Hague Professor: This Is No "Occupation"

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Hague Professor: This Is No "Occupation"

Posted by melech_mike on May-30-2003 04:37:

Hague Professor: This Is No "Occupation"

Hague Professor: This Is No "Occupation"
Prof. Talia Einhorn, of the T.M.C. Asser Institute, an institute for international law in The Hague, writes that the Israeli presence in Yesha does not constitute "occupation," and moreover, that the U.N. Partition Resolution of 1947 that mentions a "new Arab state" is of the "recommendation" type and not the "mandatory" type.

In light of Prime Minister Sharon's recent use of the word "occupation" in reference to Israel's presence in Yesha, and despite his subsequent retraction, Arutz-7's Ruti Avraham quotes Prof. Einhorn's explanation as to why Israel is not an "occupying force" in Yesha:
"Up until 1948, Judea, Samaria and Gaza were a part of the British Mandate. In the 1948 War of Independence, Egypt illegally grabbed the Gaza Strip, and Jordan took Judea and Samaria, the 'West Bank.' Egypt did not claim sovereignty in Gaza, but Jordan deigned, in 1950, to annex Judea and Samaria. This annexation was not recognized by international law. The Arab nations objected to it, and only Britain and Pakistan recognized it - and Britain did not recognize the annexation of eastern Jerusalem. In 1967, after the Six Day War, these territories - which were originally meant for the Jewish Nation's National Home according to the Mandate Charter - returned to Israeli control." Einhorn adds that in 1988, King Hussein of Jordan rescinded its legal and administrative ties to Judea and Samaria.

"According to international law," Einhorn writes, "Israel has full right to try to populate the entire Land of Israel with dense Jewish settlement, and thus actualize the principles set by the League of Nations in the original Mandate Charter of San Remo in 1920. At that time, the mandate to the Land of Israel was granted to the British, and the introduction to the mandate charter states clearly that it is based on the international recognition of the historic ties between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel. Clause II of that mandate charges Britain with 'ensuring the existence of political, administrative, and economic conditions that will guarantee the establishment of the Jewish national home in the Land of Israel.'"

"Even the White Paper of 1922," she continues, "which restricted Jewish immigration to the land, emphasized the Jewish Nation's rights to the national home in the Land of Israel - while at the same time tearing away almost 80% of the mandate's area on the eastern side of the Jordan and giving it to Emir Abdullah."

Prof. Einhorn says that there is nothing in international law that requires a Palestinian state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean - not even the UN Partition Resolution of Nov. 29, 1947. That resolution states that "independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem" shall come into existence in Palestine. However, Prof. Einhorn notes the widely-overlooked fact that the introduction to the resolution states specifically that it is merely a "recommendation" and nothing more: "[The General Assembly] recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below."

The fact that the Arab states did not accept the Partition Plan, explains Prof. Einhorn, voids the recommendation of any legal basis.

She further writes that Resolutions 242 and 338, which call for negotiations and a "withdrawal from territories" (not "withdrawal from the territories") captured in 1967, are similarly "recommendations." These resolutions were drawn up under the UN Charter's Clause VI, which deals with non-mandatory recommendations - as opposed to Clause VII resolutions, "which are mandatory, and which deal with a threat to world peace, such as those taken earlier this year against Iraq."

Posted by occrider on May-30-2003 05:26:

I'm going to disagree with this one ... despite "official" international law taking into consideration legality mumbo jumbo it still is an occupation in my viewpoint. I understand the desire to maintain security and using a military presence to do as such, but when it comes down to it the gaza strip and the west bank are palestinian territories.

Posted by malek on May-30-2003 05:58:

mike my friend, even your dear Sharon stated the oh-such-dreaded-word "occupation"...

Posted by occrider on May-30-2003 06:14:

Mike do you disagree with Sharon's actions so far in the peace process? I think it's rather refreshing that Sharon has been making so many concesssions and has been pushing the peace process so much through his own cabinet!!! Much like ahlamalek said, I can't believe he admitted to the Israeli occupation. I may change my perceptions about the guy yet.

Additionally has anybody else read about Abbas's negotiations with Hamas to institute a cease-fire??? Plus news from the latest talks:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=2849323

There may be hope for the region yet!!! My only fears are that terrorist attacks may disrupt this or Israel doesn't abide by settlment disbandments.

Posted by melech_mike on May-30-2003 06:32:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
I'm going to disagree with this one ... despite "official" international law taking into consideration legality mumbo jumbo it still is an occupation in my viewpoint. I understand the desire to maintain security and using a military presence to do as such, but when it comes down to it the gaza strip and the west bank are palestinian territories.

I don't understand how you figure! In all honesty, if it belongs to anyone it's Jordan's and Egypt's respectively.
It was after all their lands, before the war of '67.

Occrider, I value your opinion greatly when it comes to these discussions. I ask you how you logically came up to the conclusion that these lands are indefinitely due to them. Did you consider every aspect of this problem from its roots?

Posted by melech_mike on May-30-2003 07:16:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Mike do you disagree with Sharon's actions so far in the peace process? I think it's rather refreshing that Sharon has been making so many concessions and has been pushing the peace process so much through his own cabinet!!! Much like ahlamalek said, I can't believe he admitted to the Israeli occupation. I may change my perceptions about the guy yet.

I'm still neutral as to the actions of Sharon thus far. I like the momentum the "Road Map" has gathered, and am ultimately looking forward to the trio summit proposed to be held in Egypt late next week. I plan to see Sharon�s concessions being met by the Arab officials equally involved in this process.

I also can't believe the idiot said "occupation". There is no room for mistakes like this, especially at such a sensitive time. The media and opposition feeds off such comments.

I'd expect the man to consult his cabinet before making such strong comments. I'm also afraid he'll go out too far on his own without consulting his caucus, and make concessions Israeli's are not yet ready to make!

Trust is a two way street... or is it a 4 way tunnel?

quote:
Additionally has anybody else read about Abbas's negotiations with Hamas to institute a cease-fire??? Plus news from the latest talks:

Hamas has said they are "considering a TEMPORARY ceasefire (AKA a 'Hudna'. "The hudna is a temporary cease fire; (the terror) can start up again any day if they do not take apart the terror organizations. It is a tap that you open and close," Sharon adviser Zalman Shoval said.), for some odd reason this statement has me concerned So hypothetically speaking, everything works out in the "road map" and the 'Palestinians' get their own state... now all of a sudden Hamas comes back and says "fuck you, we won, the temporary ceasefire is up" -- than what?
Also, say Hamas agrees to a temp ceasefire, how about the rest of the terror organizations? Just as deadly as Hamas, and after the same thing. So really this means nothing to me!

quote:
There may be hope for the region yet!!! My only fears are that terrorist attacks may disrupt this or Israel doesn't abide by settlment disbandments.

Let's not get our hope up too soon... hope we didn't forget OSLO!

Posted by MisterOpus1 on May-30-2003 15:18:

I'd like to ask Mike or anyone else who's really passionate about this subject a question. I am interested in this topic, and I realize that it is likely the most important but often overlooked issue on our planet. Being a regular "joe" here in the U.S., I have interest but I suffer from that normal syndrome of "this conflict being too far away, therefore it doesn't affect me much". So this is what I'd like to know: how much control does the Palestinian authorities have over the terrorists groups like Hamas and the like? If they truly do have control, why do they allow such groups to function? And if they don't have much control, shouldn't they view such terrorist groups as enemies that are thwarting the peace movement and means towards a Palestinian statehood, and thereby bomb the crap out of their headquarters?

Actually I have other basic questions, but this is one of my more pressing queries.

Posted by TheDemon on May-31-2003 21:49:

Posted by DR86 on Jun-01-2003 04:36:

quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I'd like to ask Mike or anyone else who's really passionate about this subject a question. I am interested in this topic, and I realize that it is likely the most important but often overlooked issue on our planet. Being a regular "joe" here in the U.S., I have interest but I suffer from that normal syndrome of "this conflict being too far away, therefore it doesn't affect me much". So this is what I'd like to know: how much control does the Palestinian authorities have over the terrorists groups like Hamas and the like? If they truly do have control, why do they allow such groups to function? And if they don't have much control, shouldn't they view such terrorist groups as enemies that are thwarting the peace movement and means towards a Palestinian statehood, and thereby bomb the crap out of their headquarters?

Actually I have other basic questions, but this is one of my more pressing queries.

Well MisterOpus1, you've just discovered half of the problems in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The FACTS are that Yasser Arafat does head the Al Fatah movement. Hamas is a seperately run organization thus far, and so is the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (I think, gotta check to make sure).
Now, there are some that say that the political wing of the PLO has asked Hamas to carry out some "jobs" for them, but of course, none of these allegation can be 100% confirmed.
Groups like the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade were formed after the 200 Intifadah. They say they are only there to [violently] protst Israeli presence in the Palestinian territories. They allege that they will cease the violence is Israel ends their alleged occupation of these lands. Hamas and Al Fatah are more committed to crumbling Israel altogether. They are simply interested in making life for the Israeli population hellish. They will not cease until Israel is given to the Palestinians completely, or when they themselves (the groups) ae destroyed.
That's basically it, I hope I've helped you a little.
Great post, by the way! It's always nice to see that people who don't necessarily know too much about the situation ask inteligently because they are interested. If more people were like you, there'd be a lot less flame wars on these boards (**cough** rupert **cough**)

Cheers,
DR 86

Posted by melech_mike on Jun-01-2003 06:33:

quote:
Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
The FACTS are that Yasser Arafat does head the Al Fatah movement. Hamas is a seperately run organization thus far, and so is the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (I think, gotta check to make sure).

FACT: Al Fatah is in direct command of Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade!

Posted by DR86 on Jun-01-2003 16:11:

oh right...thanks for clearing that up mike.