UNGAR 181

S

serendipity

Verified User
UNGAR 181 was never binding. In order for a UN General Assembly resolution to be binding, all parties relevant to that resolutions must agree to abide by it. The Arab High Committee for Palestine, along with all the Arab countries that had voted against partition refuses to accept UNGAR 181. Therefore, it was never ratified, so it never became binding.

Under any circumstances, since the Arab High Committee for Palestine rejected UNGAR 181 in 1947, there is no way that its convoluted successor, the PLO, could accept it forty-one years later. How long can a contract offer be valid before it expires? Certainly not 41 years.

When the PLO “accepted” UNGAR 181 (and, supposedly, UNSCR 242) in 1988, they did so out of the political necessity of having become irrelevant to the Arab-Israel conflict since their defeat in Beirut and evacuation to Tunis, where they were bound by the Tunisian government to refrain from organizing, planning or executing terror operations on Tunisian soil.
 
serendipity said:
UNGAR 181 was never binding. In order for a UN General Assembly resolution to be binding, all parties relevant to that resolutions must agree to abide by it. The Arab High Committee for Palestine, along with all the Arab countries that had voted against partition refuses to accept UNGAR 181. Therefore, it was never ratified, so it never became binding.

Under any circumstances, since the Arab High Committee for Palestine rejected UNGAR 181 in 1947, there is no way that its convoluted successor, the PLO, could accept it forty-one years later. How long can a contract offer be valid before it expires? Certainly not 41 years.

When the PLO “accepted” UNGAR 181 (and, supposedly, UNSCR 242) in 1988, they did so out of the political necessity of having become irrelevant to the Arab-Israel conflict since their defeat in Beirut and evacuation to Tunis, where they were bound by the Tunisian government to refrain from organizing, planning or executing terror operations on Tunisian soil.
Click to expand...

So the long and short of it is that McMoonshi'ite is totally wrong as per usual.
 
The UN ignores indiscriminate bombing of non-military targets in Israel by Hamas and Hezbollah.

The UN is useless and the US should shut down the NY facility and boot all diplomats from the country.
 
serendipity said:
So the long and short of it is that McMoonshi'ite is totally wrong as per usual.
Click to expand...
Your efforts to upturn law and justice have become more sporadic of late, maggot, as world events highlight your crass, selfish stupidity.
Any authoritative legal opinion regarding 181 will serve to flush you and your mendacious claims .
 
It is a fact that territory can never be gained through aggression. This is a fundamental foundation of international law.
This means that no territory that was not ascribed to the agreed Jewish homeland under UNGAR 181 is legally occupied by the Zionists.
Therefore the boundaries of that homeland remain the legal boundaries as 181 was accepted by majority vote of the General Assembly. No endorsement by the Security Council was necessary then and is nor necessary now. Arab objections were overruled.

' Overshadowing the arguments in Paragraph 8 above is the undeniable fact that the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, as definitively glossed by the International Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, has abolished forever the idea of acquisition of territory by military conquest. No matter who was the aggressor, international borders cannot change by the process of war.'
The Legal Boundaries of Israel in International Law
Anthony D'Amato
Leighton Professor of Law
Northwestern University School of Law
 
After the British P Mandate ended, there was only one legitimate gov't left in the western partition of the mandate, Israel. The only international border was the one established by the British mandate, what we know today as the State of Israel. The eastern Palestine partition is known as Jordan. Jordan exiled the so-called palestinians for trying to assassinate their king and overthrow the Jordanian gov't.

Arab countries violated the useless Kellogg Briand pact, which has no mechanism for enforcement, and illegally took land by military conquest illegally annexing the West Bank and Gaza .
 
serendipity said:
UNGAR 181 was never binding. In order for a UN General Assembly resolution to be binding, all parties relevant to that resolutions must agree to abide by it. The Arab High Committee for Palestine, along with all the Arab countries that had voted against partition refuses to accept UNGAR 181. Therefore, it was never ratified, so it never became binding.
Click to expand...
Silly Brit prosemite. ^ UNGAR 181 PASSED by majority vote. That's how the UN works.
 
5. On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly adopted the key "partition"
resolution, Resolution 181, ratifying the British proposals. It also provided for an
independent international mixed status for the city of Palestine. In my opinion, this
Resolution constitutes the first, last, and only legally authorized demarkation of the
Israeli-Palestine borders. It was legally authoritative not because it took the form of a
UN Resolution, but solely because the UN Resolution itself served as a ratification of the
British proposal to divide the Mandate and leave its governance to the people. In other
words, the alpha and omega of the legal power resided in Great Britain as the trustee and
not in the United Nations. As trustee, it had the power to partition the territory if and only
if that was the best way to provide for its future self-government. The General Assembly
did not derive its legal powers directly from the Charter of the UN, but rather as surrogate
for the League of Nations. It was the League as a supervisory authority over the British
Mandate that devolved its powers of mandate supervision to the UN and, through the UN,
to the General Assembly itself. Legal title to the land was not conferred by Resolution
181 alone but rather by Great Britain's acceptance of the terms of Resolution 181. The
State of Israel owes its entire legal existence to the proper exercise by Great Britain of its
League of Nations' Mandatory Power over the territory of Palestine. It owes nothing to
the United Nations as a separate entity and, by the same token, cannot claim any
additional rights from the United Nations. Instead, as soon as Resolution 181 was passed
(Great Britain abstained), the legal borders between Israel and Palestine were forever
fixed.
Those borders henceforth could only be changed by one of two processes: first,
explicit agreement between Israel and the authorized representatives of Palestine, and
second, in the few cases of limited disputed areas where the verbal description contained
in Resolution 181 was ambiguous in terms of existing maps or surveys, by international
arbitration. The Security Council had and has no power to change international borders.



The sanctity of international borders is a principle of international law that antedates the
Charter of the United Nations; in fact it goes back five thousand years. No smaller nation
would have supported the UN Charter at the San Francisco Conference in 1945 if the
draft Charter had given to the five permanent members of the Security Council—the
United States, Great Britain, France, Soviet Union, and China—the legal power to change
international frontiers. After all, the five permanent members at the time had been
wartime allies, and in concert they could reshape the world at will if they had been given
such an unprecedented power. Moreover, there is nothing in the Charter of the United
Nations that even remotely hints of a power or entitlement in the Security Council to
change international borders. Even Resolution 242 only calls for a withdrawal of forces,
and makes no mention of a permanent change in boundaries. As far as the Israeli
settlements are concerned, they are clearly illegal; an occupying power has no right to
engage in de facto annexation of portions of the occupied territory by way of population
transfers

9. Overshadowing the arguments in Paragraph 8 above is the undeniable fact that
the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, as definitively interpreted by the International
Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, has abolished forever the idea of acquisition of territory
by military conquest. No matter who was the aggressor, international borders cannot
change by the process of war. Resort to war is itself illegal, and while self-defense is of
course legal, a successful campaign of self-defense cannot extend so far as to constitute a
new war of aggression all its own. And if it does, the land taken may at best be
temporarily occupied, but cannot be annexed. Thus after all the Middle East wars, the
bloodshed, aggressions and counter-aggressions, acts of terror, reprisals, and attendant
UN resolutions, nothing has changed the legal situation as it existed after Resolution 181
was passed in 1947. The legal boundaries of Israel and Palestine remain today exactly as
they were delimited in Resolution 181

Criminal Zionists and their prosemitic fawns- stfu.
 
moon said:
5. On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly adopted the key "partition"
resolution, Resolution 181, ratifying the British proposals. It also provided for an
independent international mixed status for the city of Palestine. In my opinion, this
Resolution constitutes the first, last, and only legally authorized demarkation of the
Israeli-Palestine borders. It was legally authoritative not because it took the form of a
UN Resolution, but solely because the UN Resolution itself served as a ratification of the
British proposal to divide the Mandate and leave its governance to the people. In other
words, the alpha and omega of the legal power resided in Great Britain as the trustee and
not in the United Nations. As trustee, it had the power to partition the territory if and only
if that was the best way to provide for its future self-government. The General Assembly
did not derive its legal powers directly from the Charter of the UN, but rather as surrogate
for the League of Nations. It was the League as a supervisory authority over the British
Mandate that devolved its powers of mandate supervision to the UN and, through the UN,
to the General Assembly itself. Legal title to the land was not conferred by Resolution
181 alone but rather by Great Britain's acceptance of the terms of Resolution 181. The
State of Israel owes its entire legal existence to the proper exercise by Great Britain of its
League of Nations' Mandatory Power over the territory of Palestine. It owes nothing to
the United Nations as a separate entity and, by the same token, cannot claim any
additional rights from the United Nations. Instead, as soon as Resolution 181 was passed
(Great Britain abstained), the legal borders between Israel and Palestine were forever
fixed.
Those borders henceforth could only be changed by one of two processes: first,
explicit agreement between Israel and the authorized representatives of Palestine, and
second, in the few cases of limited disputed areas where the verbal description contained
in Resolution 181 was ambiguous in terms of existing maps or surveys, by international
arbitration. The Security Council had and has no power to change international borders.



The sanctity of international borders is a principle of international law that antedates the
Charter of the United Nations; in fact it goes back five thousand years. No smaller nation
would have supported the UN Charter at the San Francisco Conference in 1945 if the
draft Charter had given to the five permanent members of the Security Council—the
United States, Great Britain, France, Soviet Union, and China—the legal power to change
international frontiers. After all, the five permanent members at the time had been
wartime allies, and in concert they could reshape the world at will if they had been given
such an unprecedented power. Moreover, there is nothing in the Charter of the United
Nations that even remotely hints of a power or entitlement in the Security Council to
change international borders. Even Resolution 242 only calls for a withdrawal of forces,
and makes no mention of a permanent change in boundaries. As far as the Israeli
settlements are concerned, they are clearly illegal; an occupying power has no right to
engage in de facto annexation of portions of the occupied territory by way of population
transfers

9. Overshadowing the arguments in Paragraph 8 above is the undeniable fact that
the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, as definitively interpreted by the International
Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, has abolished forever the idea of acquisition of territory
by military conquest. No matter who was the aggressor, international borders cannot
change by the process of war. Resort to war is itself illegal, and while self-defense is of
course legal, a successful campaign of self-defense cannot extend so far as to constitute a
new war of aggression all its own. And if it does, the land taken may at best be
temporarily occupied, but cannot be annexed. Thus after all the Middle East wars, the
bloodshed, aggressions and counter-aggressions, acts of terror, reprisals, and attendant
UN resolutions, nothing has changed the legal situation as it existed after Resolution 181
was passed in 1947. The legal boundaries of Israel and Palestine remain today exactly as
they were delimited in Resolution 181

Criminal Zionists and their prosemitic fawns- stfu.
Click to expand...
The Kellogg Pact can not be applied retroactively to the British Mandate as you are trying to do.. And the Kellogg pact permits wars of self defense and civil wars as it is an agreement governing foreign policy.

The Arabs refused to create a nation State in the Western partition. And Ungar 181 lines were a recommendation and not legally biding since the Arabs refused to agree.
 
Bigdog said:
The Kellogg Pact can not be applied retroactively to the British Mandate as you are trying to do.. And the Kellogg pact permits wars of self defense and civil wars as it is an agreement governing foreign policy.

The Arabs refused to create a nation State in the Western partition. And Ungar 181 lines were a recommendation and not legally biding since the Arabs refused to agree.
Click to expand...
You should have gotten over all that nonsense by now- but you haven't and I'm not going to waste time correcting you again. Enjoy your ignorance- it's all you've got.

UNGAR 181 PASSED by majority vote. That's how the UN works.
 
moon said:
You should have gotten over all that nonsense by now- but you haven't and I'm not going to waste time correcting you again. Enjoy your ignorance- it's all you've got.

UNGAR 181 PASSED by majority vote. That's how the UN works.
Click to expand...
Yep, and those lines were not legally binding.

And you can't retroactively apply the Kellogg pact to the British Mandate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top