Goodnight Iran.

[fillyboy]

So another example of disproportionate retaliation against Palestinians.

I'm glad you now accept it was a retaliation.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Maybe, but if we pick a side it should always be The Israelis. Never support anyone from THAT religion (R.O.P.).

Can't be sat in the middle and criticise both?

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

I'm glad you now accept it was a retaliation.

The original conflict occurred in 1948, when Israelis moved into Palestine and drove out the Palestinians.
It's been disproportionate tit for tat ever since, with a consistent and continuous attack against civilians in the West Bank.

 

[fillyboy]

The original conflict occurred in 1948, when Israelis moved into Palestine and drove out the Palestinians.

The conflict started 24 hours after Israel legitimately declared statehood under UN resolution 181 and were invaded by Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Did everybody accept resolution 181?

If not, who didn't, and why?

 

[fillyboy]

Did everybody accept resolution 181?

If not, who didn't, and why?

The Arabs refused to accept it because they weren't prepared to accept a two state solution. They would only accept a single state with no Jews in it.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

The conflict started 24 hours after Israel legitimately declared statehood under UN resolution 181 and were invaded by Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq

The Arab League had objected to the plan all along, and vowed to resist the implementation of the Resolution, which was not enforceable.

The Arabs refused to accept it because they weren't prepared to accept a two state solution. They would only accept a single state with no Jews in it.

Zionists accepted the partition but planned to expand Israel's borders beyond what was allocated to it by the UN.[

Israeli–Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Arab Higher Committee, the Arab League and other Arab leaders and governments rejected the Plan, as aside from Arabs forming a two-thirds majority, they owned most of the territory.[21][22] They also indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division,[23] arguing that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN Charter that granted people the right to decide their own destiny.[9][24] They announced their intention to take all necessary measures to prevent the implementation of the resolution

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So the UN General Assembly gave away land that it did not own, to Jews, to create a new state of Israel, knowing full well that the Arab League were going to resist it with force.
So the UN created the current conflict where there was none.
As ajohn has pointed out General Assembly Resolutions are not enforceable,, but it was enforced on the Palestinians

 

[carmanmemoranda]

The Arabs refused to accept it because they weren't prepared to accept a two state solution. They would only accept a single state with no Jews in it.

You're getting there.

Still a 1 sided view but at least accepting others saw it differently

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

The conflict started 24 hours after Israel legitimately declared statehood under UN resolution 181 and were invaded by Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq.

The civil war started when the Resolution was passed in November 1947, against the objections of the Arab League, Palestine/ Transjordan was not represented. The civil war continued until the British left and the Arab League became involved (May 1948)
Both the Arab League, and the Jews had declared their intention to enforce/resist the Resolution by violence.
Indeed the Jews declared their 'right' to the whole of Palestine.

“… we stand by the attitude we took last year, that we will be ready to consider the question of a Jewish State in an adequate area of Palestine, and that we are entitled to Palestine as a whole.”
He also said that if a United Nations decision in favour of Zionist aims provoked violent protest from the Palestinian Arabs, “… we will take care of ourselves.”

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-202927/

It was only after the British left (within hours), and Israel had declared itself in existence as an independent state the evening before, that the Arab League attacked Israel. (May 1948)
Within a month the Israeli (Paramilitaries) were targeting civilians and the Nakba was the result.

So the UN was fully aware that an unenforceable Resolution (181) would be enforced, through violence, by the Jews, and it would be resisted, through violence, by the Arab League.

The UN Resolution was also in denial of the UN founding principle of self determination.

Self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law, binding, as such, on the United Nations as an authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms

Self-determination - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Interestingly, the British were well aware of the opposition of the Palestinians to the Partition of Palestine.
Maybe that was why they abstained from the resolution 181 vote.
In a written submission to the UN, by the British:

The denial of this fact, the concealment of the truth and the failure to recognise that there was ever any reason for granting the most extreme Jewish demands in the face of bitter opposition from the inhabitants of the country must appear to all impartial observers as at least a gross self-deception

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-202927/

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Also interestingly, the partition plan voted for in the Resolution 181, enjoyed the support and guarantee of the UN:

The fact that the solution carries the sanction of the United Nations involves a finality which should allay Arab fears of further expansion of the Jewish State

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-202927/

I guess that's been forgotten or ignored.
But it does show that an expansionist Jewish state was foreseen before the vote.
Indeed the British recognised the peacekeeping role it had been delivering, and refused to approve the Partition plan, without the support of the both parties inPalestine.

“It is with deep regret that my Government recognizes that an acceptable settlement has still not been found. I do not say that in any spirit of criticism. My Government would be the last to minimize the difficulty of the task, as it is the first to appreciate the efforts that have been made. The fact remains that we are obviously confronted with a failure to arrive at a settlement based upon consent. My delegation would have failed in its duty if it had not emphasized from the beginning of the session the consequent need for the General Assembly to consider the situation which is likely to arise upon the removal of the forces which at present ensure law and order in Palestine. Their departure will leave a gap, and it has been the most difficult part of the General Assembly’s task to find means of filling this gap …

“… I am … instructed to repeat explicitly that the United Kingdom Government cannot allow its troops and administration to be used in order to enforce decisions which are not accepted by both parties in Palestine

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-202927/

The Columbian comment was interesting. The Resolution required a two thirds majority.
The vote was 33 for, 13 against and 10 abstentions. ( I thought there were only 51 members? I think Turkey, Yemen and Pakistan had become members by then. )
33 is not a two thirds majority. A two thirds majority would require 37 votes for the Resolution.

The Pakistani comment is even more forthright:

“We shall first cut the body of Palestine into three parts of a Jewish State and three parts of an Arab State. We shall then have the Jaffa enclave; and Palestine’s heart, Jerusalem, shall forever be an international city. That is the beginning of the shape Palestine shall have.

“Having cut Palestine up in that manner, we shall then put its bleeding body upon a cross forever. This is not going to be temporary; this is permanent. Palestine shall never belong to its people; it shall always be stretched upon the cross.

“What authority has the United Nations to do this? What legal authority, what juridical authority has it to do this, to make an independent State forever subject to United Nations administration? …

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-202927/

The Arab League declared that they would not recognise, nor honour the resolution, so the UN knew what was coming.

The Arab States, as well as several others, declared that they would not consider themselves bound by the General Assembly recommendation since they considered that it was contrary to the United Nations Charter. Others voiced apprehension over the future implications of the vote to partition Palestine.

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-202927/

“We much fear that the beneficence, if any, to which partition may lead will be small in comparison to the mischief which it might inaugurate. It totally lacks legal validity.

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-202927/

Two obvious 'violations' of the Resolution 181 by Israel:

“No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be paid previous to dispossession …”

Freedom of movement and transit was also to be assured by both States.

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-202927/

Zionist policies of territorial expansion

As the British Government progressively disengaged from Palestine, and the United Nations was unable to replace it as an effective governing authority, the Zionist movement moved to establish control over the territory of the nascent Jewish State. At the same time the bordering Arab States made clear that they would intervene.

From writings of Zionist leaders, it is evident that Zionist policy was to occupy, during the period of withdrawal, as much territory as possible (including the “West Bank”) beyond the boundaries assigned to the Jewish State by the partition resolution. A comprehensive military plan, called Plan “D” (or Dalet) was described by an Israeli official:

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-202927/

 

[Trazor]

Unfortunately, there is no realistic solution, where all parties will be satisfied, ever.

 

[fillyboy]

So the UN General Assembly gave away land that it did not own

Interesting point, so who did in fact 'own' Palestine?

The civil war started when the Resolution was passed in November 1947, against the objections of the Arab League, Palestine/ Transjordan was not represented. The civil war continued until the British left and the Arab League became involved (May 1948)
Both the Arab League, and the Jews had declared their intention to enforce/resist the Resolution by violence.
Indeed the Jews declared their 'right' to the whole of Palestine.

Wrong, the 'Jews' declared their right to the portion of Palestine as declared in UN resolution 181, something many Palestinians today accept as 'fair'.

Also interestingly, the partition plan voted for in the Resolution 181, enjoyed the support and guarantee of the UN:

Surely any UN resolution enjoys the support of the UN?

Interestingly, the British were well aware of the opposition of the Palestinians to the Partition of Palestine.
Maybe that was why they abstained from the resolution 181 vote.
In a written submission to the UN, by the British:

The British were fed up with the whole situation, they just wanted to wash their hands of it. What's wrong with that?, dealing with arabs an be exasperating.

 

[Koolpc]

It really isn't just that simple.

I don't condone those attacks, but you have to go back further.

Neither side is right, nor fully wrong

You could keep going back hundreds of years. It still doesnt matter. Hamas started the war we have now by attacking last year!!

 

[transam]

Isreal got there man the head of a designated terrorist group supported / funded by the mad mullers in Tehran a proxy organisation who are controlled by the mad mullers in Tehran

Good riddance to bad rubbish I say ( joe agrees as would trump )

Blimey they are having a bad few weeks
Leaders bumped off in Iran as well

Pagers and phones blowing up