Peloni: Exactly right! Herein lies the accurate response to such scurrilous positions opposing the extension of sovereignty over Jewish lands, which is too often libeled as ‘annexation’.
How does it violate international law? The dispensation of the land is governed by the San Remo agreements, the League of Nations Mandate, Article 80 of the UN charter. Those agreements enshrine Jewish rights to settle those territories. https://t.co/19wydb5Sa1
— David Wurmser (@Wurmserscribit) November 26, 2024
dreuveni-
Nevertheless , if and when the inevitable waste of public money arrives-I refer to another useless investigation- Israel’s position is then publicly shown to have been strictly lawful.
This is why several UN, IJI prosecutors and investigators have been fired for saying they have NO case, that Israel is correct.
I recall the woman Fattah, the long time chief ICJ prosecutor, being
forced several times to prosecute and refused, saying there was NO case, eventually fired for this.
On the very rare occasions when the cases went ahead, the inevitable results were always NOTGUILTY
It’s a petty nuisance , another to be endured by the Jewish State.
Edgar, unfortunately, everybody, except Israel, claims that Israel is in violation of international law. Of course, we subscribers of Israpundit know better but this is like in Nazi Germany – repeat a lie often enough and everybody will believe it.
The point here is like in Alice in Wonderland. “The law is what I say it is”, and everybody wants to be the Queen and no-one allows Israel to be.
dreuveni-
Israel scrupulously keeps every international agreement to the letter. This causes much aggravation to the Public which doesn’t understand that if Israel diverted one iota there are constant watchers to jump down Netanyahu’s throat, an also cause a world wide accusation much worse that the very slight mental anguish the Public is “suffering”. .
Israel did renounce its claim to Palestine east of the Jordan River when it signed a peace treaty with Jordan some years ago, But I don’t think it ever renounced its claim to the to Western Palestine, whose borders were defined by a series of agreements negotiated between Britain and France between 1020 and 1923. The San Remo declaration and the subsequent League of Nations mandate did not, in and of themselves, specify “Palestine’s” borders. The Oslo accords with the PLO do not promise the Palestinians an independent state, contrary to the interpretation of the USA and EU. On the contrary, they say that the “final status” of the Palestinian entity, its borders with Israel, and its future relationship with Israel will be determined at a unspecified future date, to be negotiated between the parties. Yitzhak Rabin’s interpretation, which he gave in a speech to the Knesset, was that the Palestinian entity would be an autonomous region under over-all Israeli sovereignty. He denied that his government intended to renounce Israel’s claims to this area.
In any case, the Ramallah and Gaza regime’s open defiance of all the security provisions of the accords from the very beginning, including but definitely not limited to promises to end terrorist attacks against Israel, made the Oslo accords stillborn and null and void legally from their inception.
Edgar, you’re right of course but in this situation, nobody takes any agreement seriously.
dreuveni-
One can accept a position contrary to signed documents, without annulling the documentary meanings.
The “acceptances” are temporary considering the positions of the issue then..
In NO way does this cancel an agreement of SUCH IMPORTANCE as that of a legion of International bodies.
They are just convenient “hudnas”.
I doubt VERY MUCH that in the “acceptances” you mention , is a single statement that the San Remo Conference decisions, which gave legitimacy to a State of Israel, is nullified-or even mentioned- in any “acceptance”..
I’m tired of “X” referrals to read more !
“X” gives NOTHING !
Stop referring to “X” just reply so we can keep up
with the thread……………
Eddie…..aka…..tzvi
The problem with the San Remo agreements is all the other agreements that Israel has signed since. Of course, since all of those agreements were annulled by the other parties, they could be ignored, but Israel always finds herself dragged into arguments along the lines of, you accepted this or that in year tarapapu ( a Hebrew form of saying long ago). At this point, the Israeli argument is designed to fall apart.