Time of War)? the 1975 Convention on the Prohibition of the
Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological
(Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (1972)?

Which SPECIFIC provision(s) of which SPECIFIC Convention above has
Israel violated?
 
Same question wrt to the Int'l Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Which SPECIFIC provision(s) of that Covenant has Israel violated? And
incidentally, why do you not consider repeated Palestinian calls for
the destruction of Jews to be violations of Article 20(2): "Any
advocacy of national, racial or  religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be
prohibited by law."

Same question wrt to the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights. Which SPECIFIC provision(s) is Israel in
violation of?

Deborah
                                            
gespalderyahoocom
-> Why not do a little research yourself? Its not that hard to do.


-> Fourth Geneva Convention. Its been brought up by the ICRC numerous times.

  

-> Again, do a little research. Thats how I learned all this stuff.

Steve
                                            
dsharavihotmailcom
Again, which SPECIFIC provision of the IVth GC has Israel violated
"numerous times"? It can hardly have violated ALL of them.
   


I'll just bet you did, and all of it from the Palestine Remembered
website, right? Or was it Al-Bushra?

Deborah
                                            
gespalderyahoocom
International Law.
should be by Internation Laws that Israel should act.  Displacing existing
people and
violation of International Law.  So, by doing this Israel has committed
crimes against the humanity of the Palestinian peoples and the world
itself.  America, by vetoing UN Resolutions that seek justice, is also
party to this criminal behavior.  Some day this criminal behavior will be
exposed for what it is and this generation will be looked upon with
disgust.  Recall how people perceived during the height of oppression
against 'Negros' in this country and how people perceived during the
height of Apartheid in South Africa.  The perception that things should be
as they are finally were overcome with a new enlightment.

-> Actually Israel was NOT created by International Law. UNGA Resolution
181 is non-binding (as are all UNGA Resolutions, something Israel loves to
point out). The Palestine Mandate was created in violation of Article 22
of the League of Nations. Also, Israel cites the Balfour Declaration
(1917) as the basis of its creation, but this cannot withstand scrutiny
because it was a private agreement between two men concerning land neither
of them had any right to divvy up.
Prior to Balfour there was the Hussein-McMahon correspondence (1915-16) in
which the Brits agreed to give Palestine to the Arabs in exchange for
their help against the Ottoman Empire. THen you have to toss in the
Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) in which the Brits and French divvied up the
Middle East amongst themselves.

Steve
                                            
dsharavihotmailcom
Resolution
loves to

Got any examples of Israel loving to point out the non-binding nature
of UNGARs?


Really?

Here's article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Do point
out where, exactly, the League of Nations violated its own Covenant's
Article 22 in creating the Palestine Mandate. Then explain how the
League of Nations did NOT violate it's Covenant's Article 22 when it
created the Mandates for Syria, Lebanon, and Mesopotamia.

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.
- Covenant of the League of Nations
Avalon Project, Yale Law School
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm#art22


It doesn't.


It was the statement of the British government from the Foreign
Secretary to the British head of the Zionist Organization, hardly a
"private agreement".


Yeah, right. 

(1915-16) in

And this was NOT a private correspondence between two men concerning
land neither of them had a right to divvy up?

So, Britain had the right to promise Sharif Husayn an independent Arab
state in the Middle East in the lands of the Ottoman Empire, but it
did NOT have the right to promise Jews an independent Jewish state in
the Middle East in the lands of the Ottoman Empire? Do explain the
discrepancy here.

Deborah

THen you have to toss in the
                                            
gespalderyahoocom
-> Israel loves to point out that 194 is non-binding which is why it
denies the Right of Return (yet it gives it to Jews only)

 

-> Same book as my last posing

Page 20

The Palestine mandate itself was invalid because it incorporated the
Balfour Declaration - a deal between two men, Rothschild and Balfour - in
violation of the sovereign rights of the people of Palestine, and against
their will. It also violated Article 22 of the League of Nations which had
recognized the provisional independence of the people of Palestine,
achieving its basic objective of ensuring the wellbeing and development of
the peoples inhabiting the mandated territories, let alone the solemn
pledges to independence in the Hussein-McMahon Agreements.

Steve

PS: Britain herself acknowledfed in 1939 what an authority stated:

     The most significant and incontrovertible fact is, however, that by
itself the Declaration was legally impotent. For Great Britain had no
sovereign rights over Palestine, it had no propriety interest, it had no
authority to dispose of the land. The Declaration was merely a statement
of British intentions and no more.
                                            
dsharavihotmailcom
nature


Got any SPECIFIC examples of how Israel "loves to point out that 194
is non-binding", and what, SPECIFICALLY, is this "Right of Return"
which Israel is supposed to be denying? (Incidentally, there is no
Israeli "Right of Return" for Jews.)




Hazem Nusseibeh, former editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service's
Arabic language sector, later Jordanian ambassador? That the book?
 

Balfour wasn't "a deal between two men"; it was the British
government's statement of intent with regard to the Jewish homeland
conveyed via its Foreign Secretary to the British head of the Zionist
Organization. If Balfour can be characterized as " a deal between two
men", and therefore invalid, the same applies to the McMahon-Husayn
correspondence, as well as the Sykes-Picot protocol.

against

What "sovereign rights of the people of Palestine"? When Balfour was
issued, there was no administrative district in the Ottoman Empire
known as "Palestine", and the people of what became Palestine
following the war were, at that time, subjects of the Ottoman Empire.


Where, exactly, does Balfour violate Article 22 of the League of
Nations Covenant? And where, exactly, does that Article mention the
"provisional independence of the people of Palestine"? See following
text:

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.
- Covenant of the League of Nations
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm#art22

development of

See above. If the Balfour Declaration can be characterized as " a deal
between two men", and therefore invalid, the letters exchanged in 1916
between between Sir Henry McMahon and Sharif Husayn also constitute "a
deal between two men", and on the same basis, are equally invalid.

no
statement

Who was the "authority" who stated the foregoing? Would that,
perchance, have been according to the snippet from Sol M. Linowitz, as
posted on the Palestine Remembered website, as follows?
"The most significant and incontrovertible fact is, however, that by
itself the Declaration was legally impotent. For Great Britain had no
sovereign rights over Palestine, it had no proprietary interest, it
had no authority to dispose of the land. The Declaration was merely a
statement of British intentions and no more". 38/
38/ Linowitz, Sol M., "The Legal Basis for the State of Israel"
American Bar Association Journal, vol. 43, 1957, p. 522.

What's so incredible about the Palestine Remembered snippet? When
Britain issued Balfour in 1917, naturally it had no "sovereign rights
over Palestine", etc. For one, at that time, Palestine did not exist.
For another, as stated above, it was part of the Ottoman Empire. Your
point?

Deborah
                                            
gespalderyahoocom
Its become obvious that debating with you is pointless. I posted the
answers you wanted and you have dismissed them out of hand. You aren't
going to concede anything and you will always believe Israel is in the
right. Thus I will drop this discussion.

Steve
                                            
dsharavihotmailcom
When the level of your debate consists of cut and paste jobs from the
Palestine Remembered website, I am in agreement.


Your website couldn't supply you with the answers, sonny. 

the

Translation: "The Palestine Remembered site left out that part."

Deborah
                                            
Glenn
Forgeting God's covenant(s) {agreement(s)} with Israel as concerning their
land

are a
most noble impulses often surface during the most tyring of times, that
human spirit rises to the challenge when faced with adversity, that human
strength is born from human failings...Is it any wonder, then, that the
SDF-1 crew became a tighter family after the fortress had been exiled than
it had been before?
                                            
gespalderyahoocom
I can shred that one easily.
God promised the land to the descendents of Abraham which includes the
Palestinians (well, all Arabs) and the Jews.

Steve
                                            
dsharavihotmailcom
their
 
the

Wrong again. The Land of Canaan was promised only to the descendants
of Isaac, not to Ishmael. "Your wife Sarah will give birth to a son.
You must name him Yithzak. I will keep My covenant with him as an
eternal treaty, for his descendants after him. I have also heard you
with regard to Ishmael. I will bless him, and make him fruitful,
increasing his numbers very greatly. He will father twelve princes,
and I will make him into a great nation. But I will keep My covenant
with Yitzhak." Genesis 17.19-21

Deborah
                                            
torresD
"Deborah Sharavi" <dsharavi@hotmail.com


"Deborah Sharavi" <dsharavi@hotmail.com
                                            
Michael
FBvWc.1893$Y%3.1095@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net, "torresD"



Hmm, she's a nice girl.

The sort you could happily take home to meet your parents.....

MWC
                                            
mikeburtixnetcomcom
True, the second greatest test of faith is adversity, most Christian men
survive it with colours and better for the experience.  But the greatest
test of faith is prosperity, too many men fail at this one.
                                            
Glenn
<snip>

are a
International Law.

One worlders anyway, sorry bud *Soveriegn* nations should live by their own
laws. See Rev.17 & 18 for the Bible's opinion one the coming "One World
Government" (see Rev.13 as well)


By the miracle of God, who sent prophets, ages ago, predicting their
*return* to their *God given* land

existing people and
violation of

So, they were to build towns and cities in the Mediteranean Sea ? You ARE an
idiot !


WOW ! The "crime" of *existing* !

criminal behavior.

Nothing criminal in being a *soveriegn* nation

generation

Yeah someday the anti_Christ BEAST will rule !

during

Strawmen

with a new enlightment.

You really need to read Bible prophecy


I believe it is Biblical, and therefore Godly

Testament

Yet unfulfilled Biblical prophecy was not made void by the New Testament

that Jesus would advocate what
deport or execute all non-Israelis".

Jesus would advocate His Father's WILL
                                            
Terrell
The Jews are not Christian and claim to obey the Old Testament, their
failure to actually do so is a large part of their problem. 


ANd I look for guidance from both testaments.  I'm not a strict
literalist, but I believe what Paul said about the OT containing types
and examples for us today.

As to the Israel situation, I am sympathetic to the plight of the
Palestinians and feel they are badly used by their leaders and other
Arab countries.  But, we have to remember that the Arab countries too
were created as a part a mandate during this period from the former
Ottoman Empire, that while Palestinians were displaced during this
time, many Jews were forced out of other Arab lands as well and, in
Saudia Arabia, aren't even allowed to visit.  

Finally, while I am sympathetic to the Palestinian people, I find it
hard to be sympathetic to their cause until the Palestinian leaders
and the other Arab countries unequivically and irrevocably recognize
and guarantee Israel's right to exist.  


©¿©
Terrell
                                            
gespalderyahoocom
-> The Palestinians have done so, saying they would accept only the West
Bank and Gaza Strip instead of the land they were promised by UNGA 181
(which the PA accepted finally).

Steve

PS...This could have been settled long ago had Israel not renegged upon
the Lausan Protocol which it had signed.
                                            
dsharavihotmailcom
upon

And how, exactly, did Israel renege on the Lausanne Protocol? Text of
both protocols follow.

RECORD OF A MEETING BETWEEN THE CONCILIATION COMMISSION AND 
THE DELEGATIONS OF EGYPT, JORDAN, LEBANON AND SYRIA
held at Lausanne on 12 May 1949 at 11.30 a.m.

Present 
Mr. De Boisanger (Chairman) France 
Mr. Yalcin Turkey 
Mr. Ethridge United States of America 
Mr. Azcarate 

(Principal Secretary)  
H.E.Abdel Monem Mostafa Egypt 
H.E. Fauzi Pasha Mulki Jordan 
H.E. Fouad Bey Ammoun Lebanon 
H.E. Adnan Atassi Syria 

In the course of this meeting the following Protocol was signed by the
delegates of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, on the one hand, and
the members of the Conciliation Commission on the other:

PROTOCOL

The United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, anxious to
achieve as quickly as possible the objectives of the General Assembly
resolution of 11 December 1948, regarding refugees, the respect for
their rights and preservation of their property, as well as
territorial and other questions, has proposed to the delegations of
the Arab States and to the delegation of Israel that the working
document attached hereto be taken as a basis for discussions with the
Commission.

The interested delegations have accepted this proposal with the
understanding that the exchanges of views which will be carried on by
the Commission with the two parties will bear upon the territorial
adjustments necessary to the above-indicated objectives.

Lausanne, 12 May 1949
(Signed)  (Signed)  
Monem Mostafa (Egypt) Claude de Boisanger (France)-Chairman 
Fauzi Mulki (Jordan) Cahid Yalcin (Turkey) 
F. Ammoun (Lebanon) Mark Ethridge (United States of America) 


RECORD OF A MEETING BETWEEN THE CONCILIATION COMMISSION
AND THE DELEGATION OF ISRAEL
held at Lausanne on 12 May 1949 at 10.30 a.m.

Present 
Mr. De Boisanger (Chairman) France 
Mr. Yalcin Turkey 
Mr. Ethridge United States of America 
Mr. Azcarate 

(Principal Secretary)  
Dr. Walter Eytan Israel 
  
In the course of this meeting the following Protocol was signed by the
delegate of Israel, on the one hand, and the members of the
Conciliation Commission on the other:

PROTOCOL

The United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, anxious to
achieve as quickly as possible the objectives of the General Assembly
resolution of 11 December 1948, regarding refugees, the respect for
their rights and preservation of their property, as well as
territorial and other questions, has proposed to the delegation of
Israel and to the delegations of the Arab States that the working
document attached hereto be taken as a basis for discussions with the
Commission.

The interested delegations have accepted this proposal with the
understanding that the exchanges of views which will be carried on by
the Commission with the two parties will bear upon the territorial
adjustments necessary to the above-indicated objectives.

Lausanne, 12 May 1949

(Signed) (Signed) 
Walter Eytan (Israel) Claude de Boisanger (France) - Chairman 
 Cahid Yalcin (Turkey) 
 Mark Ethridge (United States of America)
- http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/4a5ef29a5e977e2e852561010079e43c!OpenDocument

Deborah
                                            
gespalderyahoocom
-> In the book "Palestine and the United Nations" by Hazem Zaki Nuseibeh
Ph.D., M.P.A. (He was the Permanent Representative of the Hashemite
Kingdom of Jordan to the United Nations as well as having held other
posts), it is mentioned that Israel reneged upon the Lausanne Protocol.
(p. 25)

It would have conceded the Palestinian State and the right of return.

Here is what the Israeli representative said as he assured the U.N. of his
government's willingness to comply (with UN resolutions 181 & 194)

   With regard to the status of Assembly resolutions in international law,
it was admitted that any which touched the national sovereignty of the
members of the U.N. were mere recommendations and not binding. However,
the Palestine resolution was essentially different, for it concerned the
future of a territory, subject to international trust. Only the U.N. as a
whole was competent to determine the future of a territory, andf its
decision, therefore, had a binding force.

Steve
                                            
dsharavihotmailcom
of

Nuseibeh

One of those posts was editor of the Arabic-language edition of the
Palestine Post in 1948, which published the fabrications of Hussein
Khalidi concerning Deir Yassin.


So? Did you bother to read the texts of the Protocols for yourself?


Where? The pertinent passage of the Lausanne "protocol" which you
snipped is as follows:
"The United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, anxious to
achieve as quickly as possible the objectives of the General Assembly
resolution of 11 December 1948, regarding refugees, the respect for
their rights and preservation of their property, as well as
territorial and other questions, has proposed to the delegations of
the Arab States and to the delegation of Israel that the working
document attached hereto be taken as a basis for discussions with the
Commission."

The "working document" referred to in the text above as "a basis for
discussions with the Commission" is as follows:

- http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/4a5ef29a5e977e2e852561010079e43c!OpenDocument

Where, in that "working document", is a "Palestinan State" and any
"right of return" conceded?

 > Here is what the Israeli representative said as he assured the U.N.
of his

Who was the Israeli representative, when did make his "assurance" to
the UN, and what were his EXACT words? The above is a paraphrase; what
is the source of the paraphrase?

Deborah
                                            
gespalderyahoocom
I read the entire book I cited. The man who authored it is well respected
and considered an expert in the field of International Law as it applies
to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
He held numerous government posts and has been an advocate for the
Palestinians for years.

Steve
                                            
dsharavihotmailcom
How convenient for you that various websites reproduced exactly the
quotes you needed. Be that as it may, you might try something later
and more up to date than 1982.

applies

Really. He attended Rawda College, then Victoria College in
Alexandria, then American University of Beirut, where graduated with a
BA in 1943. He studied law at the Jerusalem Law College, graduating in
1948, then earned a master's in public affairs and a master's and a
PhD in political science from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affairs. Contrary to your expectations, none of that
makes him "considered an expert in the field of international law",
except by you.


Nusseibeh is from a very prominent Jordanian clan, was Jordan's
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of the Royal Court,
ambassadorial to Egypt, Turkey, Italy, Austria, and Jordan's permanent
ambassador to the UN. When he was editor of the Arabic language
edition of the Palestine Broadcasting Services news, he related how he
was ordered by Hussein Khalidi of the Arab Higher Committee to publish
the latter's fabrications about Deir Yassin. "He said, 'We must make
the most of this.' So we wrote a press release stating that at Deir
Yassin children were murdered, pregnant women were raped. All sorts of
atrocities." Publishing the fabricated atrocity stories were,
Nusseibeh told the BBC in 1998, "our biggest mistake."

Since you've snipped the text from the Lausanne Protocols and
supporting documentation, presumably this indicates you have no
interest in pursuing the discussion beyond what your Palestine
Remembered et al. sites tell you.

Deborah
Deborah
                                            
Ptolemy
The Lausanne Protocol Regarding Refugees, May 12, 1949.
Meanwhile, again regarding Israel's admission into the UN, the UN Conciliation
Commission for Palestine, trying to carry out UNGA Resolution 194 of December
11, 1948, regarding refugees, wrote the Lausanne Protocol. It was based on the
partition plan of Resolution 181. Israel and the Arab states signed the protocol
on May 12, 1949, a few hours after Israel had been voted into the UN? By
signing, Israel left the impression
(a) that it was willing to give up the areas, including Jerusalem, which it had
seized militarily but which were outside the area allotted to it by the
partition plan,
and (b) that it would allow the return of the refugees. As noted above,
believing that Israel would soon agree to these two protocol points, several
nations that had not approved Israel’s membership now voted for it.

They were soon disappointed. Israel later obliquely admitted that it had
cooperated during the talks leading up to the protocol signing because it wanted
to be accepted. Israel's own Government Yearbook 1950 stated:
Some members of the United Nations wished at this oppor-tunity to test Israel's
intentions with regard to the refugee, boundaries and Jerusalem issues, before
approving its appli-cation for admission. In a way, Israel's attitude at the
Lausanne talks aided its Delegation at Lake Success in its endeavour to obtain
the majority required for admission.(Israel, Governement Yearbook 1950, p.143).

However, within six weeks of signing the Lausanne Protocol regarding refugees
and being admitted into the UN, Israel's delegation to the Conciliation
Commission for Palestine indicated to it that the delegation "could not accept a
certain proportionate distribution of territory agreed upon in 1947 as a
criterion for a territorial settlement in present circumstances (UN Conciliation
Commission for Palestine, Third Progress Report, for 9 April through 8 June,
1949, 6.21.1949 (A/927), p.3).

Thus Israel repudiated the allocation provision of the partition plan of
Resolution 181. This was the very plan that Israel, in arguing against the
Bernadotte plan some seven months previously, had insisted "is a valid
instrument of international law.”(Khouri, The Arab-Israeli Dilemma, p.85) Israel
again used a UN resolution that it had agreed to, as long as it worked to
Israel's advantage, but discarded part of it when it became disadvantageous.

On an article on Jerusalem Post, March 5th 2000, By Janine Zacharia "Refugee
issue threatens Israel's UN standing", Zacharia, quoting Francis Boyle, legal
adviser to the Palestinians during past Middle East negotiations, says: "If
Prime Minister Barak is going to deny the right of the Palestinianrefugees to
return to their home, he will abrogate and violate one of the most important
conditions for Israel's admission to the United Nations". "Boyle said that as a
condition for admission into the UN in 1949, Israel agreed to accept UN
Resolution 194 that says Palestinians should be allowedto return to their homes
if they wish or receive adequate financial compensation if they choose to remain
elsewhere...".

To read the full article, please visit:
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2000/03/05/News/News.3547.html,







noble impulses often surface during the most tyring of times, that human spirit
rises to the challenge when faced with adversity, that human strength is born
from human failings...Is it any wonder, then, that the SDF-1 crew became a
tighter family after the fortress had been exiled than it had been before?
                                            
dsharavihotmailcom
The Al-Bushra website's take on the Lausanne Protocols (note the
plural: there were two in 1949) is like going to Himmler for a history
of the Jews.

[flush]

Two protocols resulted from the first of the two Lausanne conferences
of 1949. The first of the Conferences was held between the UN
Palestine Conciliation Commission and reps of the League of Arab
States; the second between the Commission and Israel (text of the
protocols below).

The reason there were two Lausanne Conferences of 1949 is because the
Arabs at Lausanne, as in the the prewar conferences between Palestine
Jews and Arabs, refused to sit in the same room as the Jews.

Palestine Arabs were not represented at Lausanne.

Signatories of the first protocol were Monem Mostafa of Egypt, Claude
de Boisanger of France (Chairman of the UN Conciliation Commission for
Palestine), Fauzi Mulki of Jordan, Cahid Yalcin of Turkey, F. Ammoun
of Lebanon, and Mark Ethridge of the USA (see following text).

Signatories of the second protocol were Walter Eytan of Israel, Claude
de Boisanger of France, Cahid Yalcin of Turkey, and Mark Ethridge of
the USA (see following text).

The Arabs of Palestine were NOT represented at the 1949 Lausanne
conferences. To counter that lack, they raised funds and sent their
own delegation to Lausanne, Aziz Shihadeh and Muhammad Nimr al-Hawari
– the Jaffa lawyer who broke with the Mufti and attempted to negotiate
peace between Arabs and Jews. When Shihadeh and Hawari requested that
they be formally recognized and allowed to take part in the
conference, their credential were rejected by the Arab delegations,
who refused to accord them any recognition. And when Shihadeh and
Hawari tried to arrange an interview with the Egyptian delegation,
they were forcibly evicted. The only delegation with whom Shihadeh and
al-Hawari managed
to establish friendly relations was – surprise, surprise – the Israeli
delegation. (Neil Caplan, The Lausanne Conference, 1949). 

The Lausanne conferences, like all prewar conferences with the Pallie
Arabs, fizzled out, and for the same reasons.

In any event, the result of the efforst of Shihadeh and Hawari was
that following the second Lausanne Conference of 1949, Israel
permitted the return of some 150,000 Arab refugees.

Text:

RECORD OF A MEETING BETWEEN THE CONCILIATION COMMISSION AND 
THE DELEGATIONS OF EGYPT, JORDAN, LEBANON AND SYRIA
held at Lausanne on 12 May 1949 at 11.30 a.m.

Present 
Mr. De Boisanger (Chairman) France 
Mr. Yalcin Turkey 
Mr. Ethridge United States of America 
Mr. Azcarate 

(Principal Secretary)  
H.E.Abdel Monem Mostafa Egypt 
H.E. Fauzi Pasha Mulki Jordan 
H.E. Fouad Bey Ammoun Lebanon 
H.E. Adnan Atassi Syria 

In the course of this meeting the following Protocol was signed by the
delegates of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, on the one hand, and
the members of the Conciliation Commission on the other:

PROTOCOL

The United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, anxious to
achieve as quickly as possible the objectives of the General Assembly
resolution of 11 December 1948, regarding refugees, the respect for
their rights and preservation of their property, as well as
territorial and other questions, has proposed to the delegations of
the Arab States and to the delegation of Israel that the working
document attached hereto be taken as a basis for discussions with the
Commission.

The interested delegations have accepted this proposal with the
understanding that the exchanges of views which will be carried on by
the Commission with the two parties will bear upon the territorial
adjustments necessary to the above-indicated objectives.

Lausanne, 12 May 1949
(Signed)  (Signed)  
Monem Mostafa (Egypt) Claude de Boisanger (France)-Chairman 
Fauzi Mulki (Jordan) Cahid Yalcin (Turkey) 
F. Ammoun (Lebanon) Mark Ethridge (United States of America) 


RECORD OF A MEETING BETWEEN THE CONCILIATION COMMISSION
AND THE DELEGATION OF ISRAEL
held at Lausanne on 12 May 1949 at 10.30 a.m.

Present 
Mr. De Boisanger (Chairman) France 
Mr. Yalcin Turkey 
Mr. Ethridge United States of America 
Mr. Azcarate 

(Principal Secretary)  
Dr. Walter Eytan Israel 
  
In the course of this meeting the following Protocol was signed by the
delegate of Israel, on the one hand, and the members of the
Conciliation Commission on the other:

PROTOCOL

The United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, anxious to
achieve as quickly as possible the objectives of the General Assembly
resolution of 11 December 1948, regarding refugees, the respect for
their rights and preservation of their property, as well as
territorial and other questions, has proposed to the delegation of
Israel and to the delegations of the Arab States that the working
document attached hereto be taken as a basis for discussions with the
Commission.

The interested delegations have accepted this proposal with the
understanding that the exchanges of views which will be carried on by
the Commission with the two parties will bear upon the territorial
adjustments necessary to the above-indicated objectives.

Lausanne, 12 May 1949

(Signed) (Signed) 
Walter Eytan (Israel) Claude de Boisanger (France) - Chairman 
 Cahid Yalcin (Turkey) 
 Mark Ethridge (United States of America)
- http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/4a5ef29a5e977e2e852561010079e43c!OpenDocument

Deborah
                                            
gespalderyahoocom
-> We could do without the sarcasm and the hatred

Steve
                                            
gespalderyahoocom
UNGA Resolution 194 has been upheld repeatedly over the years (funny how
the US was one of its sponsors but that now the US feels differently) as
has UNGA Resolution 394 (see above about the US).

Steve


protocol
it had
it wanted
Israel's
p.143).
accept a
Conciliation
p.85) Israel
that as a
their homes
to remain
spirit
                                            
AntiZioNazihotmailcom
The world is waking up and even the US government is beginning to
realize that supporting the Israeli regime is bad policy and breeds
unnecessary hatred of the United States.  The recent UNSCR resolution
and ICJ ruling on which the US abstained is proof of the waning
support even in the US for the ZioNazi criminals of the Israeli
regime.

The Arab world needs to realize, however, that their actions must be
peaceful yet coordinated in order to force the Israeli regime to
comply with international laws, UN resolutions and treaties they have
signed.  The Israeli regime is well known for inciting retaliatory
attacks by Palestinian's in order to justify their land theft, and
until recently the Palestinian resistance groups have played in to
their hands.  Continued restraint by the Palestinian's will expose the
greedy land-stealing thieves for what they are and prevent the US
president from using the old "Israel has a right to defend itself"
crap each time the Israeli regime escalates the violence.  The
Palestinians, while they must defend their homeland and family, need
to avoid retaliatory attacks that the Israeli regime intends to use to
justify the theft of more occupied Palestinian land.

The Israeli's are already the most hated people on the planet so all
that is needed is a little restraint on the Arab side and continued
pressure on the international community to enforce the same laws they
force upon Arab states to all countries equally, including the Israeli
regime.