Highly intellectually inspired, this Mr. Caddy just carries loyally his Party’s so called message, what else is a Caddy supposed to do.
Trouble is that the “message” reads just like an outdated news bulletin, the “contribution” of the caddy/messenger being NOTHING.

….and these blokes reckon they can “lead” us with virtues of the mental type they reckon are above average !!!!!!

Yeah, they are being polite. So is the doorman at any RSL Club.

Strangely Israel does not present the documents in the UN or before the ICJ to claim the right to dispossess Palestinians.

George

You state:

Re “One can also look at the West Bank and Gaza as the last two remaining areas of the Mandate remaining unallocated between Jews and Arabs whose sovereignty is to be determined.”

Not sure if I grasp this. I don’t see anything to be determined based on International Law.”

Recognition of the West Bank and Gaza as unallocated territory of the Mandate whose sovereignty is to be finally resolved in accordance with the provisions of the objectives of the Mandate – as preserved by article 80 – is the legal view of Rostow and Riebenfeld.

I agree with that view.

Israel and Jordan as the two successor states in 95% of the Mandate territory are the appropriate parties to resolve sovereignty in the remaining 5% – the West Bank and Gaza.

Two peoples – the Jews and the Arabs need two states – not three – in the area of Mandatory Palestine.

David – We are not in disagreement. I am familiar with the Cairo Conference of 1921, and the subsequent (Churchill) White Paper of 1922. I have written extensively of the many offers made to the Arabs from 3 separate juridical entities (UK – Peel), UN (partition) and Israel many times, most recently under Olmert in 2008, a total of 6 such offers, by 3 separate entities, over 3 generations of Arab Leadership. It is clear they don’t want a state, certainly not one that is a subset of former British Mandatory Palestine. I have spread this all over Facebook Advocacy Groups and in two articles published here (URL’s below) and other website (ICJS). I have even used the same words you have, with which I agree wholeheartedly, and repeat:

“The Arabs have rejected compromises offered to this effect in 1937, 1947, 2000 and 2008 (GP: you missed 1967 NO, NO, NO and Taba 2001). They could have had such a territorial allocation of the whole lot between 1948-1967 when not one Jew lived in the West Bank and Gaza.

How many more chances are they to be offered to continue to reject before the world says “enough” “.

As I have said elsewhere, we judge them by their deeds, not by their words. In my first and second articles I also used almost similar language to you, very early (did you read them )?

My second Article (URL below) :
“We note in passing that this UN Resolution was the second of six (6) offers (to date) of Palestinian Arab statehood, the first in 1937, the most recent in 2008. Some might want to ask our opponents why such a State has been rejected so many times, over so many generations of Arab Leadership. The answer might prove interesting. Since deeds speak louder than words, it appears that they do no want one, not one that is a subset of former British Mandatory Palestine. And indeed they say it themselves when they spruik “Palestine from the River to the Sea”.

I am also familiar with the “alleged” reasons for Transjordan, to wit:
1)Alleged fulfillment of McMahon’s promises to Hashemite Sherif Hussein as payback for the so-called Arab Revolt against the Turks (the Lawrence of Arabia theatrics),
2) Not wanting France to have the total land mass from Syria to Saudi Arabia (and so, to the Red sea)
3) The untimely ouster of Feisal from Syria, and
4) subsequent threat by Abdullah to march on Syria subsequent to the above, a war the British neither needed not wanted.
A plethora of reasons. I will say that this is a complex and muddy area, worthy of an entirely separate discussion.

For the record , here is Grief, 2004:
“The 1920 (Franco-British Boundary) Convention also included Transjordan in the area of the Jewish National Home, but a surprise last-minute intervention by the US government unnecessarily delayed the confirmation of the pending Mandate. This gave an unexpected opportunity to Winston Churchill, the new Colonial Secretary placed in charge of the affairs of Palestine, to change the character of the Mandate: first, by having a new article inserted (Article 25) which allowed for the provisional administrative separation of Transjordan from Cisjordan; second, by redefining the Jewish National Home to mean not an eventual independent Jewish state but limited to a cultural or spiritual center for the Jewish people. These radical changes were officially introduced in the Churchill White Paper of June 3, 1922 and led directly to the sabotage of the Mandate. Thereafter, the British never departed from the false interpretation they gave to the Jewish National Home which ended all hope of achieving the envisaged Jewish state under their auspices.”

In any case its not pertinent to the issues of “Occupied Territory”, “Illegal Settlements” and 4 Geneva Convention, which started this thread, and were also the exclusive subject of my second article. I really do know all of this, but I can’t repeat it all in every Forum – you’ll just have to take my word for it.

I am not 100% sure that the 1922 Memorandum was to justify the severance of Transjordan. There was always controversy from the time of Balfour 1917 of the phrase “in Palestine”. Once again, it belongs in another discussion – this thread, as I see it, is about the borders of Palestine ex-Transjordan. As I see it, no Jews is claiming that land today. I continue to maintain, as above, there is no question however, that all of current Israel, Gaza, Judea and Samaria were irrevocably granted to the Jews, and never overturned by any binding instrument. No Occupied Territory, No Illegal Settlements, No Violation of Geneva Convention, and finally, and most important, no need or basis in Law, for a second Arab State in Palestine.

Regardless, the severance of Transjordan was but the first in a long line of efforts to undermine and sabotage the spirit of the Mandate, followed by Peel partition proposal, the infamous White Paper of 1939, the refusal to accept refugees in post WW2, and much more. In passing the the UN GA Res 181 (a “recommendation”, only) is a total outrage, offering a subset of the Jews full entitlement under the Mandate. To this day, I wonder why people get so excited about it, yet another undermining of the League Mandate.

Re “One can also look at the West Bank and Gaza as the last two remaining areas of the Mandate remaining unallocated between Jews and Arabs whose sovereignty is to be determined.”

Not sure if I grasp this. I don’t see anything to be determined based on International Law. Israel might – in an act of collective national suicide – choose to to give them away as it did in 2000 and 2008 (luckily rejected, else there’d be no State of Israel today), but it is under no binding legal obligation to do so, there is absolutely no question of sovereignty (as there was in Sinai, by way of contrast). I and many other scholars have tried make this point, irrefutably.

As you can see, I am totally opposed to the so-called Two State Solution (TSS) – there already is a second State, and and Arab State – in Arab-Palestine as of 1921. That this is not a “Palestinian State” is hardly a problem of the Jews making. It may well even be the solution. (but again, another issue).

Also, I prefer the terms Judea and Samaria for the reasons I have given here (even UN GA Res 181 does!). If Jews can’t do this, they are accepting the Palestinian propaganda (aka narrative, aka discourse). Next, we’ll be calling Jerusalem Al Quds.

Calling things by their right names – Judea and Samaria

http://www.icjs-online.org/index.php?article=5122

I recommend the articles I have written, and have added a paper by Howard Grief, and a book, Palestine Betrayed (i.e betrayed by its own successive generations of leadership), which covers the true story of 1947/48 and beyond. Karsh is a hero of the Jewish People. They both are. We have extensive discussion on these matter Facebook ICJS page, ICJS website and elsewhere.

First here is Part 1 of a series I wrote (2011) (easy to read, only 2 pages, more Op Ed style):
http://www.jwire.com.au/featured-articles/palestine-the-unending-conflict/33358

And Part 2, much longer and technical on post WW2 matters pertaining to International Law (by necessity, technical):

http://www.jwire.com.au/featured-articles/palestine-the-unending-conflict-part-2-writes-george-peters/36059

Howard Grief:

Legal Rights and Title of Sovereignty of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel and Palestine under International Law

http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/02-issue/grief-2.htm

and the superb Efraim Karsh:

Palestine Betrayed

http://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Betrayed-Efraim-Karsh/dp/0300127278/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1377149233&sr=1-1&keywords=palestine+betrayed

Finally, as an American citizen (dual) and also an avid student of American History, I am also prepared to take Carr on that matter (for the record however, my own personal specialty happens to be the Holocaust. Mid East somewhere behind that).

Thank You.

George

A few words of caution.

The Churchill White Paper June 1922 should be read by you.

The following quote is particularly appurtenant to your comment:

“Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become “as Jewish as England is English.” His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.'”

This was to be the justification for denying the Jewish National Home to be reconstituted in 78% of the Mandate for Palestine by the inclusion of article 25 in the Mandate document.

It was a political decision made by Britain to accommodate the French request to stop Abdullah – and an armed band accompanying him – in Transjordan on the way to Damascus to help his brother Feisal in his struggle with the French.

One can certainly construe that having set aside 78% of Mandatory Palestine for an exclusively Arab state – the remaining 22% – today’s Israel, the West Bank and Gaza – was slated to become the Jewish National Home – as you claim.

One can also look at the West Bank and Gaza as the last two remaining areas of the Mandate remaining unallocated between Jews and Arabs whose sovereignty is to be determined.

I take the latter view as the most appropriate way to try and end the Jewish-Arab conflict..

The Arabs have rejected compromises offered to this effect in 1937, 1947, 2000 and 2008. They could have had such a territorial allocation of the whole lot between 1948-1967 when not one Jew lived in the West Bank and Gaza.

How many more chances are they to be offered to continue to reject before the world says “enough”?

Bob Carr may be an avid student of American history.

His performance at the Lakemba Mosque indicates he has no real knowledge of the history of Palestine but has become captive to Arab propaganda that has sought to rewrite history as though it never happened.

Bob Carr with his Lakemba Mosque Declaration seems to indicate that our Foreign Minister is prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to involve the Prime Minister and the Labor Party in tying itself to a policy that Jews have no legal right to live in the West Bank – when the Churchill White Paper made it very clear they did.

Rita – short, sweet and all true.

David – thanks, I think we are in general agreement.
Having written a long Article on this subject (below), and once again reviewed the Primary and Secondary sources, one thing can be stated with absolute certainty, insofar as International Law is concerned (and while a boring subject, it is the basis of much of the delegitimization of Israel). This is quite extraordinary actually, as there is very little that can be stated with such certainty when it comes to International Law, typically a filed clouded in uncertainty and grey zones.

The various post WW1 Treaties, Mandates, Conventions and Agreements quoted in my article irrevocably grant all of Former British Mandatory Palestine (excluding the severed Emirate of Transjordan) as the reconstituted Jewish National Home. This includes Gaza, Judea and Samaria, in addition to the current truncated State of Israel. They have never been negated by any subsequent supercessionary binding legal instrument, au contraire, they are enshrined in UN Charter Article 80.

This in itself puts the lie to the myths of “Occupied Territory”, or “Illegal Settlements”, and by implication, the inapplicability of 4th Geneva Convention of 1949. (How can you transfer population to your own land?)

I have also gone into the Laws and Customs of War (Hague II), Peace Treaties (Jordan), League Mandates and other matters to prove this case, and will not repeat them here (can read the article).

Certainly Israel has shot itself in the foot more than once, providing abundant ammunition to our opponents (both within and outside Israel), not least being the failure to annex the illegally taken lands after their re-capture in 1967, based on flawed advice from “Military Advocate-General, Meir Shamgar, later the President of the Supreme Court of Israel, in particular, Articles 42 and 43 of the Hague Regulations.” (Howard Grief, 2010), Begin’s proposal of granting limited autonomy to residents of Gaza, Judea and Samaria, followed by the most catastrophic policy failure in Israel’s history, the delusions of Oslo.

On this greatest of fiascoes, from a psychiatrist’s perspective, please see:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Oslo-Syndrome-Delusions-People/dp/157525557X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377098718&sr=8-1&keywords=the+oslo+syndrome

The article I wrote can be found on this website, URL below, and I strongly recommend that people take the trouble to read Howard Grief on this matter, probably the leading expert on this far too tortured subject.

http://www.jwire.com.au/featured-articles/palestine-the-unending-conflict-part-2-writes-george-peters/36059

Thank you.

Ian

Congratulations on a great initiative by you to write to a Labor candidate posing the four questions Labor needs to answer.

Even Mr Caddy acknowledges that the reply he sent you fails to deal with the four questions you asked.
I feel sorry for him being let down by his Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister.

One can only assume that this confirms that the policy announced at the Lakemba Mosque was made on the run.

Perhaps a few other readers should be asking their local Labor candidates the same four questions to see what response they get.

Ben David

Here you go again Ben David

Stigmatizing the Mandate and article 80 argument as “a writ large for the right wing settler movement”and saying the letter signed by 1000 signatories” carries little weight against a 100 page ICJ opinion” is a poor attempt by you to mislead readers.

For the record:

1 The 100 page ICJ judgement never considered the Mandate and article 80 argument for one simple reason – the ICJ was not even provided with copies of the Mandate and article 80 in the dossier of documents submitted to the ICJ by then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Like the DFAT advice – the ICJ provided its opinion on only half the law.

2. The Mandate and article 80 argument was considered by the ICJ in another case in 1971 which concluded:

“As indicated earlier, with the entry into force of the Charter of the United Nations a relationship was established between all Members of the United Nations on the one side, and each mandatory Power on the other. The mandatory Powers while retaining their mandates assumed, under Article 80 of the Charter, vis-à-vis all United Nations Members, the obligation to keep intact and preserve, until trusteeship agreements were executed, the rights of other States and of the peoples of mandated territories, which resulted from the existing mandate agreements and related instruments …”

I hope you don’t characterise the ICJ as part of the right wing settler movement.

Your attempt to denigrate the 1000 signatories to the Ashton letter as carrying little weight because the letter has relied on the 1971 Advisory Opinion of the ICJ shows again highlights the shallowness of your claims.

I have previously trashed your argument regarding Berman’s article and don’t intend to do that again.

The ICJ has spoken clearly on the Mandate and article 80 in its 1971 decision – and Jewish settlement in the West Bank finds continuing support for Jews to legally live there pursuant to such provisions.

DFAT has chosen to ignore the 1971 Advisory opinion.

I wonder why.

It would have made more sense for them to consider it and dismiss it as irrelevant and give reasons for coming to that conclusion.

The suspicion is they never considered it because they were simply unaware of its existence.

The lightweight appears to be DFAT – not the 1000 signatories to the Ashton letter.