Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DarinK]

One could disagree with the idea that something granted by the League of Nations must last for all eternity, never to be revoked.  

[Lovely]

DarinK wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 13:02

One could disagree with the idea that something granted by the League of Nations must last for all eternity, never to be revoked.

"One" could disagree with any idea he chooses to disagree with, but not according to international law:

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), article 70:

Quote:

Consequences of the termination of a treaty 1. Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the present Convention: (a) ... ...(b) does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.

Charter of the United Nations, article 80:

Quote:

...nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.

[Hallams]

Lovely wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 00:07

Hallams wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 01:21 Something a bit smelly here: ...Israel subsidises over 100 settlements in the West Bank in defiance of international law. Smelly indeed, because according to international law the West Bank is part of the Jewish national home. The right to settle in the West Bank was granted by the League of Nations specifically to the Jews, and thus can never be revoked. Short history: The area known as "Palestine" was part of the Turkish Empire until its capitulation in WW1, then sovereignty was passed to the League of Nations, which appointed Britain to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine. The Arabs rebelled against the British Mandate and attacked the Jews. The British gave up and left, leaving Palestine as 'no man's land' with no sovereignty. In Response the state of Israel was established and immediately attacked by the local Arabs and the neighboring states. In this conflict the West Bank was invaded and illegally occupied by Jordan (according to international law land cannot be acquired by war) for 19 years, until 1967 when Israel was attacked (again) by its neighboring states, and (again) defeated them. ...So when Israel "subsidises over 100 settlements in the West Bank", it's not "in defiance of international law", quite the opposite, because according to the League of Nations' resolution it has a right to settle Jews in the West Bank. THIS is the (international) legal status of the West Bank, FYI. Here a quote from the League of Nations' document: Quote: Preamble: The Council of the League of Nations: Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and ...confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows: ...ART. 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

Re your selective quote of my post and the Crikey article:
The west bank settlement might be a contentious issue and the one you take acception to in the Crikey article. The point i was referring to in the article was the withholding of funds from Wickileaks by Visa, Mastercard while funds have never been stoped to the groups mentioned in the article..... here is the rest of the article that should illistrate my point:
[Quote From the Crikey Article]
The Shuva Israel group, an evangelical Christian group based in Texas, is accused by Israeli group Gush Shalom of channelling money to fund the illegal West Bank settlement of Revava. You can donate to it, says the Shuva Israel website, via Mastercard, Visa and Paypal.

* The One Israel Fund, used as an example in the International Crisis Group report, boasts of being “the largest North American charity whose efforts are dedicated solely to the citizens and communities of Yesha”. You can donate to the One Israel Fund, according to its website, via Mastercard, Visa and Amex.

* The website of another right-wing Christian group, the Christian Friends of Israeli Communities describes support for settlements like Argaman, which are illegal under international law. You can donate, their website says, via Mastercard, Visa and PayPal.

* One of the highest-profile groups is the Hebron Fund, the centre of a 2009 row when the New York Mets were criticised for hosting a fundraising dinner for the group. It provides extensive support for the extraordinarily aggressive Hebron settlement, described by one Israeli group as “an ongoing war crime”, while the Fund itself has been linked to praise for an Israeli mass murderer. According to its website, it receives donations via all major credit cards.

* Worst of all is the extremist SOS Israel group, which has incurred even the wrath of the Israeli Defence Force by rewarding Israeli soldiers who disobey orders to evict settlers from illegal outposts (i.e. inciting mutiny), and which has offered a bounty for Palestinians shot by IDF soldiers. The SOS Israel website describes a number of ways you can make your “generous donation” to it, including credit cards. Crikey’s token $2 donation via a Visa card was successful last night.

At this stage WikiLeaks has breached no international law and no laws of any country, but Mastercard, Visa and PayPal have all blacklisted it. All three continue to enable the support of settlements that are in breach of international law, in some cases of Israeli law, and in defiance of US policy on settlements under successive Republican and Democrat administrations.

Crikey invited Visa, Paypal and Mastercard to comment but none had responded by deadline. [end Quote]

None of these groups have had funding with held. The issue i really find interesting is what is wickileaks and the surrounding reactions by interested or affected interest groups and power brokers....... hysteria is an appropriate word.....I am not wanting to single out the US or the Israeli cause..... I am equally dismayed at the reaction of Julia Gillard our PM although our EX PM the current foreign minister,Kevin Rudd,  has had a more well thought out response.
 

[DarinK]

Lovely wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 12:35

DarinK wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 13:02 One could disagree with the idea that something granted by the League of Nations must last for all eternity, never to be revoked.   "One" could disagree with any idea he chooses to disagree with, but not according to international law: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), article 70: Quote: Consequences of the termination of a treaty 1. Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the present Convention: (a) ... ...(b) does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination. Charter of the United Nations, article 80: Quote: ...nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.

Point taken.  Of course, there is this part of the agreement you quoted, "The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced..."  Perhaps there is room for disagreement over whether the treatment of the Palestinians is "prejudiced."  However, that is a large argument for another day, as this is a thread specifically about Wikileaks.  

[Lovely]

Hallams wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 14:49

Re your selective quote of my post and the Crikey article: The west bank settlement might be a contentious issue and the one you take acception to in the Crikey article.

True, IMHO lies should not be promoted by propaganda and false pretexts masquerading as "the public's right to know".  

------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

The point i was referring to in the article was the withholding of funds from Wickileaks by Visa, Mastercard while funds have never been stoped to the groups mentioned in the article..... here is the rest of the article that should illistrate my point:

It all depends on whether the allegations regarding these groups are true, don't you think?

------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Quote From the Crikey Article The Shuva Israel group, an evangelical Christian group based in Texas, is accused by Israeli group Gush Shalom of channelling money to fund the illegal West Bank settlement of Revava. You can donate to it, says the Shuva Israel website, via Mastercard, Visa and Paypal.

Here are the facts:

Quote:

Quote from Wikipedia: The history of the settlement on the ground began in the spring of 1991 when 14 trailers were installed on land purchased by "The Fund for Redeeming the Land", with the assistance of Amana, and with permission from the Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and Minister of Defense Moshe Arens. ...Doubts to the real ownership of the land of the village was dispelled when Peace Now and related activists were convicted by an Israeli court of smearing the village by publishing a false report which claimed that 71% of Revava was built on "stolen" Arab land. The writers of the report tried to compromise and revised that that number down to 22%, but the court sentenced them to pay compensation of NIS 20,000 and print advertisements in two mass market newspapers. The Fund owns 100% of the land that Revava is built on.

...So Revava is a perfectly legal settlement, and the accusations are false.

------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

* The One Israel Fund, used as an example in the International Crisis Group report, boasts of being “the largest North American charity whose efforts are dedicated solely to the citizens and communities of Yesha”. You can donate to the One Israel Fund, according to its website, via Mastercard, Visa and Amex.

"Yesha" is the Hebrew acronym for Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
Israel withdrew from Gaza, so "Judea and Samaria" is just another name for the West Bank.

As I have explained, settling on privately owned Jewish lands in the West Bank is perfectly legal (illegal settlements are only those that were built illegally on lands privately owned by Palestinians) - so there's no crime in being "dedicated solely to the citizens and communities of Yesha", i.e. "citizens and communities in the West Bank".

------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

* The website of another right-wing Christian group, the Christian Friends of Israeli Communities describes support for settlements like Argaman, which are illegal under international law. You can donate, their website says, via Mastercard, Visa and PayPal.

Argaman is a perfectly legal settlement in the Jordan Valley, far from Palestinian cities. No legal problems here either.

------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

* One of the highest-profile groups is the Hebron Fund, the centre of a 2009 row when the New York Mets were criticised for hosting a fundraising dinner for the group. It provides extensive support for the extraordinarily aggressive Hebron settlement, described by one Israeli group as “an ongoing war crime”, while the Fund itself has been linked to praise for an Israeli mass murderer. According to its website, it receives donations via all maj1or credit cards.

The settlement in Hebron is also legal, under the "Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron" between Israel and the Palestinian authority. I won't go into the complicated politics and history of the region, but just FYI Jews have lived in Hebron since the 16th century, until 67 of them were murdered and the rest driven out by the Arabs in 1929.

------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

* Worst of all is the extremist SOS Israel group, which has incurred even the wrath of the Israeli Defence Force by rewarding Israeli soldiers who disobey orders to evict settlers from illegal outposts (i.e. inciting mutiny), and which has offered a bounty for Palestinians shot by IDF soldiers. The SOS Israel website describes a number of ways you can make your “generous donation” to it, including credit cards. Crikey’s token $2 donation via a Visa card was successful last night.

SOS Israel is an extremist group. It did reward Israeli soldiers who disobeyed orders to evict settlers, but this action is legal, being a political protest. Had it been illegal they would have been prosecuted, and they weren't.
This organization did reward one soldier who shot a Palestinian, but what Crikey fails to mention is that "the Palestinian" was a terrorist, armed with a knife and an axe, that arrived at a gas station and started to stab and chop people indiscriminately. The soldier saved many innocent lives that day, and rewarding him with a ceremony and a small token of appreciation (~ $380 US) did not raise any eyebrows.

Describing the group as "offering a bounty for Palestinians shot by IDF soldiers" is just a stupid lie (?) - Israel is a modern democracy (the only one in the Middle East), and its legal system is highly praised in Europe and the US for being extra- activist:
Had they "offered a bounty for Palestinians shot by IDF soldiers" they would have been locked up in no time.

------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

At this stage WikiLeaks has breached no international law and no laws of any country, but Mastercard, Visa and PayPal have all blacklisted it. All three continue to enable the support of settlements that are in breach of international law, in some cases of Israeli law, and in defiance of US policy on settlements under successive Republican and Democrat administrations. Crikey invited Visa, Paypal and Mastercard to comment but none had responded by deadline. [end Quote]

As I have shown here, there was no "breach of international law, in some cases of Israeli law" in the examples quoted by Crikey.  

The only thing "breached" here were Crikey's own journalism ethics, by preaching obvious hostile political propaganda without (in the best case scenario) checking out the facts.

------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

None of these groups have had funding with held. The issue i really find interesting is what is wickileaks and the surrounding reactions by interested or affected interest groups and power brokers....... hysteria is an appropriate word.....I am not wanting to single out the US or the Israeli cause..... I am equally dismayed at the reaction of Julia Gillard our PM although our EX PM the current foreign minister,Kevin Rudd,  has had a more well thought out response.

As you have mentioned, the west bank settlement is a contentious issue, and I'm not going to explain it in this thread. Just FYI, in Israel there's a heated debate about the right solution, with extreme left and right groups preaching propaganda to promote their cause. Much of this propaganda is false, and Israel's enemies are quick to quote these lies as 'facts from Israeli sources', not to mention the lies in the Arab and Muslim propaganda, which is used in order to weaken Israel's international status.

Many extreme left groups in Israel are funded by European countries and the EU itself via NGO's (non-governmental organizations), in an effort to influence Israeli politics, bad form IMO -
Hammas and all other major terrorist groups are also funded by Arab states and Muslim charity organizations, and I assume that all these groups also use "Paypal, Visa and all maj1or credit cards":

However, this is not protested by Crikey, nor did it "invite Visa, Paypal and Mastercard to comment" on this issue.  

With all due respect, don't believe everything you read without checking out the facts first. If you have more questions, I'll be happy to answer.  

[Barkley McKay]

Back On Topic...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/15/julian-assange-b ail-decision-uk


Julian Assange bail decision made by UK authorities, not Sweden

Swedish prosecutor's office says it has 'not got a view at all on bail' and that Britain made decision to oppose it
The decision to have Julian Assange sent to a London jail and kept there was taken by the British authorities and not by prosecutors in Sweden, as previously thought, the Guardian has learned.

The Crown Prosecution Service will go to the high court tomorrow to seek the reversal of a decision to free the WikiLeaks founder on bail, made yesterday by a judge at City of Westminster magistrates court.

It had been widely thought Sweden had made the decision to oppose bail, with the CPS acting merely as its representative. But today the Swedish prosecutor's office told the Guardian it had "not got a view at all on bail" and that Britain had made the decision to oppose bail.

Lawyers for Assange reacted to the news with shock and said CPS officials had told them this week it was Sweden which had asked them to ensure he was kept in prison.

Karin Rosander, director of communications for Sweden's prosecutor's office, told the Guardian: "The decision was made by the British prosecutor. I got it confirmed by the CPS this morning that the decision to appeal the granting of bail was entirely a matter for the CPS. The Swedish prosecutors are not entitled to make decisions within Britain. It is entirely up to the British authorities to handle it."

As a result, she said, Sweden will not be submitting any new evidence or arguments to the high court hearing tomorrow morning. "The Swedish authorities are not involved in these proceedings. We have not got a view at all on bail."

After the Swedish statement was put to the CPS, it confirmed that all decisions concerning the opposing of bail being granted to Assange had been taken by its lawyers. It said: "In all extradition cases, decisions on bail issues are always taken by the domestic prosecuting authority. It would not be practical for prosecutors in a foreign jurisdiction … to make such decisions."

Last week Sweden issued a warrant for Assange's arrest and extradition over sexual assault allegations. On 7 December the British prosecutor, Gemma Lindfield, convinced the senior district court judge Howard Riddle that Assange must be kept in custody because he was a flight risk.

Yesterday the judge accepted that Assange could be released on bail, but he was kept in Wandsworth prison after the CPS said it wanted to appeal against the decision to grant bail to a higher court.

The CPS's formal grounds of appeal for the hearing tomorrow morning, seen by the Guardian, will say that Assange must be kept in prison until a decision is made whether to extradite him, which could take months.

[Samc]

Barkley McKay wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 08:34

Julian Assange bail decision made by UK authorities, not Sweden

Doesn't everybody already know who the real puppet master is in this affair?

[Bill_Urick]

?

[Edvaard]

It is encouraging to see things being said, what needs to be said.


Someone has finally recognized that the US has invented international arm-twisting, and that the rest of the world, France and Britain most especially, have been entirely devoid and unaware of this most useful tactic here prior.

All that endearing outreach to Algeria and South Africa and Vietnam and India with nothing of resemblance to arm-twisting, has been proven to be of the greatest benefit to all concerned, just ask the Algerians and Vietnamese.


But oldies politics and history is just so oldies. I hate oldies stations. It's quite clear that some Europeans hate oldies too, in the political sense, as it takes away from the new and hot trend of "super power bashing," the likes of which were not available in Rome or Paris, when it mattered.

[Edvaard]

Hang the bastard, today. OK, I'm just ignoring for the moment that somebody said "shoot him," but I didn't have a gun.


Some Marine twink spills what somebody intentionally, obviously, tossed his way.

We need to bring back the traditional treatment for such as these sorts.


Valarie Plame:

Case in hand; significant penetration into al Qaeda cell, major operation, through years-long investment into the operation.

Blown in one day by Karl Rove.


Those who say for shooting them are woosies. Garroting by your own hand provides the greatest satisfaction.


(as long as we are on the subject of unhung heroes. just sayin' ... )

[Samc]

Edvaard wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 04:36

Hang the bastard, today. OK, I'm just ignoring for the moment that somebody said "shoot him," but I didn't have a gun. Some Marine twink spills what somebody intentionally, obviously, tossed his way. We need to bring back the traditional treatment for such as these sorts. Valarie Plame: Case in hand; significant penetration into al Qaeda cell, major operation, through years-long investment into the operation. Blown in one day by Karl Rove. Those who say for shooting them are woosies. Garroting by your own hand provides the greatest satisfaction. (as long as we are on the subject of unhung heroes. just sayin' ... )

Are you well?

[Bill_Urick]

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/3352

Ed, is all this just wrong?

Hope you get to feeling better...

[Samc]

Edvaard wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 04:14

Someone has finally recognized that the US has invented international arm-twisting, and that the rest of the world, France and Britain most especially, have been entirely devoid and unaware of this most useful tactic here prior. All that endearing outreach to Algeria and South Africa and Vietnam and India with nothing of resemblance to arm-twisting, has been proven to be of the greatest benefit to all concerned, just ask the Algerians and Vietnamese.

The various and cruel machinations that were used by colonizers and slavers were, and are another matter all together and were not international in scope and reach...like this is.  But this shouldn't need to be explained...
 
If your comprehension skills don't allow you to see the difference between the dastardly acts of colonization and what's happening in this particular 'incident' it's probably a waste of time to debate this with you...

[Samc]

Bill_Urick wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 01:40

?

He's just a cog in the wheel...an important cog, but just a cog.

[Nick Sevilla]

Edvaard wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 20:14

It is encouraging to see things being said, what needs to be said. Someone has finally recognized that the US has invented international arm-twisting, and that the rest of the world, France and Britain most especially, have been entirely devoid and unaware of this most useful tactic here prior. All that endearing outreach to Algeria and South Africa and Vietnam and India with nothing of resemblance to arm-twisting, has been proven to be of the greatest benefit to all concerned, just ask the Algerians and Vietnamese. But oldies politics and history is just so oldies. I hate oldies stations. It's quite clear that some Europeans hate oldies too, in the political sense, as it takes away from the new and hot trend of "super power bashing," the likes of which were not available in Rome or Paris, when it mattered.

Hi Edvaard.

The US has not invented this at all.

This is just typical human behavior, taken into country VS country.

Please go back and read some history, especially early history of man.

If you want a good primer on "natural human behavior" and what it has been for thousands of years, all you need to do is read the Code of Hammurabi.

Here:

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

Enjoy.