Palestinians Punch Hole In Apartheid Wall To Mark Berlin Wall Anniversary

[Purveyor]

Palestinian activists affiliated with local popular resistance committees in the villages northwest of Jerusalem on Saturday broke open a hole in the separation wall to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

"No matter how high walls are built, they will fall. Just as the Berlin Wall fell, the wall in Palestine will fall, along with the occupation," the popular committees said in a statement.

The activists said that their aim in destroying the wall was also to stress that Jerusalem is an Arab and Palestinian city, and that neither the construction of the separation wall nor Israeli military reinforcement could prevent Palestinians from reaching Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa mosque.

The activists also called upon Palestinians to unite and take part in the battle for Jerusalem, and to defend the al-Aqsa mosque and all Islamic and Christian holy sites.

They also called upon people to be ready to take part in the "intifada" of Jerusalem, which they said would be "the final, fateful intifada to liberate Palestine."

MORE...

http://www.albawaba.com/news/palestinians-punch-hole-aperthied-wall-mark-berlin-wall-anniversary-620469

[oberliner]

1. "... to stress that Jerusalem is an Arab and Palestinian city"

The ridiculousness of a statement like that should be self-evident.

[Scootaloo]

2. I.e., you can't actually fault it, so you dismiss it

Jerusalem - all of Jerusalem - is an occupied Palestinian city. Has been since 1948. Just because israel really wants it to be israel, doesn't actually make it so.

Well.

Unless you believe might makes right.

[oberliner]

3. "Jerusalem - all of Jerusalem - is an occupied Palestinian city. Has been since 1948."

It's important for people to realize that this is the POV held by the BDS-ers and their allies.

[Scootaloo]

4. Also by Israel itself

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/B4085A930E0529C98025649D00410973

Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947. In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard. The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/mfadocuments/yearbook1/pages/2%20jerusalem%20declared%20israel-occupied%20city-%20governm.aspx

IV. JERUSALEM AND THE HOLY PLACES


2. Jerusalem Declared Israel-Occupied City, Government Proclamation, Official Gazette, No. 12, 2 August 1948:

From March until June 1948, Jerusalem was besieged by Arab irregulars and the Jordanian Arab Legion from the north, west and east; Egyptian troops attempted to break through from the southern approaches. The Old City fell on 28 May. In June, at the cost of many casualties, Israel finally succeeded in re-establishing a link with the city and lifted the siege. On 26 July, the United Nations Mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, visited Jerusalem and conferred there with Foreign Minister Sharett. He suggested the demilitarisation of Jerusalem. On 2 August, the Government of Israel rejected the suggestion and decided to declare the Jerusalem area under its control as Israel-occupied territory. Dr. Dov Joseph was appointed Military Governor. Text of the Government proclamation:



Israel Defence Forces Administration in Jerusalem Proclamation No. 1

Whereas the area of Jerusalem, including most of the city, part of its environment and western approaches, is held by the Defence Army of Israel which is under my authority; and whereas the Defence Army of Israel is duty bound to maintain in the administered area public safety and security and to preserve law and order;

Therefore I, David Ben-Gurion, Minister of Defence, hereby proclaim on behalf of the General Staff of the Israel Defence Forces to wit:

1. The term "administered area" means the area including most of the city of Jerusalem, part of its environs and western approaches and the roads linking Jerusalem with the coastal plain, all within the area marked by a red line in the map of the Land of Israel signed by me bearing today's date, 26 Tamuz 5708 (2 August 1948) or in any other map which will replace it and will be signed by me and similarly marked.

2. The law of the State of Israel prevails in the administered area.

3. The inhabitants of the administered area are hereby called upon to maintain the public peace and its economic system, and to assist the Defence Army of Israel as required. Whoever violates any of my directives will be tried before a military tribunal which will be established with my knowledge or before a civil court, as the case may require.

4. This proclamation will be made public in channels which I will deem most effective.

5. This proclamation will be valid for all intents and purposes from midnight, 6 Iyar 5708 (15 May 1948); however, regarding the territory whose parts have come under the administration of the Defence Army of Israel after that date, this proclamation will be valid only from that time.


David Ben-Gurion
Minister of Defence

Jerusalem falls outside the territorial claims of Israel, and was occupied by the Israeli military in 1948. it's as much an Israeli city as Baghdad was an American city in 2004.

[Shaktimaan]

5. So your earlier belief

That non-sovereign land inherently belongs to the indigenous inhabitants, only applies to areas where Jewish people don't constitute an indigenous majority I guess. In that case the land should just be considered Palestinian, because that's what you prefer, not because it aligns with any legal or rational reason.

[King_David]

6. Yes it appears to be exactly what Scootaloo believes. nt

[Scootaloo]

8. I don't understand your post n/t

[Scootaloo]

7. It's an occupied city outside the borders of Israel

According to the Israelis who initially captured it, even.

Do me a favor Shaktimaan. Can you find me the statute in international law that provides for acquisition of territory through military force that validates and allows Israel to claim Jerusalem as Israeli territory?

Bonus points if you can answer this essay question; Describe the impact of "might makes right" as a basis of law and state action, in the context of the history of the Jewish people.

[Shaktimaan]

9. Let's not change topics just yet.

I realize you have a legal strategy that relies on selectively picking obscure bits of information from obscure historical papers, ignoring any later, contradictory facts, then using them to try and prove some absurd point. Since we all know that you are the furthest thing from an international lawyer, and so few, if any real lawyers seem to find your arguments persuasive enough to voice themselves, you might want to consider the possibility that your arguments are ridiculous and prove nothing.

That said, let's get back to my question. You've always asserted at your opinion on land not attached to any sovereign power belongs to the people who had been living on it. WRT Jerusalem, those people were overwhelmingly Jewish. So which is it? Does the land belong to its indigenous inhabitants automatically? (Or is a different system used to figure out sovereignty when you dislike the outcome?)

The document you provided describes Israel's military securing and occupying the city during the war of independence. You left out the circumstances though. Israeli forces entered Jerusalem to break an Arab siege that had been preventing food and supplies from reaching the city's Jewish inhabitants. So your argument is that the city belongs to the group who took the city by force, occupied it, and were systematically starving most of its inhabitants? (Even though you stated earlier that the city REALLY, LEGALLY belongs to THEM as they're the city's majority native inhabitants.)

Since land can not be acquired by force, you wisely deduced that the land should go to the group that took the city by force, but lost it later, because they are the ones who ultimately FAILED to acquire the land. Is that correct?

Where does that leave us with east Jerusalem though? That land was acquired by force! And then ethnically cleansed of all its Jewish inhabitants. Help explain your reasoning here. If a state can't legally acquire land that's been taken by force, then east Jerusalem clearly can't be a part of Palestine. How interesting! So, in your expert legal opinion, who does east Jerusalem belong to?

Since I realize you're just making up most of these laws on the spot (or at least choosing to interpret the real ones VERY liberally), I do understand that we are just hearing your opinion of what YOU think the law ought to mean. I just find it funny that even working within this imaginary legal framework you've invented, you STILL need to corrupt it in order together the result your looking for.

Your arguments require having different laws for different groups; or admitting that you've been wrong about most of this entire subject thus far.

[Scootaloo]

10. I like how you think "obscure" means "invalid."

As if generational efforts to just forget reality actually mean reality has ceased to be.

That said, let's get back to my question. You've always asserted at your opinion on land not attached to any sovereign power belongs to the people who had been living on it. WRT Jerusalem, those people were overwhelmingly Jewish. So which is it? Does the land belong to its indigenous inhabitants automatically? (Or is a different system used to figure out sovereignty when you dislike the outcome?)

It does belong to its inhabitants. The problem is, even with that consideration, Jerusalem falls outside of Israel's borders, and is thus not part of Israel. This is how nation-states work, if it's outside your border, it's not yours. It also happens that Jerusalem falls within territory claimed by the state of Palestine.

Now, in theory, Jerusalem could elect to join one or the other. However, this has an enormous amount of legal hurdles to jump. First and most obviously is its status as an occupied city. Occupied territory cannot be annexed by the occupier. Not even if the occupied territory asks for it, because of the inherent coercive power of the occupier. So then, what? If Israel ends the occupation... well then Jerusalem is no longer occupied. But it falls under Palestine's sovereignty due to that state's prior claim on the city.

For Jerusalem to legally become an Israeli city, first the occupation needs to end. Then a deal needs to be worked out to get Palestine to relinquish the city. Then the city needs to elect to become part of Israel. And then Israel needs to say "okay."

The demographics of Jerusalem are inconsequential. Unless you're going to tell me that everywhere in the world that jews live is Israeli territory? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't make such a silly argument.

The document you provided describes Israel's military securing and occupying the city during the war of independence. You left out the circumstances though. Israeli forces entered Jerusalem to break an Arab siege that had been preventing food and supplies from reaching the city's Jewish inhabitants. So your argument is that the city belongs to the group who took the city by force, occupied it, and were systematically starving most of its inhabitants? (Even though you stated earlier that the city REALLY, LEGALLY belongs to THEM as they're the city's majority native inhabitants.)

Since land can not be acquired by force, you wisely deduced that the land should go to the group that took the city by force, but lost it later, because they are the ones who ultimately FAILED to acquire the land. Is that correct?

No, actually the Ministry of Foreign Affairs document I linked lays out the circumstances. It does so in brief, but it's there.

Thing is, it's also inconsequential to this particular discussion. Jordan's occupation and blockade doesn't magically transform Jerusalem into an Israeli city. Jerusalem falls outside of the territory claimed by Israel, according to Israel itself, and is a city under military occupation by Israel according to Israel itself. These two facts alone very clearly make the point that Jerusalem is not Israel's.

So what we have then is a Jewish-Majority city within the state of Palestine that was occupied by Jordan, then by Jordan and Israel, and now occupied just by Israel.

Where does that leave us with east Jerusalem though? That land was acquired by force! And then ethnically cleansed of all its Jewish inhabitants. Help explain your reasoning here. If a state can't legally acquire land that's been taken by force, then east Jerusalem clearly can't be a part of Palestine. How interesting! So, in your expert legal opinion, who does east Jerusalem belong to?

Well, except Palestine didn't acquire it by force. As we've covered, Jerusalem - the whole city - falls within the territory of Palestine. When Israel declared its sovereignty, Jerusalem fell outside the borders it claimed. Thus, Jerusalem remained a Palestinian city. Jordan's purge of Jews from east Jerusalem does not change this, any more than the bloody strife between Sunni and Shia in American-occupied Baghdad made it less of an Iraqi city.

Since I realize you're just making up most of these laws on the spot (or at least choosing to interpret the real ones VERY liberally), I do understand that we are just hearing your opinion of what YOU think the law ought to mean. I just find it funny that even working within this imaginary legal framework you've invented, you STILL need to corrupt it in order together the result your looking for.

Your arguments require having different laws for different groups; or admitting that you've been wrong about most of this entire subject thus far.

Still waiting to hear your legal basis for "might makes right," Shaktimaan. Please do include the bonus essay question.