Too little too late?


By Advis3r
May 27, 2011
Share

As reported by the Jerusalem Post.

An international group of some 60 attorneys, including former Foreign Ministry legal adviser Alan Baker, has appealed to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to prevent a General Assembly resolution on unilateral Palestinian statehood, based on the pre-1967 lines.

In a letter dated Wednesday, the attorneys noted that such a resolution would be a violation of all past agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. They added that it would also contravene UN resolutions 242 and 338.

According to the attorneys, the legal basis for the establishment of the state by the League of Nations in 1922 affirmed its presence on territories that included Judea, Samaria, and what is now east Jerusalem.

“This was subsequently affirmed by both houses of US Congress,” the attorneys stated.

According to Article 80 of the UN Charter, the attorneys said, rights granted to all states or people by already existing international instruments – including those adopted by the League of Nations – remain valid.

As a result, the attorneys said, the “650,000 Jews [who] presently reside in the areas of Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem, reside there legitimately.”

The 1949 Armistice Agreement stated that these lines “are without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines, or to claims of either Party relating thereto,” the attorneys said. Therefore, they said, “the 1967 borders” do not exist, and have never existed.

Past resolutions have called for a negotiated solution to the conflict, the attorneys affirmed.

Additionally, attempts to unilaterally change the status of the territory would be a breach of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the attorneys said.

When the Palestinians agreed to the Oslo Accords, they knew that the settlements existed and would be one of the issues that would be negotiated during talks for a permanent-status arrangement, the attorneys said.

The Olso Accords did not limit settlement activity, they added.

COMMENTS

Rich Armbach

27 May, 2011 - 10:10

Rate this:

0 points

Not very scholarly lawyers if they think Ki-Moon can prevent anything

Rich Armbach

27 May, 2011 - 10:10

Rate this:

0 points

Getting a tad worried are we ?

Advis3r

27 May, 2011 - 11:57

Rate this:

0 points

Worried! Fool! Ever heard of the saying possession is nine tenths of the law?
You can obfuscate, muddy the waters and lie all you want Judea and Samaria was, is and will part of the Jewish Homeland long after you are just a microscopic footnote in history - live with it.

Joe Millis

27 May, 2011 - 12:00

Rate this:

0 points

"Advis3r", I know you can't help yourself, but using Blacklisted Dictator/Jose/Anthony Posner's phraseology is a dead giveaway. Now, go and check when Shabbat starts so you can use another alias.

Advis3r

27 May, 2011 - 12:04

Rate this:

0 points

As to your idiotic comment that the lawyers are not very scholarly if they believe Ban can prevent anything.

I suggest you read this before making such ignorant statements:
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5002070071
From which I quote:
"In addition to being chief administrative officer of the UN and the world's top diplomat, he is an influential participant in the legal discourse that infuses much of global politics. Despite the defeat of the proposed amendment to Article 99, this is a role the SG has played (and could not help but play) since the earliest days of the UN. He is a key member of an interpretive community associated with the implementation and elaboration of charter-based law. With little formal authority and no material power, the SG's influence depends largely on his persuasive powers. That influence, moreover, is wielded within an institutional and normative context that he helps shape."

Watchful Iris

27 May, 2011 - 12:10

Rate this:

0 points

Maybe Jonathan could organise an online petition?

JonOtway

27 May, 2011 - 12:12

Rate this:

0 points

None of that includes the power to prevent the General Assembly from debating a resolution.

Advis3r

27 May, 2011 - 12:12

Rate this:

0 points

Millis when is your appointment with the psychiatrist? Soon I hope.
Trying to deflect arguments by accusing the poster of being someone he is not or pitifully trying to belittle him (quite unsuccessfully) is pathetic. If you have nothing intelligent to say which evidently is most of the time, why do you even bother?

Advis3r

27 May, 2011 - 12:14

Rate this:

0 points

They may not be able to prevent the Assembly debating a resolution but as has been shown in the past the SG can influence the outcome of that debate.

Jon.

27 May, 2011 - 12:18

Rate this:

0 points

Or a protest.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

LATEST COMMENTS