Table of Contents
- Preface
- Introduction
- 1. Testifying Against Israel
- 2. “Mandate for Palestine”
- 1920 - Original territory assigned to the Jewish National Home
- 1922 - Final territory assigned to the Jewish National Home
- The ICJ’s faulty reading of the “Mandate.”
- Palestine is a geographical area, not a nationality.
- The ICJ erred in identifying the “Mandate for Palestine” as a Class “A” Mandate.
- Identifying the “Mandate for Palestine” as Class “A” was vital to the ICJ.
- Political rights were granted to Jews only.
- Origin of the “Mandate for Palestine” the ICJ overlooked.
- The ICJ attempts to overcome historical facts.
- 3. Jerusalem & the Holy Places
- 4. UN Resolution 181
- Recommended “Partition Plan,” November 29, 1947
- The ICJ assumes that Israel’s independence is a result of a partial implementation of the “Partition Plan.”
- Arabs absolute rejectionism of UN Resolution 181.
- ICJ — “Armed conflict then broke out.”
- Israel overcomes Arab aggression at a terrible cost.
- The Arab Palestinians and the “clean hand” principle.
- 5. Self-Defence
- Article 51 — The Right to Self-Defence
- The ICJ lacks the authority to amend or ‘interpret’ Article 51.
- When Use of Force is Lawful
- Palestinian terrorism is an act of aggression.
- Self-defence should be used against “all perpetrators” of terrorism “whomever” they are.
- The ICJ suggests: Israelis have to face deadly acts of violence, and lack the right for self-defence.
- 6. Terrorism
- 7. ICJ Brands Israel the Aggressor
- 8. UN Resolutions 242 and 338
- 9. Legality of Jewish Settlements
- Border Changes As Arabs Initiate Wars of Aggression
- The UN Charter does not grant the General Assembly or the International Court of Justice the authority to assign or affect ‘ownership’ of the Territories.
- The Territories and the war of words.
- International law allows for “just wars” and “lawful occupation.”
- ICJ selective writing falsifies historical documents.
- Ignoring just wars and legal occupation.
- The ICJ charges that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are populated by settlers ‘deported by force.’
- By default, ICJ support of the “Mandate for Palestine” suggests it is actually supporting Jewish settlement in Palestine. Is the ICJ confused?
- UN Charter and Article 80.
- The ICJ ignores the history of Jewish life in the area called Palestine.
- Where Jews are and are not permitted to settle.
- The Oslo Accords and the Gaza-Jericho agreements recognize Israel legal presence in the “Territories.”
- The ICJ’s narrative of how the Territories came into the possession of Israel is void of any context and sanitized of any trace of past and present Arab aggression.
- The Principal Allied Powers and the League of Nations recognized Jewish historical rights to the land of Palestine.
- 10. The Supreme Court of the State of Israel
- 11. Arab Behavior and Precedent for Fencing
- 12. Self-Determination
- 13. The ICJ's Mandate
- Security barriers in other disputed territories.
- The ICJ cannot consider declarations and resolutions of the UN General Assembly as customary international law.
- The International Court of Justice lacks the authority to issue a directive to Member States, a function reserved solely to the Security Council.
- Epilogue
- Appendices
- Appendix A - Mandate for Palestine
- UN Security Council Resolution 1269
- UN Security Council Resolution 1368
- UN Security Council Resolution 1373
- UN Security Council Resolution 1377
- UN Security Council Resolution 242
- UN Security Council Resolution 338
- UN Security Council Resolution 1515
- UN General Assembly Resolution 2625
- UN General Assembly Resolution 3314
- Article 22 Of the Covenant of the League of Nations
- PLO Charter
- FATEH Constitution
- Appendix I - ICJ Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004
- Index