A history lesson for Fraz

I've been having some frustrating conversations with someone by the name of Fraz (@FromFraz) on Twitter regarding Israel, settlements etc.

Here's a video that he and his ilk should watch, especially from around 7:00, it might teach them something about the borders in the Middle East.



Did you note the Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan from 1949 (at 22:38)?

'the Armistics Demarkation line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims, of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate of the Palestine question...'

Did you also understand the apartheid section from 43:07?


So @FromFraz please watch the whole video before you come back to me about settlements or apartheid.


Nice work Professor Eugene Kontorovich.

The legal case for Israel - If you watch only one video today, watch this one.

An absolutely fascinating piece of video where Professor Eugene Kontorovich first explains which bodies can make international laws and which can't and how that affects the status of Israel. More fascinating is the part from around 7 minutes in where there is a history lesson that the BBC and others would do well to watch and learn from.

Did you see the Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan from 1949 (at 22:38)?

'the Armistics Demarkation line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims, of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate of the Palestine question...'

The sanctity of International Law

The BBC get furious at infractions of International Law by Israel, even when it is confirmed that their actions are not illegal (see naval blockade of Gaza being declared legal). Contrastingly they seem less than concerned at the contravention of part of the Vienna Convention this week in Egypt. Article 22 of the Vienna Convention states:

'The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are inviolate and must not be entered by the host country except by permission of the head of the mission. Furthermore, the host country must protect the mission from intrusion or damage. The host country must never search the premises, nor seize its documents or property.'

I have not heard the BBC mention this; I wonder why? Do the BBC deem Israel to be so beyond the pale that they should not enjoy the protection of international law?