I do not use Wikipedia - I prefer authoritative sources Article 22 Covenant of the League of Nations: Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. Selective readings of international laws do not constitute a fact. Where is there a single legal claim for the Arabs to the land? Why has that been ignored? Are you afraid to answer that?

I see your problem more clearly now. You are confusing League of Nations covenants - which are anyhow open to interpretation - and suchlike with international laws. No ethnic or national group has a 'legal' claim to any land. Which court exactly would make such a judgement? Groups of people may support their claims to reside in a land on the basis of their reading of history (e.g. Israel) or on the basis of religion (e.g. the Pilgrim Fathers in America). In principle I can't see a problem with that. Of course other groups may also stake similar claims to reside on the same lands on the same bases. Historically, this has been worked out through conflict, war, negotiation, partition, agreement, etc. But legally? Do me a favour.

Since you continue to claim it's only a land deal, how come peace hasn't happened years ago? Surely they could agree on borders if it was just about land. The fact is it is about much more than land. The Muslims demand the holiest piece of "land" in the world- Jerusalem, plus they continuously deny Jews have any connection to it. This is about their god- allah and wanting to stamp out the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The reason they refuse to accept Israel's right to exist is because they believe they are forever entitled to any land they once controlled. Never mind there is unquestionable proof Jewish connection to Jerusalem predated Islam by 2,700 years, as my piece states. They use history but only as far back as it suits their agenda. They deny facts as the article states. Also, if it was really only about land, how come the Six Day War took place when there was no "occupation/settlements" and no Jewish control over the Old City. Your arguement is just plain dirt.

appr. twice as much as the USA president earns. In additoon, the ones close to him, I persume, have surely high abnormal monthly salaries. Much of the money sent to the PA disappear, get stolen, and put into bank accounts in Switzerland and other countries. So why would they stop to put preconditions? They are living on other countries tax payers money. In addition to this, they have already a "homeland - Jordan.

Perhaps we overstate the power and influence of Abbas.

Arab world claims yo care about their "brethren ", but for 65 years they prefer their "brethren" live amongst them in refugee camps. Look at Lebanon!

You finished your post by writing: "But legally ? Do me a favour". Now its your turn to do a favour, and not only you, and stop accusing Israel of violating International Law, based on a HOAX, a misinterpretation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1946. Do me a favour !

The BASIC REALITY is there is no such thing as "international law" as most people think about "law." The ONLY thing there is, are a set of TEMPORARY agreements that become null and void anytime one or more of the parties to the agreement decides the agreement is over. So all this talk of San Remo, the League of nations , etc is just hog wash and totally meaningless, especially sine the Arabs, one of the MAJOR parties, were NEVER part of any agreement. The UK, LoN and all the rest had no ability to make any agreements concerning the Arabs. BTW - if you think "international laws" are so real, think about all the "international laws" G. W. Bush gleefully ignored and notice that there is no world court to take any disagreements to. That is why Israel has never tried to "enforce" San Remo - one will listen or will side with the Arabs over the UK and Israel (although I doubt the UK would even try to defend the indefensible). There is no "legal" basis for Israel. Israel is a basic "might makes right" forcible colonization, which now has to deal with its future.

The basic situation is: (1) there is a chunk of land bounded by Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and the Med Sea. This chunk of land can not be increased in size. (2) This chunk of land is claimed by two distinct groups. (3) About half of group "A" can easily move to other places on the globe, but the rest are stuck on the chunk of land. (4) Most of group "B" has no other place to go as no other place on earth will take them. (5) Based on game theory and human behavior for the last 10,000+ years there are ONLY THREE OPTIONS (6) DIVIDE the land fairly - the so-called two-state option. That is, Israel will have to give up lots of land, water, cash for compensation and apologies for their actions for the last 60+ years. The Arabs will have to gracefully accept the land, water, cash and apologies. (7) SHARE the land - the so-called one-state option. that is, every humans on the chunk of land will be EQUAL and the government will be non-religious and elected by all (8) or, a massive fight to the death which the Israelis will probably lose because all wars require lots of bodies, war toys and wealth and Israel has very few of each. So let your egos stall negotiations and let it be settled by war, or NEGOTIATE without preconditions. Your choice, but the DIVIDE option is rapidly becoming non-viable, leaving only SHARE or war with lots of dead. So choose your future wisely.

And while your fears may be well founded they are irrelevant to pre-conditions. Your demands will probably included in any peace deal if it gets that far. But they are not reasonable pre-conditions. You might argue that the Palestinians are not negotiating in good faith, but then your only option is to cancel all agreements and the Israeli gov't isn't there yet.

The Convenant of the League of Nations IS INTERNATIONAL LAW. The UN and ICJ both have explicitly stated that fact. Try getting your information from a better source than Wikipedia

If any state is to be "shared", it will be Jordan. Jordan already occupies nearly 80% of the Jewish Homeland. "Palestinian" poseurs must go.

First of all, see No. 68. Secondly, we can both play this game. Don't just vaguely say: 'The UN and ICJ have explicitly stated...'. Cite your exact source for this.

the reason you reached nothing was because arafat rejected everything. read bill clinton's biography. he details it very clearly in there. there was an offer to withdraw from 97% of the land. arafat rejected it not because it wasn't enough land, but because, as bill clinton said, he couldn't "go back to his people" and make that compromise to end the conflict. i think you are very confused about who is disillusioned about negotiations. israel has negotiated with the egyptians and jordanians and respected those treaties to the letter. israelis were very enthusiastic about peace negotiations. then they failed and a clearly obvious terrorist campaign was directed against israel. that turned off a whole generation of israelis from negotiations. the palestinians could get a deal where they could get a state and israel would respect the conditions, and they know it. but that is not enough. why? because of the idea that the palestinians have been "wronged" and there must be "justice". so nothing is enough. so if nothing is enough, then you will get nothing. because apparently, that is enough.

Try UN Charter Article 80. That is explicit. The International Court of Justice in an advisory opinion on the effect of article 80 in the Namibia case on 21 June 1971: “When the League of Nations was dissolved, the raison d’etre and original object of these obligations remained. Since their fulfillment did not depend on the existence of the League, they could not be brought to an end merely because the supervisory organ had ceased to exist. … The International Court of Justice has consistently recognized that the Mandate survived the demise of the League [of Nations.” Are those explicit enough for you?

Its obvious that Abbas is stalling for time, ( Bibi has been accused), until the Arab world agrees to come to the aid of the Palie cause signifanctly, and the US looks away.. Typically,, Arab unity, is lacking, with the Spring, turning into a disaster. But for decades this has been the geopolitics. Nassers natinalism, then Sadats treaty, then Mubaraks cold peace, then the Morsi attempt for a MB dictatorhsip and now thegenerals..all have influenced Egyptian and Arab thinking and actions agin Israel.The Pales impatient, started the Infifadas and threaten more, always. The latest tactic is the pre condition..rather than simply talking it over...both sides know the borders, with E.Jerusalem the only real hurdle. That one is a doozy...maybe it should be like nYCity..boroughts? With separate police, fire, etc. Or the Allon Plan with modificatins? Hamas will never agree to the above, and Hez is waiting for the right moment. Iran's nukes,,..will eventually have to be stopped. or the world will live with it. Lots of problems. Maybe no solution? But, Arab and Jew cannot live together..one state. 2 states is also the lesser of evils...or Jordan could take it over..at their risk. Egypt is embroiled now..but this will end. Or,Israel could wipe out Hamas/Hez if allowed to fight fully. Then there is Syria..with 26m people..and struggling to find itself. From Israels standpoint..it must insure its security no matter the borders, tempory or not. It will be a garrison state forever...and living there will always be risky. Or Israel could buy 8,000 square miles in Canada...pay for it.and relocate there.

re: Jordan: it will never accept 3m Arabs more...thats a non starter. After 67, Israel should have moved them out. Too late now. But Israel needs to study its history. There will never be peace there...just as Sunni vs Shia wont agree, cept to kill one another. Israel is just too small to change the demography..2m Jews moving there is unlikely,and would not solve the matter. Israeli compromises are demanded by the world, which would not lead to peace, never. The right of return is a stickler..as is Jerusalem. The Arabs want parts of W. Jerusalem too. It also has Chardi problems..galore, which is dividing the country. Destroying Hamas/Hez is one answer..and not backing off. They are surrogates of Iran/s\syria.only. This is a people problem that wont go away. As with the Koreas..maybe no solution. ?

Is it explicit enough for me, you ask? Of course it isn't. Your quotation is about survival of LoN mandates - and in any case this about an ICJ advisory opinion. Tell me where it says explicitly that the Covenant of the LoN is international law?

A treaty signed by over 50 nations is an international law.

From your many writings I have to assume that you think the miniscule state of Israel with, at best, 4 million cannon fodder, a small number of war toys and relatively small wealth, will win over the opponents that have all three in vastly more quantities. Sure, Israel could use its nukes, but that is the same as losing because Israel would cease to exist. As I noted in #69, your inflated ego and extreme hubris is sending you down a losing path. Israel can NOT "win" by force. Israel will have to negotiate and deal with reality not delusions and wishful thinking. Jordan is NOT your savior.

I think you missed the main point. The first point if for them to "drop all their preconditions, period." However, if they are foolish enough to maintain them I came up with list of Israel's because they are appropriate as long as the "Palestinians" maintain theirs. Secondly, part of why I suggest Israel have their own is to show how absurd it is to have preconditions, which may cause him to drop his. Thus there's a little implied sarcasm. If you read my previous piece in Ynet called "Why PA sets preconditions" it explains why they do not want to negotiate.

190 countries signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Israel did not. Following your argument, Israel is in contravention of international law. Much as I disagree with Israel on this matter I don't think it is.

#80. You can stop the melodrama, Skyguy. Maybe get a little spyguy kit they sell in the toy department of many large stores... I don't advocate "war to the death". I advocate another Israeli victory over "Palestinian" poseurs. By your ridiculous logic Israel defeated the whole world is ALL her glorious victories. This time Israel will assure her victory over "Palestinian" poseurs has permanent consequences. It will end all phony "Palestinian" claims on Israeli land. It will begin the process of massive "Palestinian" departure from Israel. Israel could foster massive "Palestinian" departure simply by ending all obscene support for evil Fictional Palestine in the form of food, money, materials and electricity.

Your first two "options" are non-options. 1. The apologies should come from the arabs. Typical of you and others to speak as if history began only 60 years ago. You ignore the reality that the arabs started all the wars, including killing Jews before a re-born Israel was even thought of. 2. The muslim arabs have shown that they cannot live in a non-religious environment. They kill each other to make 'their' shade of Isam THE religion. 3. The result of either would be a massive fight to the death. Once again, you ignore reality. No thank you.

I have serious issue with that question. You do not know what an international law is. You do not know what the San Remo Treaty says. You do not know what the Covenant of the League of Nations states. You do not know what the UN Charter states. You do not even know what the NPT states. All of them are available on line to read - try reading at least one of them. Yes the NPT IS INTERNATIONAL LAW. If you were intelligent enough to read it - it states EXPLICITLY that is only applies to those countries that have signed it. So no Israel is not in contravention of international law and yes it is international law for the signatories. Why is reading the documents such a hard concept for you?

Read the Mandate. It specifies the creation of a Palestinian State with Palestinian citizenship for Jews and Arabs. Israel's independence as a separate state was made possible by the partition plan. The plan called for dividing the territory west of the Jordan into TWO states. All of the documents you mention provide Arabs who resided here at the time with equal rights, including the right to self-determination. Neither the British, the LoN, nor even Chaim Weitzmann agrees that "Homeland" means an independent state. South Africa also set up tribal "homelands" --they were not states. Read the Churchill White paper which informed the LoN vote and the official Zionist representatives response. I am tired of you and your ilk. Go to the settlements and take your chances with the Palestinians. I and other Israelis will not kill and die for you anymore. You, Chaim, Sarah B and the poor suckers who follow you have won. You have broken my spirit. If you are the new generation of Jews then we are all better off dead.

Precisely. So if there are countries - or countries yet to come into existence - which are not signatories to the San Remo Treaty, Covenant of the LoN, etc. such 'international law' does not apply to them either. No disagreement.

There is no exemption in the San Remo Treaty or Covenant of the League of Nations. You really should try reading them before proving to us that you have no clue. The NPT HAS an exemption for non-signatories. Neither the San Remo Treaty or the League of Nations has such an exemption. All three are international law.

The partition plan violated Article 80 of the UN Charter and was a RECOMMENDATION only. All of those documents EXPLICITLY stated that the Arabs DID NOT have the right to self-determination. They said it. They had civil and religious rights only. The LoN was explicit in Article 22 that YES INDEPENDENT NATION. It said so. You are lying at every single statement. Not one of those laws agrees with anything you posted. You are a LIAR!!!!! We that have served at tired of protecting lying morons that are too afraid to stand up and tell the truth.

Do you think that capital letters and lots of exclamation points make your comment appear more intelligent? They don't -- and it equally clear that not sufficiently educated or qualified in international law. The majority of the world's legal authorities agree with On the Balcony. The occupied territories belong to the State of Palestine and the settlements are illegal under international law. Name calling and exclamation points will not change this. Today's decision of the EU is but the beginning.