Jerusalem is NOT ‘disputed’ territory

Here’s the Washington Post on the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem, emphasis added:

Ever since the administration was blindsided by Israel’s March 9 announcement that it intends to build 1,600 housing units in a disputed area of Jerusalem, U.S. officials have pressed Israel to take actions to encourage Palestinians to attend indirect talks, including canceling the project, making concrete gestures such as a prisoner release and adding substantive rather than procedural issues to the agenda for talks. Some U.S. requests have not been made public.

Jerusalem“Disputed”? This description implies that Israel and the Arabs both have some kind of legal claim over Jerusalem. But the fact of the matter is that Jerusalem is not by any means “disputed”. This is simply false. It is a simple and uncontroversial point of fact under international law that Israel has no legal claim to Jerusalem, that Jerusalem is rather undisputed Palestinian territory, and that Israel’s occupation of the city is illegal, in violation of both the Fourth Geneva Convention and numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Israel today controls Jerusalem because it invaded and occupied the West Bank in 1967. Subsequently, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 242, which emphasized “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”, emphasized that member states have a commitment to abide by the U.N. Charter, and called for the “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied” during the June 1967 war.

In May 1968, the Security Council passed resolution 252, which declared Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem “invalid” and called upon Israel “to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem”.

In July 1969, the Security Council passed resolution 267, noting that Israel had since “taken further measures tending to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”. It reaffirmed “the established principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible” and deplored Israel’s further violations of U.N. resolutions, censured “in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”, and confirmed “that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status”, and urgently called on Israel to rescind the measures taken to annex Jerusalem.

Security Council 271 of September 1969 again reaffirmed the principle of the inadmissibility under international law of the acquisition of territory by war, describing Jerusalem as being under “military occupation” by Israel and condemning Israel’s continued violation of previous resolutions.

Resolution 298 of September 1971 again reaffirmed the principle, deplored Israel’s continued violation of U.N. resolutions, and confirmed that Israel’s attempts to annex Jerusalem “are totally invalid”.

Resolution 446 of March 1979 affirmed “once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention … is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel, including Jerusalem“, determined “that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity” (emphasis added).

Resolution 452 of July 1979 again deplored Israel’s continued violation of Security Council resolutions and again emphasized that Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem “has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”. It again also noted that Jerusalem is included in “the occupied Arab territories”.

Resolution 465 of March 1980 again condemned Israel’s settlement policy, which violates the Fourth Geneva Convention and U.N. Security Council resolutions, and again reaffirmed that Israel’s annexation attempts “have no legal validity” and constitutes “a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”.

Resolution 471 of June 1980 once again reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention “to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem“, and once again called upon Israel to end its illegal occupation of those territories, including Jerusalem.

Resolution 476 of June 1980 again deplored Israel’s continued violation of international law and reaffirmed “the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, and reaffirmed Israel’s annexation measures “have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention” and were “null and void”.

Resolution 478 of August 1980 again censured Israel’s continued violation of international law and again reaffirmed that its annexation attempts were “null and void”.

Resolutions 592 of December 1986, 605 of December 1987, 607 of January 1988, 636 of July 1989, 694 of May 1991, 726 of January 1992, 799 of December 1992 all again reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to occupied Arab territory, including Jerusalem.

In July 2004, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s decision to build a wall in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, which concluded that “all these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and that Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power”, that the construction of the wall in those territories is “illegal”, and that Israel’s settlements in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, similarly “have been established in breach of international law.”

So what, exactly, is it the Washington Post would have its readers believe there is a “dispute” over? There is absolutely no dispute whatsoever, and it remains an uncontroversial point of fact under international law that Jerusalem is occupied Arab territory from which Israel must withdraw.

The closest the Post comes to acknowledging this fact, in this particular example, is (emphasis added):

Reports from Israel differed on the significance of the new approval, and U.S. officials said they were seeking “clarification” from the Israeli government. Netanyahu has defended Israel’s right to build in East Jerusalem, which Israel annexed in 1967 in an act not recognized internationally, but the Obama administration has urged him to ensure that housing projects there do not spoil the atmosphere for talks.

See, the description of Jerusalem as “disputed” could perhaps be sustainable so long as Israel’s annexation is “not recognized internationally”, which is no doubt why the Post declines to impart upon its readers the fact that — far from merely not being recognized — there is an international consensus that Jerusalem is occupied Arab land.

Were the Post and the rest of the mainstream media to actually disclose such facts to its readers, it could no longer use such descriptions as “disputed” to describe land illegally occupied by Israel. And that would just cause problems for U.S. policy, so it’s best just to stick to the formula and not rock the both with things like facts and principled adherence honesty and accuracy in reporting.

  • Pingback: Jerusalem is NOT ‘disputed’ territory by Jeremy R. Hammond « Dandelion Salad

  • Pingback: There Is No Two-State Solution | Jeremy R. Hammond

  • Pingback: Hammond: There Is No Two-State Solution « Dr Nasir Khan

  • http://meme.yahoo.com/delba09/ Elba Davis

    Thanks to your assist!

  • Pingback: There Is No Two-State Solution. By Jeremy R. Hammond « Kanan48

  • William

    What an arabist you are. You ignore all the terror, violence and wars perpetrated on Israel since before the turn of the 20th century. Crawl back in your little Jew-Hating hole; or better yet, find a democratic Muslim country to live in.

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      It’s instructive, William, that you respond not by pointing to any error in fact or logic on my part, but entirely with an ad hominem fallacy.

  • mark elf

    The contents of this article are bereft of merit. The UN Security Council consists of the world’s leading imperialist powers. They can hardly be portrayed as purveyors of “international law.” Noam Chomsky has rightly termed the emissions of the UNSC as a “farce.”

    Jerusalem does not belong to the Palestinians, No statement even by the Security Council remotely refers to this.

    International law is based on treaties. The Covenant of the League of Nations and the Treaty of San Remo of 1919 awarded Jerusalem to the Palestinian Jews.

    Customary international law also recognizes sovereign control over territory. Israel is the sovereign in Jerusalem.

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      The claim that the Coveneant of the League of Nations awarded Jerusalem to the Palestinian Jews is ludicrously false.

      The claim that the Treaty of San Remo “awarded” Jerusalem to the Palestinian Jews is ludicrously false.

      It’s instructive that mark elf argues the UN is to be dismissed because the UN consists of the world’s leading imperialist powers, but we are apparently supposed to accept that the League of Nations was not likewise.

      The asininity of this argument is just dripping.

      • fogpatch

        You are wrong. Both the League of Nations, 1922 and the San Remo Peace conference, 1920 awarded all of Turkish-occupied Palestine to the Jewish people. The Treaty of Sevres, 1922 further confirmed this.

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          Nonsense. I challenge you to point out the clause of the League of Nations Covenent or Palestine Mandate you think “awarded” all of the West Bank to the Jewish people. I would point out that the ICJ has noted that the establishment of a mandate did not involve any transfer of territory or sovereignty. And the Treaty of Sevres was never even ratified by Turkey, so it’s irrelevant, even if it did say what you say it says (which it didn’t).

      • connie

        The majority of the Council of League of Nations at the time were small countries.

        The San Remo Peace Conference and the League Covenant endorsed the Balfour Declaration of Great Britain granting the holy Land to the Jews. This is a historical act.

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          The Balfour Declaration did not “grant” Palestine to the Jews. Moreover, as the ICJ has observed, the establishment of a mandate under the League of Nations did not involve any transfer of territory or sovereignty.

  • chomskyite

    You seem to ignore Noam Chomsky’s negative views about the UN Security Council. You seem to believe that the UNSC produces holy writ. Chomsky is the foremost analyst of world affairs in the last thirty years. How can you be so dismissive?

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      The only one dismissive here is you, of UN Security Council resolutions and international law. Chomsky is not so, as you wrongly imply.

      • connie

        Prof. Chomsky is definitely not a fan of the corrupt United Nations.

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          Nor am I. But that’s irrelevant.

  • Dan

    Jeremy your totally wrong. Jerusalem is liberated territory.
    Jerusalem was never in history the capital of any Arab country.
    Only Israel has it as its capitol in ancient and modern times.
    Only when Israel liberated Jerusalem in 67 did Jerusalem become holy to the Arabs.
    From 48 to 67 when the Arabs occupied East Jerusalem, all the Jews were kicked out, 58 Temples were burned to the ground and the Wailing wall was used as a urinal for the Arabs.
    I would also point out about International law.
    When Israel arrested Adolf Eichmann in 1960. The U.N and the 21 Arab countries demanded Israel send Eichmann back to Argentina.
    The U.N said it was against international law for Israel to kidnap Eichmann from Argentina.
    So tell me Mr Arabist Hammond! Whose Right, the U.N and the Arabs who defend Eichmann or Israel arresting this murderer Eichmann.
    This is a case of good and evil. You side with evil as usual.
    The U.N also condemmed Israel for the Entebee rescue and bombing Iraq’s nuclear facility in 81,.
    Mr Hammond i advise you to read this article.
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3953601,00.html
    Who are the Palestinians?

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Dan, if you think I am “totally wrong”, you are welcome to point to any error in fact or logic I have made. The facts are as I’ve stated them: Jerusalem is “Palestinian occupied territory”. If you disagree with that, you are welcome to take it up with the International Court of Justice.

      • fogpatch

        The ICJ failed to obtain international consensus, so its opinion has been tossed away. why do you keep quoting something that is null and void?

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          Nonsense.

      • connie

        The International Court of Justice has no standing on the Jerusalem question. You can take that up with the UN Security Council.

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          A meaningless statement. The ICJ is competent to judge matters of international law and how it applies.

  • Dan

    Mr Hammond, to quote Netanyahu, Jews were building in Jerusalem 3000 years ago and today they are building.

    The Arabs teach, brainwash their children to yearn for martyrdom, then instigate, provoke and confront to get their wish. When they get their death wish they start howling unfair this is and try to blame Israel for the Arabs death cult. The Arabs also fire behind civilians at Israel wanting Israel to fire back to kill these civilians. Psychologists, psychiatrist and mental health professionals ought to study this demented Arab state of existence.

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Again, Dan, I welcome you to point out any error in fact or logic you think I’ve made.

  • Dan

    There is a primary historical fact, that must be established now.
    There has never been, I repeat NEVER been, a civilization, Entity, or a nation referred to as “Palestine” There was never a Palestinian tribe, and there was never a Palestinian country in the Land of Israel to begin with!
    Arab culture that allows honor killings to be legal. Israel is not for sale.
    It is not a pie to be sliced up and served to a clan of killers and their supporters.
    1: When did Jerusalem serve as a capitol to any Arab Country ? Never.
    2: When did Jerusalem serve as a Palestinian capitol ? Never.
    3: Jerusalem was never in history an Arab capital and never will be one.
    4: How many times is Jerusalem mentioned in the Koran? Zero.
    Was Mohammed to so badly educated, he could not utter the word
    “J-e-r-u-s-a-l-e-m”

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Nevertheless, the Arabs have an equal right to self-determination as the Jews, and the fact remains that Jerusalem is legally “occupied Palestinian territory”. Again, if you have a problem with that, you are welcome to take it up with the ICJ.

      • fogpatch

        Under international law, self-determination can take many forms. Becoming a state is only 1 of them. The Arabs already have 21 countries. why do you want another Arab country to be set up with the phony name Palestine?

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          That is a rejection of the right of the Arab Palestinians to self-determination.

      • connie

        You mean the UN Security Council.

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          I mean the ICJ.

    • connie

      Dan, you are perfectly right.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        No, he isn’t. See previous comments.

  • Dan

    Jeremy answer the question.

    When Israel arrested Adolf Eichmann in 1960. the U.N and the 21 Arab countries demanded Israel send Eichmann back to Argentina.
    The U.N said it was against international law for Israel to kidnap Eichmann from Argentina.
    So tell me Jeremy, whose right? The U.N or Israel.

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      What question do you want me to answer, and what relevance does that question have to my article?

  • deedee

    Rarely have I read such a sloppy and error-filled article on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    The UN Security Council resolutions are all misquoted.

    The Palestinians claim East Jerusalem only, not all of Jerusalem.

    The ICJ opinion is an advisory one that is not binding in international law.

    This ICJ opinion contradicts three previous ICJ opinions on the question of the UN Charter provisions.

    Customary international law recognizes Jerusalem as the historic religious capital of the Jewish people.

    Jordan is recognized in certain international laws as the preferred owner of Jerusalem.

    The Palestinian Authority disputes Jordan’s rights to Jerusalem.

    UN Resolution 181 allocated Jerusalem to an international body under UN supervision and disputes Palestinian claims to the city.

    The Palestinians dispute this UN resolution, claiming that East Jerusalem belongs to a fictional entity called “Palestine.”

    The Vatican disputes the Palestinian claim to East Jerusalem.

    So does Saudi Arabia.

    Since the 1993 Oslo Accords, the UN Security Council has never again stated that East Jerusalem is occupied territory. Rather, it has stated that East Jerusalem is disputed territory whose status is to be resolved in direct negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.

    There are several other major mistakes in this article and lapses of logic that reflect badly on its author.

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      There are no errors in the article. All UNSC resolutions are quoted verbatim, and the facts are precisely as I’ve stated them. On UN Resolution 181, see: http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2010/10/26/the-myth-of-the-u-n-creation-of-israel. The UNSC has never “stated that East Jerusalem is disputed territory”. That, like the rest of you claims, is a lie.

      • fogpatch

        It is not a lie. you have yet to show any proof.

      • connie

        No it is not. The UNSC has indeed never said that East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory.

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          Try reading what I actually said and responding to that.

  • mark elf

    I really appreciate the right-on comments by your correspondents.

    On the other hand, you persist in living in denial and refuse to repudiate your false article.

    Instead you engage in ad hominem attacks.

    Your wild assertion that Jerusalem is undisputed Palestinian territory under international law is absolutely assinine. Not even the Hamas makes this claim. Not one of the texts you cite and not even the ICJ contains this bald lie.

    I am signalling my colleagues at the university to steer clear away from your Foreign Policy Journal which is saturated with fiction.

    Have also sent full copies of these posts with your article to Finkelstein and Chomsky to alert them how you undermine their cause.

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      You haven’t shown even a single point of fact or logic from my article to be in error, and you (hypocritically) produce fiction yourself in your attempt to discredit it, such as that I ever employed an ad hominem argument.

  • yael shichror

    Hmm… an interesting take on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict but naive and partisan. Jerusalem has been inhabited by the Jews for at least 3,000 years, where they have constituted the majority from time immemorial. The invading Arab imperialists under Umar ibn Kattab in 638 AD imposed their sharia laws on the Jews and Greek/Byzantine Christians there. Arab rule ceased in 1071 with the invasion of the Seljuck Turks. Then came the Crusaders, Mongols, Mamelukes and Ottomans until 1918 when the British took over. History does not record the existence of indigenous Palestinian Arabs, only indigenous Jews and Christians plus an odd assortment of marauding Bedouins.

    The British liberators handed all of Palestine, including Jerusalem, to the Jews and this was ratified under international law by the San Remo Conference in 1920 and put into treaty law in the Treaty of Sevres in 1922. The League of Nations incorporated all these texts of international law into its Mandates system in the same year.

    The UN Security Council resolutions which you trot out — apart from 242/338– are all irrelevant straw men. Mysteriously, they lapsed in 1993. Can you guess why? Nope, you are totally ignorant of this UN history, otherwise you would have mentioned it like the objective analyst you are.

    Well… the answer is simple. The UN Security Council changed its mind. Yessirree! It cancelled all condemnations of Israeli “occupation” and passed a new resolution stating Jerusalem is disputed, it must be negotiated at the Camp David negotiations and through the RoadMap Performance Framework.

    We come back full circle — you went off half-cocked at the Washington Post because you were suckered by the lying propaganda machine of the Palestine Lobby. Repeat after me — “Jerusalem is not Palestinian territory” and say three times “there is no international law to that effect.”

    What about the noble International Court of Justice , I hear you protesting? Repeat after me” “The ICJ is the politicized plaything of the UN General Assembly,” and “the ICJ had no right to opine on matters not specifically referred to it by UNGA.”

    Now… go ahead and do the right thing — rewrite your atrocious piece and eat some humble pie.

    • nikki

      this is such a wonderful piece. it should be spread far and wide!

      • fogpatch

        I agree, Nikki. Yael Shichror explains international law so wonderfully.

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          The claim UNSC resolutions “lapsed” is nonsense. Under international law, all of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is “Occupied Palestinian Territory”. Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem, as the UNSC has observed, is a violation of international law; illegal, null, and void. Those are the facts.

          • connie

            Nonsense. Quote the international law that speaks about “East Jerusalem” being “Palestinian”, an oxymoron if I ever heard one. And I mean a “law.” I will give you $1,000 if you can name this “international law” and its specific title and article. I will also buy you a fur coat if you can tell me when this “international law” was passed. On top of all this, I will treat you to a year’s supply of beer – ‘Milwaukee’s Best’ – if you can locate for me the nearest library or Internet page where I can read this “law.”

            On the other hand, if you cannot meet these simple requests, a cold bucket of water awaits you.

          • Jeremy R. Hammond

            Quote the international law that speaks of “Quebec” as being “Canadian”. Talk about nonsense.

  • Jeremy R. Hammond

    The facts are precisely as I’ve stated them. East Jerusalem is uncontroversially “occupied Palestinian territory”. Israel’s annexation is illegal, and rejected by the international community and U.N. Security Council. The settlements are illegal.

    It’s hilarious you assert I’m “ignorant of UN history”, and then roll out the lie as that the UN Security Council “canceled all condemnations of Israeli ‘occupation’ and passed a new resolution stating Jerusalem is disputed”.

    Spare me your delusions of grandeur.

    • fogpatch

      this answer is pure bluster. No evidence is provided.

    • connie

      There is no such thing as a “settlement” in international law. What are you babbling about?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        I didn’t say there was. What are you babbling about?

  • Jerusalemite

    Hammond, old boy

    You are totally offbase, mouthing laughable assertions without any foundation in fact. UN Security Council resolutions in the last 17 years have not said a word about Israeli “annexation.” Israeli settlements are in fact legal under international law. You should read the Geneva Conventions.

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Jerusalemite, why do you limit your references to UNSC resolutions to “the last 17 years”? The fact is the UNSC has repeatedly declared Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem illegal under international law, and null and void. As the ICJ has noted, all settlements are also illegal, a fact which stems in part from Geneva Convention IV, which explicitly forbids the Occupying Power from transferring parts of its population into the occupied territory (as the ICJ also observed). You know, before telling others to read something, you might want to try reading it yourself, so as not to so embarrass yourself with such idiocy.

      • fogpatch

        UNSC resolutions cited are ancient history. There are brand new ones from 2002 to 2008 attacking the Palestinians for committing terrorism and refusing to negotiate.

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          All UNSC resolutions quoted remain in effect.

      • connie

        Israel is not an “Occupying Power” under Geneva Convention (IV). and, it has not “transferred” anybody.

        On the other hand, the Palestinian Arabs were transferred to the Holy Land by the Ottoman Turks, the real Occupying Power, and by Egypt.

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          Israel is an Occupying Power under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which forbids Israel from building settlements in the occupied territory (“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”). You can look up “transfer” in any dictionary, if you really don’t know what that means.

          • jerusalemitess

            Israel is not an Occupying Power as defined under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Secondly, it has not transferred anyone. My friends live there and they were not transferred. Your insinuation is baseless.

          • Jeremy R. Hammond

            Israel is an Occupying Power under the Fourth Geneva Convention, as the ICJ has observed, and thus all settlements are illegal.

  • jerusalemitess

    There is an error in your reading of Geneva Convention (IV). The type of settlements referred to do not apply to Israeli neighborhoods since they are different. Also, the UNSC resolutions you referred to are ancient history. There are new UNSC resolutions that eliminate the negative wording about Jerusalem.

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      The facts are as I stated them. As the ICJ has affirmed, the settlements are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This is absolutely non-controversial. The UNSC resolutions I cited remain in effect. Israel’s annexation is not recognized by the international community, as it is illegal and, as the UNSC has declared repeatedly, null and void.

      • connie

        The ICJ affirmation about “settlements” has not been accepted by the international comity of nations.

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          It most certainly has been accepted by the international community, which requested it in the first place.

          • jerusalemitess

            Don’t be disingenuous. U posted the rejections of the ICJ opinion by all the democracies of the world .

          • Jeremy R. Hammond

            Absolute nonsense.

          • yael shichror

            so how come the US, Canada, and the EU threw the ICJ report in the trash bin?

          • Jeremy R. Hammond

            Not sure what that is supposed to mean.

  • Marxian Marxist

    I find your latest comment rather bizarre and doctrinaire.

    Only a left-wing deviationist would deny that Jerusalem is the holiest city in Judaism and the Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism.

    If as you say Jerusalem is an illegal settlement and Palestinian territory, then how come the international community consensus is that The Road Map Negotiations for the Two-state Solution requires Jerusalem to be shared between the Palestinians and Israelis?

    Second question: How come the Palestinians have agreed to such negotiations?

    You know, there are several United Nations Security Council resolutions
    that demand the Palestinians negotiate a deal on Jerusalem. You deliberately falsify the record of international law by failing to incorporate them in your screed.

    Maybe Jeremy Hammond’s rants are null and void?

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      I find your comment rather bizarre and doctrinaire, Marxian, and only a liar would suggest I ever denied “that Jerusalem is the holiest city in Judaism and the Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism”, because I never did so, as anyone can plainly see.

      If you say East Jerusalem is Israeli territory, then how come the international consensus is that under international law, East Jerusalem is “occupied Palestinian territory”, and how come under the Road Map, Jerusalem is to be shared?

      I welcome you to produce any UNSC resolution you think invalidates nullifies the numerous resolutions I cited that declared Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem to be illegal under international law, and null and void. I’ve produced the resolutions that prove my argument. Now produce yours, if you are able.

  • marxian marxist

    Have confirmed with UN Secretariat that the UN Sec. Co. resolutions of the last ten years have rendered the previous resolutions you mentioned in your piece inoperative — what they call “in deep freeze” i.e. shelved permanently. Only 242 and 338 calling for Arab countries to end their illegal wars against Israel still stand. They also confirm there is no “international consensus” that East Jerusalem is “occupied Palestinian territory.” This derogatory term emanates from the racist apartheid Arab world which has bludgeoned the bloated UN bureaucracy into using this terminology on pain of blackmail (this information is to be kept strictly confidential).

    In response to your query regarding producing the new resolutions that prove my irreproachable commentary, they are as follows:

    UNSCR 1392, March 12, 2010 — demanding that the Palestinians cease their terrorism and get back to the negotiating table

    UNSCR 1402 — ditto

    UNSCR 1505, November 19, 2003, “endorsing the Roadmap
    for Negotiations on a Two-State Solution” and “negotiations shall be based on UNSCR 242, 338, and 1397… taking into account the political and religious concerns of both sides and protecting the interests of Jews, Christians and Muslims worldwide.”

    UNSCR 1850, December 16, 2008, “declares its commitment to the irreversibility of the bilateral negotiations” designed “to resolve all core issues.” (East Jerusalem is a core issue)

    UN Secretariat emphasizes that nowhere in these resolutions does the United Nations Security Council prejudice the status of East Jerusalem by pre-determining it is “occupied Palestinian territory.”

    As for the ICJ “opinion”, UN Secretariat states that it is an embarrassing piece of juristic propaganda which every single free world delegation to the UNGA has condemned. Thus, the ICJ opinion has been “trashed” as an obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

    If you have any other questions regarding the United Nations, I would be most pleased to assist you. For, it is vitally important that the false consciousness that has alienated you from the truth be speedily jettisoned.

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Liar. The facts are as I’ve stated them. That East Jerusalem is “occupied Palestinian territory” is non-controversial, as reflected in the advisory opinion of the ICJ issued upon request of the UN General Assembly. None of the resolutions you cite render the resolutions I cited “inoperative”.

      • fogpatch

        why do you call people
        “liar?” you asked for the UN resolutions from marxian marxist and he gave them to you verbatim. What is the matter with you?

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          The UN Secretariat did not confirm that the UNSC resolutions I cited are “inoperative”. The Marxist is a liar.

      • connie

        Thomas Buergenthal, the American judge on the ICJ, has made it clear that the ICJ violated international law by accepting the UN General Assembly request for an opinion.

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          Buergenthal in his dissenting opinion expressed his agreement that East Jerusalem is “Occupied Palestinian Territory”, actually.

          • jerusalemitess

            You lie. Buergenthal said no such thing.

          • Jeremy R. Hammond

            Yes, he did. “My negative votes … should not be seen as reflecting my view that the construction of the wall by Israel on the Occupied Palestinian Territory does not raise serious questions as a matter of international law. I believe it does, and there is much in the Opinion with which I agree…. I share the Court’s conclusion that international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, and international human rights law are applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory and must there be faithfully complied with by Israel.” Making clear which territory he was referring to by “Occupied Palestinian Territory”, Buergenthal said “the Green Line is accepted by the Court as delimiting the dividing line between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. Thus, “Occupied Palestinian Territory” includes East Jerusalem, according Buergenthal.

  • marxian marxist

    whoops…please correct typo above — should read UNSCR 1397, March 12, 2002

  • fogpatch

    You continue with ad hominem slurs, Mr. Hammond. Obviously, you are the Liar. Virtually every single commentator on your blog has proven you made a false claim that Jerusalem is Palestinian territory under international law. You were challenged to provide evidence by way of stating the name of this law or laws. You have backpedalled, squirmed, stonewalled and called intelligent international law experts “liars”. The only weak reed you fall back on is the discredited ICJ report. This proves that your case has been destroyed. Jerusalem is the incontrovertible and indisputable eternal capital of the Jewish people and its homeland, Israel.

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      It’s not an ad hominem. That you are a liar is a demonstrable fact. As the ICJ has observed, under international law, all of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is “occupied Palestinian territory”.

      • connie

        hi,

        There is a small mistake in this reply. The ICJ observation about Jerusalem was not accepted by the international community.

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          It was the international community who requested the ICJ advisory opinion.

  • fogpatch

    If what you say is true, it shouldn’t be a problem for you to tell us what international law the ICJ pulled out of its drawer to prove that Jerusalem is “Palestinian.”

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Fallacy. What international law proves that the U.S. is “American” or that Switzerland is “Swiss”? If you want proper answers, you have to ask proper questions.

      • fogpatch

        Answer the point. If you have no answer, be honest and say so. Diversionary flippancy simply will not do. The UN Charter proves the US is American. The Covenant of the League of Nations proves Switzerland is Swiss.

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          Do you still beat your wife? Answer the point. If you have no answer, be honest and say so.

          I told you already, your question is founded in a fallacy. If you think otherwise, you’re welcome to show us what international law proves Switzerland is “Swiss”.

          • fogpatch

            I do not beat my wife. I am a Muslim Zionist of the Sufi school and have four wives. Your article is founded not only in a fallacy but also on a void premise. The Washington Post is right. Jerusalem is not Palestinian in international law. Go back to school.

          • Jeremy R. Hammond

            So, let’s be clear: You deny that you still beat your wife?

            Do I really need to explain the fallacy that seems to have passed right over your head, while you tell me to “Go back to school”? Seriously?

          • connie

            The international convention setting up the Red Cross proves that switzerland is “Swiss.”

          • Jeremy R. Hammond

            Quote it.

      • connie

        The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, inter alia, proves the US is “American.”

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          Let’s see a quote.

          • jerusalemitess

            The treaty signature line states “the United States of America.”

          • Jeremy R. Hammond

            That doesn’t prove the US is “American”. Prove Switzerland is “Swiss”. Prove Norway is “Norwegian”. The fact that you are taking this request seriously says it all.

  • http://www.muzica.im muzica house

    Daca Dumnezeu nu ar fi dorit ca noi sa ne masturbam, ne-ar fi facut bratele mai scurte. George Carlin

  • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/members/karenann/ karen macRae

    Why are pro Israel fanatics so incredibly dim with respect to the factual record? It’s astonishing how I seem to come across this phenomenon nearly every time I read an article that even hints at some sort of perceived criticism of Israel ie the facts. Great job Jeremy. Thanks.

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Thanks, Karen.

    • Duke Goekler

      Instead of ad hominem attacks, you should tell us all what factual record is being disrespected.

      Jeremy, you should not encourage Karen in her personalized attacks. It is unbecoming of you to do so. After all, foreign policy analysts are of a higher breed.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Ad hominem attacks?

  • Pingback: AMERICA’S SILENCE AS AN ART « Desertpeace

  • Pingback: AMERICA’S SILENCE IS GOLDEN « Desertpeace

  • sam

    wonderful… great job… israel is an illegitimate child of the west..:)

  • Pingback: British double standard on recognizing Palestine lets Israel off the hook | Mondoweiss

  • Pingback: Standard Mainstream Media Lies About Israeli Occupation | Jeremy R. Hammond