Israel - Once and for all

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Well i have had 4 hours of sleep. I had to finish off a 15 page paper in 24 hours. I am stressed, sleep deprived and just plain mean right now. So guess what? I am gonna give all you psuedo-analysts who defend Israel a crash course in real politik.

Now i will start off with everyones favorite UN charter. Now get your little light blue books out and flip over to Article 103. This article though extremely unknown to the rest of the world states clearly that the UN Charter is unbreachable and applies to all cases and all states, even if they are not member states. Even our resident lawyer cant state the opposite as the article is unambigious on it. The UN charter is the superior form of law under all matters. Thus any violation of the UN charter is a violation of international law.

Now everybody knows that UNSC resolutions are binding. There are 3 resolutions on Israel under articles 41 and 42 of the UN charter (Chapter 7). Each one has not been implemented. As member states you are under defacto obligation to abide by and implement UNSC resolutions. Israel has not done this. Breach of International Law number 1. (Not implementing UNSC resolutions)

Second during the wars Israel did attack first on one occasion. A violation of article 39 of the UN Charter (threat to peace). Allowing legally a nation or group of nations to react in self-defense (I believe that is article 40) is a core principle of Chapter 7. In practice and even on paper it is written no where that a UNSC resolution is required in the case of self-defense. Under International Law and the UN Charter, if a nation is attacked it has the right to self-defense. In the case when Israel attacked the arab nations, they were fully within their legal and political rights to fight back, under articles 41 and 42. Breach of International Law 2 (violation of UN Charter again)

Now i come to the 1973 war, where the arab nations attacked Israel. All you yahoo’s would be jumping up and down saying that the above also applies in the same case. Sorry to disappoint but it does not. Under International law and norms set after World War 2. Any territory occupied by a nation through aggression (East Timor, Kuwait) is not legally admissable under international law. The aggressor nations have no right - legally, politically, or morally - to the occupied/captured land. It would be saying that Pakistan has the right to attack Iran and capture its territory and make it part of Pakistan. That under International Law, customary law and generally applied (?? Forgot the exact legal phrase) principles is illegal. Thus the Israel occupation which also under the UNSC resolution is illegal, is a violation of international law. Breach of International Law 3 (Violating UN charter and Int’l Law)

Now back to the Arab attack. As the violation has been accepted by all states even the UN, the arab states were violating Article 39, however they were acting under their rights along with Articles 41 and 42. Their land had been taken forcefully, their soveriegnty violated and Israel was not complying with international law. An exact parallel can be made with Kuwait. Kuwait was annexed, their soveriegnty was violated, Article 39 was breached and Iraq was not complying with international law. The UNSC passed a resolution allowing force to be used to remove Iraq. This the UNSC did under International Law and its own Charter obligations and rules. Thus the Arab nations also had the right to do so. However you state that they did not have a UNSC resolution like the US did. They did not. However a member state does not require a UNSC for self-defense. The idea would stupid to believe that you are attacked and you need an UNSC resolution to defend yourself. As the Occupied lands were defacto Arab territory and foriegn troops were on the land the arab nations had the right to self-defense. Realistically now many believe that the US would have allowed a UNSC resolution that allowed for an attack on Israel.

To recap 1967 was a violation of International Law. 1973 was not.

Now on to the present day situation. I have stated this on numerous occasions and it seems to by our Holy Defenders of the Jewish State that the Palestinians have no right to self-defense. The Palestinians have a defacto right to self-defense and self-determination. Under International Customary Law and the principles set after World War 2, Resistance movements to a military occupation of your land entitles you to an armed resistance movement. The French Resistance, The Polish Resistance etc. are examples where people killed men women and children in the name of their freedom and protection of their lands.

In the colonial lands, the same happened. It happened all over Africa, In India and Pakistan, Indonesia etc. They all revolted with an armed struggle against the Colonial powers. This is really history everybody knows this happened and everybody agrees with it.

On to Israel. The lands after 1967 are defacto under International Law captured territory. Following the example of South African and other African colonies which demanded independence in the 70’s and 80’s, the palestinians have a right to the right of self-determination and self defense including an armed struggle. Self defense is always an armed struggle and allowed for in the UN charter. Bring things to a quick close, following the principles set during de-colonization and after world war 2, armed resistance against an aggressor which has captured your territory is a violation of international law and allows for the right to an armed resistance.

Now coming to the 1980’s and Israel’s illegal occupation of Lebanese territory for 22 years. That was defacto illegal under international law and a violation of article 39. Hizbollah is the resistance movement born out of that illegal occupation and gives it legitimacy under international law. As the Shaba Farms (forgot the name) are now part of Lebanese territory their struggle is applicable under international law. Also unlike all the Saviours of Israel try to imply, the transfer of soveriegnty on the land was not violating any international law. Breach of International Law 4 (Violation of UN Charter and international Law)

I would love to continue and outline the laws and norms Israel has violated by attacking refugees, butchering people and employing forms of torture that are outlawed under international law. But sadly i dont have enough time to cover all the sins of this devil spawn. The Israeli crimes against the Lebanese and Palestinian people will be covered in detail when i have the time. Now back to my paper.

Oh yes please feel free to ignore this if it to intellectually high for you. I doubt i will get a reply.

2

CM:

I agree.

.....NEXT?!

3

Palestine should be re-instated to the Palestinians, the UN mandate made the same mistake the Allies did before the second world war, they divided up another country (in that case CzechoSlovakia) for their own political needs, ignoring the wishes of the native population. In that case it was a step to a huge conflict with bitterness that extended for generations, and in this case it may very well be the same.

The simplicity of the first w/u belies the complex issues of religious identity, political freedom, and justice. There can be no doubt that Palestine was taken from the Palestinians against their will, a process comparable to the invasion of any other country. There can also be no doubt that the invasion and subsequent occupation would have foundered a long time ago had it not been for political backing and intervention from countries like the USA and Britain. Even now, when Israel is accused of some of the most hideous violations of international human rights, these two countries refuse to accept responsibility and withdraw support.

This generates intense bitterness both on the ground in Palestine, and also across the world by anyone who is familiar with the situation.

4

no one said anything abt these in decades and i'm sure no 1 will in decades to come ... whatever they do is just and whatever others do is against some law / rule applicable to them only

Rab Rakha

DerVaisH

5

Deleted<

6

Thus the Israel occupation which also under the UNSC resolution is illegal, is a violation of international law. ...the palestinians have a right to the right of self-determination and self defense including an armed struggle.
It's an excellent post, CM.... i think you have covered each of the main points. Hard to believe but there are still some who argue, according to the Zionists' argument, that the Israeli occupation itself is not illegal - (although they might acknowledge some of the acts committed by the IDF are). But not the occupation itself. i am not certain how anyone in their rational faculties would think this except unless they were already severely biased towards Israel and the Zionist cause. As you have already shown, that belief is a blatant deceit vis-a-vis international law.

My thanks for taking the time to write that all out, a very useful and original thread.

7

When the cat's away the mice will play and the mods can kiss my butt!

8

Palestine is Palestinian land, The Jews there should be put to work building up the infrastructure they have ruined, and then they can dig there own graves before we line them up and invoke the name of Ernst Rohm before reuniting them with the rats in the sewers.