The ICJ, Occupation, And The Wall

So Chris Proudlove is at it again. This time he has commented in one of his own blogs which can be found here  http://www.christiansforzion.com/comment-chris-proudlove/2013/6/21/sabeel-supporters-fallacies-exposed

 

After his embarrassing gaffe regarding UNSC resolution 242 he has hit back with these gems,

 

“There are strong legal precedents for the claim that a war fought defensively permits retention of the land secured in that war.”

 

I’ve already blown that lie out the water here  https://christiansforzionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/when-is-it-ok-to-lie/

 

Here’s the rest of his lie,

 

“Israel is not an “occupier” in Judea and Samaria, according to Arlene Kushner. She writes: The word “occupation” is bandied about regularly. The Palestine Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organisation have adopted the idea of Israel as “occupier” as a mantra and much of the world has accepted it. But the facts tell us something else.
Judea and Samaria were (and still are) unclaimed Mandate land, to which Israel has the strongest claim. Legally, occupation only occurs when one nation moves into the land of another. But there was no nation legally sovereign in Judea and Samaria before 1967 — Jordan’s presence there was not legal.
There are strong legal precedents for the claim that a war fought defensively permits retention of the land secured in that war. Wrote Steven Schwiebel, former judge of the International Court of Justice:”…the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest.
“…it follows that modifications of the 1949 armistice lines… are lawful…whether those modifications are, in Secretary Rogers’s words, ‘insubstantial alterations required for mutual security’ or more substantial alterations – such as recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the whole of Jerusalem.” (Emphasis added)
Read the selected writings of Stephen M Schwebel, Judge at the International Court of Justice.
With all of the above, it should not be forgotten that areas over the Green Line, in eastern Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, represent the very heart of Jewish heritage: From the Temple Mount; to Hevron and the Cave of Machpelah, where the matriarch and patriarchs are buried; to Shilo, where the Tabernacle was brought. How can Jews be “occupiers” in their own ancient land?”

 

Hmm, here’s his whole comment blown out of the water by Howard Kyle.

 

“In July 2004, the International Court of Justice in an advisory opinion ruled that both Israel’s separartion wall and its associated regime of check points, settlements, and by pass roads in the West Bank were illegal. The ICJ further stated that an occupying power cannot claim that the lawful inhabitants of the occupied territory constitute a “foreign” threat for the purposes of Article 51 of the UN Charter. The ICJ noted that Israeli settlements and the displacement of Palestinians is a violation of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The ICJ further cited Israel’s on going, oppressive policy of land confiscations, house demolitions, creation of Jewish only enclaves, restrictions on movement and access to water, food, education, health care and employment, as being in violation of its obligations under international law and the Palestinian right to self determination.”

 

And here’s the link to the ICJ  http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6&case=131&k=5a

 

Another spectacular Hasbara fail by Proudlove and his sources. 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

14 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

14 responses to “The ICJ, Occupation, And The Wall

  1. Christopher Proudlove

    If people ignore the supposedly irrevocable San Remo Treaty, which in many international legal luminaries’ opintion, gives Israel the right to settle Jews in non-occupied areas from the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, then you will get so-called judgement like this. Note that the International Court of Justice is only an ADVISORY opinion. It cannot match the judgement of 51 nations of the League of Nations who unanimously accepted San Remo. Trevor, tell us how did the ICJ dealt with San Remo at the time? And as is commonly noted, anyway, posession is nine-tenths of the law.

  2. Christopher Proudlove

    If people ignore the supposedly irrevocable San Remo Treaty, which in many international legal luminaries’ opintion, gives Israel the right to settle Jews in non-occupied areas from the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, then you will get so-called judgement like this.

  3. I have previously pointed out your errors regarding San Remo. But once again i’ll give it a quick once over.

    Neither the San Remo treaty or British mandate gave Jews the right to a state of their own. Jews outside of Palestine had no legal claims to anything inside Palestine hence the wording “Historical Connection” in the Balfour declaration. On top of that Article 7 of the mandate clearly states,

    “The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.” ie. Jews were outside of Palestine were to be given the opportunity to immigrate to Palestine, take up Palestinian citizenship, and make there their home.

    This is further confirmed by a quote attributed to Nahum Sokolow at the Paris peace conference,

    “The object of Zionism is to establish for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law.” ..It has been said and is still being obstinately repeated by anti-Zionists again and again, that Zionism aims at the creation of an independent “Jewish State” But this is fallacious. The “Jewish State” was never part of the Zionist programme. The Jewish State was the title of Herzl’s first pamphlet, which had the supreme merit of forcing people to think. This pamphlet was followed by the first Zionist Congress, which accepted the Basle programme – the only programme in existence.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_for_the_Jewish_people

    Also at the Paris peace conference US Secretary of State Lansing asked Dr Weizmann “to clear up some confusion which existed in his mind as to the correct meaning of the words “Jewish National Home”. Did that mean an autonomous Jewish Government?” Dr Weizmann replied in the negative. As can be seen here, Bottom paragraph,
    http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1919Parisv04&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=169

    On top of all this we have the Churchill White Paper,

    “‘it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty’s Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sèvres, is not susceptible of change.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_White_Paper

    And the Macdonald White paper,

    “‘The objective of His Majesty’s Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. [..] The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.’

    And Section II. Immigration:,

    “…After the period of five years, no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939

    We all know that the state of Israel exists and is going nowhere but if you’re are arguing that the San Remo treaty is still lawful or irrevocable then what you are in fact doing is arguing that the State of Israel is illigitimate.

    As for the ICJ, well you trumpet one man’s opinion and add that he is a “Judge of the ICJ” to give the misinformation you are spreading more weight. Hence why i posted up the ACTUAL ICJ recomendations.

    “Trevor, tell us how did the ICJ dealt with San Remo at the time?”

    Why dont you tell me?

    ” And as is commonly noted, anyway, posession is nine-tenths of the law”

    lol….just lol

  4. Christopher Proudlove

    The United Nations gave Israel the right to become a nation in November 1947 in line with the San Remo Treaty and Article 70. This was fulfilled the following May after British troops departed. Granting statehood to Israel when it was ready to govern was in keeping with the long-held desire of Winston Churchill. Woodrow Wilson, of the United States, among other statesmen, also expressed support for the eventual creation of a Jewish state. The re-birth of Israel is in line with many prophecies in the Bible. In its 65 years the modern state of Israel has contributed much to the world in information technology, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, medicine, humanitarian aid, and many specialist industrial fields. One wonders how much more this innovative nation could have contributed to the world but for surrounding Muslim countries seeking to wipe it from the Middle East map by military might.
    Whatever Chaim Wiezmann said in the 1920s he obviously had a different view in the 1940s when he became the first President of Israel. Like a lot of people post-WW1 Weizmann had a softly-softly approach, not wishing to antagonise Arabs.
    The Romans expelled Jews from the Holy Land. As a successor to Rome the European Union has a moral duty to guarantee Israel’s survival.
    Dershowitz and Gaulthier are among the international legal luminaries who today proclaim the legitimate rights of Israel and Jerusalem. The Bennett Commission and the European Coalition for Israel have also come to the same conclusion. The fact that there are Israeli Arabs with the same rights to vote and be educated as Jews disproves the lie that Israel is an apartheid state.
    It is nonsense to argue that the San Remo Treaty makes Israel illegitimate, the reverse in fact. Trevor has some unusual views he will be telling us next that black really is white. He is particularly weak when it comes to Bible prophecies. I wonder what he make of the scripture that says this time the Jews are back in the Holy Land for good.
    He fails to answer my question about the International Court of Justice and the San Remo Treaty. It is clear this treaty, which is still international law, was ignored by the ICJ and by today’s world powers that be. It is one of the biggest scandals to emerge over the last century.

  5. What documented evidence can you provide to back up your argument?

    The slanted and biased opinion of your fellow Zionists does not count as documented evidence.

    “Woodrow Wilson, of the United States, among other statesmen, also expressed support for the eventual creation of a Jewish state.”

    Quotes please to back up that particular claim…if you’re referring to the “fourteen points quote the points you think are relevant?

    “Trevor has some unusual views he will be telling us next that black really is white.”

    Actually, it’s you who is arguing “that black really is white”. I have given documented evidence from the relevant documents but your bias and closed mindedness cannot take in the information handed to you….Do you even have anything to offer other than shop worn Hasbara?

    “The fact that there are Israeli Arabs with the same rights to vote and be educated as Jews disproves the lie that Israel is an apartheid state.”

    Do the Palestinian Arabs in Hebron have the right to vote in Israeli elections?

    “He fails to answer my question about the International Court of Justice and the San Remo Treaty.”

    Again i’ll say it. As for the ICJ, well you trumpet one man’s opinion and add that he is a “Judge of the ICJ” to give the misinformation you are spreading more weight. Hence why i posted up the ACTUAL ICJ recomendations.

    But now that you’ve been caught out you start to poo poo the ICJ.

  6. Christopher Proudlove

    BELOW my latest blog on the Christians for Zion website. I recommend you read the Howard Grief book that’s mentioned, Trevor … The ICJ verdict does not count because it ignores the San Remo Treaty. I asked you to comment on ICJ’s views of this treaty and you could not give an answer. ICJ has colluded, along with other international bodies, to forget that San Remo is still international law. Trevor, you are also turning a ‘blind’ eye and resort to bluster to try to obfuscate the issues involved.
    TRIBUTES have been paid to Howard Grief, author of the seminal book on Israel’s territorial rights in the Holy Land , who has died at the age of 73.
    Pro-Israel blogger Richard Millett recalls him speaking at the Application of Israeli Sovereignty over Judea and Samaria conference in Hebron in July 2012.
    He comments: “I would like to pay tribute to this extraordinary man and the unique legacy he left to the Jewish people in his book The Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law published in 2008, which was the product of more than 20 years of research.
    “It is a work of profound scholarship yet the documentation of the Jewish legal rights to the land set in an historical narrative makes it a compelling read. Each titled chapter within it is a stand-alone with the first being the most important.”
    The Canadian lawyer specialised in commercial law and litigation. He had a passion and love for Israel and Jewish people which saw him make aliyah to the land he loved in 1989 with his Israeli wife and two young sons. He was practising as an attorney in Jerusalem when appointed legal advisor to Yuval Ne’eman, Minister for Energy and Infrastructure in the Shamir government, on matters pertaining to Israeli territorial sovereign rights. Ne’eman was a distinguished physicist who set up Israel’s space programme and discovered the existence of quarks which brought him a Nobel Prize.
    Mr Millett observed: “Howard realised that Israeli sovereignty did not originate from the UN Partition plan of 1947, universally believed to be the instrument of international law that created Israel, but instead it was the San Remo Conference of the 24th and 25th April 1920 that invested sovereignty in the Jewish people through the representative Zionist organisations.
    “It was at San Remo, the continuation of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, that the Principal Allied Powers, the victors in the war against the Central Powers, set aside all of Palestine as the land designated for the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home based on the historical connection of the Jewish People with Palestine.
    “The San Remo resolution was described by Lord Curzon, the British foreign secretary of 1919, as the Jewish Magna Carta.
    “The Franco-British Boundary Convention of 23rd December 1920, which fixed the northern and north-eastern boundary of Palestine with Syria-Lebanon, made it clear beyond any doubt that Judea, Samaria and Gaza were to be integral parts of the Jewish National Home. Indeed, the maps of the cartographer and theologian George Adam Smith were to be used as the basis of the future borders based on the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah.
    “Howard conducted his painstaking research from British government archives and the minutes of the San Remo conference, both in English and French, as well as numerous other original documents associated with that era.
    “His original research established him as the leading world authority on the subject and has been used in an Israeli government video explaining Israel’s rights to the territories.
    “On a personal note it was my good fortune to have met Howard and to have enjoyed his friendship during the last two years of his life.
    “In June 2011, whilst in Jerusalem, I phoned him with a view to him giving a lecture in London but he explained that his health would not allow it as he was on dialysis several times a week.
    “Nevertheless, despite his deteriorating health, he was busier than ever writing articles, giving lectures and responding to requests worldwide for his opinions. He had presented a petition to the Canadian House of Commons on behalf of Canadian citizens regarding Israeli sovereign rights to the territories and was in the process of doing the same in America to Congress.
    “He had an ever growing emailing list and it was always a pleasure to read his latest missive addressed to “my dear correspondents”. He had a marvellous pen that he used to great effect in his put-downs to those so-called legal experts, dilettantes he called them, who admonished Israel for her “illegal” behaviour.
    “My particular favourite was a letter on behalf of clients regarding demands from the European Former Leaders Group, including Chris Patten (now BBC chairman) and others, to the President of the European Council that denounced Israel for its “illegal” settlement activity, including in East Jerusalem, and demanded that punitive measures be taken against it.
    “He admonished them for their “impudence” and their “complete and abysmal ignorance of Jewish Legal Rights to the Land of Israel” and then went on to inform them what these were in a concise summary.
    “In conclusion, Howard was a modest and gentle person who was never interested in his own ego and who spent his most productive years documenting Jewish rights to the Land at his own expense so that future generations would have the knowledge with which to fight the delegitimisation and demonisation of Israel that has now become common currency.”

  7. Again, lots of text and no questions answered and no documented evidence put forth.

  8. Christopher Proudlove

    There ‘s none so blind as those that cannot see. Trevor can’t see the wood for the trees. Read the book. The documentary evidence is there. No documented evidence, Trevor, lol.

  9. If you have read the book, and i have some doubts that you have, post up a relevant passage with documented evidence to back up your claims.

    Some things you should note. Unlike the CfZ website no one is coming along to censor/remove my comments. I will continue to ask you to provide documented evidence about your claims on San Remo and either you will,

    A] Have to admit to your ignorance

    B] Post up any relevant data to back up your claims.

    C] Admit that the Zionist Hasbara on San Remo is sheer propaganda.

    D] Disappear from these pages in a cowardly fashion and answering that either A or C is your actual position on the matter.

    Now please, stop making a fool of yourself and post up the evidence to back up your ramblings.

    Btw i would to keep all discussion on San Remo in the most recent blog….is that ok with you?

    I will post this comment there too.

  10. Christopher Proudlove

    A) The ignorance about San Remo is Trevor’s.
    B) I will be posting the relevant data. Watch this space!
    C) There is no propaganda about San Remo; I’m stating facts which you have not yet grapsed, Trevor.
    D) It is Trevor that’s making a fool of himself. When you are losing an argument start dishing out the insults. Is that what your PLO friends have taught you, Trevor?

  11. Christopher Proudlove

    I am concluding an article on Israel’s Legitimacy in international law to be posted on the http://www.christiansforzion.comn to counter the tosh from Trevor. It is obvious he likes an argument for argument’s sake and is prepared to say obnoxious things and stretch readers’ credulity to the limit.

  12. Christopher Proudlove

    The above blog has been posted on the http://www.christiansforzion.com website. It contains the relevant data Trevor requested. No doubt Trevor will continue to collude with various bodies to airbrush the concrete evidence of Israel’s legitimacy in international law.

    Part of the above comment has been deleted.

    Christiansforzionwatch

  13. Please post your queries/questions about legal matters in the proper blog.

    I know you know where it is as your most recent comment has been made there.

    Thank you,

    Christiansforzionwatch.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s