DOCSLIB.ORG

United Nations' Oral History Project Interview with Mr. Issa Nakhleh by Hamid Abdelajber 22 October 1998- UN Headquarters

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United Nations' Oral History Project Interview with Mr. Issa Nakhleh by Hamid Abdelajber 22 October 1998- UN Headquarters 1 United Nations' Oral History Project Interview with Mr. Issa NAkhleh By Hamid Abdelajber 22 October 1998- UN Headquarters JABER: Welcome Mr. Issa Nakhleh to the United Nation's Oral History Project. We appreciate your acceptance to come and participate in this project. My name is Hamid Abdeljaber, the Interviewer and my Interviewee is Mr. Issa Nakhleh, and I would like Mr. Nakhleh first to start with asking you to introduce yourself briefly. In: My name is Issa Nakhleh. I am the representative of the Arab High Committee for Palestine since 1947. And I am the author of the Encyclopedia of the Palestine problem. I attended forty sessions of the United Nations since 1947. JABER: Mr. Nakhleh, we will go back to those days of 1946 and 1947 and we'll ask you first to briefly describe to us your association with the Question of Palestine as it was presented those days to the United Nations. IN: On the 2nd of April 1947, the British government requested the Secretary-General.of the United Nations to place the Question of Palestine on the agenda of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Secretary-General sent a ~elegram to all member states, requesting to convene a special session. When the Arab governments heard of this situation, they formed their delegations and, at the same time, the Arab High Cornrni ttee for Palestine formed its own delegation composed of Munif El-Husseini, Emil El-Ghouri, Henry Cattan, Wasef Kamal, and Issa Nakhleh, myself. 2 We le.ft- on, the ;2 6th af 'April i 94 7', from Cairo. The Palestine Arab delegation together with Mr.Azzam ~asha the, then, Secretary­ Gene-ral' 'of the League, of Arab Stat:es. We took an airplane on the 26 of April and we arrived on the 2.7th.We came to the United Nations vjHid"l" ,started to' discuss' the question of, Palestine on Ap r i 1 28', 1947. 0s.wald'o A(..aldlha- of Brazil, was the President of the General Assembly. He r~q~ested the General Committee"to consider the provisional agenda of that session. Beforei the General Committee, there was a proposal Introduced by the Br~tish .goyernment and by the Secretary~General'that they should constitute and instruct a special Committee to prepare for the consideration of the Question of Palestine on the second regular session. The Arab governments wanted to put before the General Committee another proposal which called on the United Nations to grant Palestine Independence and freedom. On April 28 and 29, the General Conuni ttee met to discuss the agenda. Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia submitted an item for the agenda: termination of the British mandate over Palestine and the declaration of its Independence. The General Committee refused to include the proposal of the Arab governmen~s. and decided that the General Assembly should discuss onl:.y.~,what. th'e'President and the Secretary-General has suggested of establishing a special committee. The Arab suggestion was defeated. The General committeedesi~~a that the matter should be referred to the First Committee. The report of the General Committee was submitted to the General Assembly which discussed it on May the 3rd and 5th. 3 3 Delegates of Uruguay, Yugoslavia, Chile, Argentina, andBy.e~t~ssia submitted a draft resolution allowing the Jewish Agency for Palestine to be granted the right to be heard by the General Assembly., The General Assembly adopted that resolution. The Arab States protested. The First Committee decided on May 5th, 1947 that the Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine together should be heard before the Committee. [ The General Assembly on the 7th of May, 1947 adopted a resolution I that the Arab Higher Committee should be heard also before the I General Assembly and the other Committees. On May 13, the recommendation came from the First Committee to the r General Assembly for constituting and instructing a United Nations I Special Committee on Palestine to submit a report on the Question of Palestine to be composed of Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, I India,Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia. The Secretary-General should submit that report of the Special Committee I on Palestine not later than the first of September 1947. I After the general debate, the General Assembly adopted a resolution on I May 15, 1947 to appoint the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine as recommended by the First Committee. I JABER: What did the UN Special Committee on Palestine do? I IN: The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine went to the r United Kingdom and Palestine and heard witnesses. The .Arab Higher .. Committee for Palestine 'Joycotted the Committee. The Special Committee on J Palestine submitted its report to the United Nations Secretary General J' 4 on September 3, 1947. The report included a recommendation approved by Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, the Netherlands, Peru, Sweden and Uruguay to partition Palestine into an Arab State and a Jewish State with economic union and a Special International Status for Jerusalem. A minority group of India, Iran and Yugoslavia recommended to constitute a Federal State in Palestine composed of an Arab State, a Jewish State and a Federal Government. During the Second Session of the United Nations General Assembly, the report of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine was referred to the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine question which invited representatives of the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine and the Jewish Agency to take part in the discussion. The Ad Hoc Committee discussed the matter from September 25 to November 25, 1947. JABER: What was the attitude of the States in the Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine? IN: The United States was not very enthusiastic for the Partition Proposal, but finally it supported the idea of Partition. Most of the European States supported Partition. Some Latin American States supported Partition. The Communist States, who were part of I the Soviet Union supported partition. The Arab States and the Asian I and African States were against Partition. JABER: I understand that there was a proposal to refer the I matter to the International Court of Justice. What happened to that I proposal? I - 5 IN: The Arab States authorized Fares Al-Khouri, representative of Syria, to submit a resolution to request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion under Article 96 of the United Nations Charter and Chapter IV of the Statute of the Court on several legal issues, amongst which whether a plan for the partition of Palestine without the consent of the majority of its people is consistent with the objectives of the Covenant of the League of Nations and with the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine. The resolution was rejected by 21 votes to 20, with 13 abstentions. JABER: Did the Ad Hoc Committee approve the partition plan? IN: On November 25, 1947 the Ad Hoc Committee approved the partition resolution by 25 members, J.).. agains·t; with 17 abstentions . •• e ...• Two members were absent. Six Arab States, Afghanistan, Cuba, India, Iran, Siam, Pakistan and Turkey voted against it. Argentina, Belgium, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia abstained. Paraguay and the Philippines were absent. r JABER: Did the Arab States try to convince other States not to support the partition resolution in the Ad Hoc Committee? I" IN: The Arab States and the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine r were contacting all members of the Ad Hoc Committee so that they would not support the partition resolution. The most important r Arab representatives who were active in that effort were Prince Faisal r of Saudi Arabia, Fares El-Khourj. of Syria, Carneel Sharn'oun of Lebanon, Mahmoud F~wzi of Egypt, Fadel Jamali of Iraq, and all of the r I 6 I representatives of the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine. Prince I Faisal contacted General George C. Marshall, United States Secretary of State and some American oil companies to influence the Department I of State not to support partition. I I met members of the United States delegation who were not originally in favor of partition. I met Mr. Lay Henderson, I Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, and he told me, IIWe do not favor the partition resolution. 1I The book of the I Foreign Relations of the United States in 1947 includes many I statements that the United States was against partition in principle. Later on they changed their position and supported partition. I JABER: What was the position of the British Government? I IN: The British Government was hesitant to support I partition. Its representatives said, "We do not want to support partition, but we will not be against it." r JABER: What was the position of United States Church r organizations on partition? r IN: The National Council of Churches was unfortunately for partition. I tried to convince the Secretary General of the 1- National Council of Churches to make a statement against partition but he declined. I used to know Cardinal Spellman because when I r came to the United Sates in 1947 I had a letter to him from the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem in which he said, "Mr. Nakhleh is my lawyer r and my friend." Cardinal Spellman invited me to lunch and I I explained to him the Palestine Problem. He was very sympathetic. I I 7 I Unfortunately I discovered in November 1947 that some Jewish American leaders visited Cardinal Spe11man and gave him twenty five million I dollars for Catholic charities and asked him to call some Latin I American States to support partition.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Catastrophe Overtakes the Palestinians
    Catastrophe A Note from the Editors Overtakes the Sami Hadawi’s life (1904–2004) mirrors Palestinians: that of many Palestinians of his generation. He grew up in Palestine during the British Memoirs, Part II Mandate years and was forced out in 1948, never to be allowed to return. He lived in Sami Hadawi exile the rest of his life and devoted his energy to the cause of Palestine. He became a well-known scholar of the Nakba, devoting his life to researching and documenting its effects on the Palestinians, in particular the refugees. Hadawi’s memoirs were circulated privately in English in 1996 in two volumes. In Jerusalem Quarterly 53, we published a selection from these memoirs about his early childhood in Jerusalem, titled “Sodomy, Locusts, and Cholera.” Below we publish a section dealing with the destruction of Palestine in 1948.1 The text reprinted here deals primarily with the memories of the author during May 1948, the same month in which Israel was declared a state over most of Palestine, while Jordan annexed the eastern part of the country as the kingdom’s West Bank and Egypt took over the administration of the Gaza Strip. The text below is faithful to the original with two exceptions: spelling, punctuation, and capitalization have been regularized; and we have added a few explanatory notes. For more on Sami Hadawi, see the introduction to the excerpt republished in Jerusalem Quarterly 53. *** The Union Jack over Government House came down after thirty years of British administration, and the British High Commissioner with his staff left Jerusalem on the morning of 14 May 1948.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mount Scopus Enclave, 1948–1967
    Yfaat Weiss Sovereignty in Miniature: The Mount Scopus Enclave, 1948–1967 Abstract: Contemporary scholarly literature has largely undermined the common perceptions of the term sovereignty, challenging especially those of an exclusive ter- ritorial orientation and offering a wide range of distinct interpretations that relate, among other things, to its performativity. Starting with Leo Gross’ canonical text on the Peace of Westphalia (1948), this article uses new approaches to analyze the policy of the State of Israel on Jerusalem in general and the city’s Mount Scopus enclave in 1948–1967 in particular. The article exposes tactics invoked by Israel in three different sites within the Mount Scopus enclave, demilitarized and under UN control in the heart of the Jordanian-controlled sector of Jerusalem: two Jewish in- stitutions (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Hadassah hospital), the Jerusa- lem British War Cemetery, and the Palestinian village of Issawiya. The idea behind these tactics was to use the Demilitarization Agreement, signed by Israel, Transjor- dan, and the UN on July 7, 1948, to undermine the status of Jerusalem as a Corpus Separatum, as had been proposed in UN Resolution 181 II. The concept of sovereignty stands at the center of numerous academic tracts written in the decades since the end of the Cold War and the partition of Europe. These days, with international attention focused on the question of Jerusalem’s international status – that is, Israel’s sovereignty over the town – there is partic- ularly good reason to examine the broad range of definitions yielded by these discussions. Such an examination can serve as the basis for an informed analy- sis of Israel’s policy in the past and, to some extent, even help clarify its current approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel in 1982: the War in Lebanon
    Israel in 1982: The War in Lebanon by RALPH MANDEL LS ISRAEL MOVED INTO its 36th year in 1982—the nation cele- brated 35 years of independence during the brief hiatus between the with- drawal from Sinai and the incursion into Lebanon—the country was deeply divided. Rocked by dissension over issues that in the past were the hallmark of unity, wracked by intensifying ethnic and religious-secular rifts, and through it all bedazzled by a bullish stock market that was at one and the same time fuel for and seeming haven from triple-digit inflation, Israelis found themselves living increasingly in a land of extremes, where the middle ground was often inhospitable when it was not totally inaccessible. Toward the end of the year, Amos Oz, one of Israel's leading novelists, set out on a journey in search of the true Israel and the genuine Israeli point of view. What he heard in his travels, as published in a series of articles in the daily Davar, seemed to confirm what many had sensed: Israel was deeply, perhaps irreconcilably, riven by two political philosophies, two attitudes toward Jewish historical destiny, two visions. "What will become of us all, I do not know," Oz wrote in concluding his article on the develop- ment town of Beit Shemesh in the Judean Hills, where the sons of the "Oriental" immigrants, now grown and prosperous, spewed out their loath- ing for the old Ashkenazi establishment. "If anyone has a solution, let him please step forward and spell it out—and the sooner the better.
    [Show full text]
  • Ordinary Jerusalem 1840–1940
    Ordinary Jerusalem 1840–1940 Angelos Dalachanis and Vincent Lemire - 978-90-04-37574-1 Downloaded from Brill.com03/21/2019 10:36:34AM via free access Open Jerusalem Edited by Vincent Lemire (Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée University) and Angelos Dalachanis (French School at Athens) VOLUME 1 The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/opje Angelos Dalachanis and Vincent Lemire - 978-90-04-37574-1 Downloaded from Brill.com03/21/2019 10:36:34AM via free access Ordinary Jerusalem 1840–1940 Opening New Archives, Revisiting a Global City Edited by Angelos Dalachanis and Vincent Lemire LEIDEN | BOSTON Angelos Dalachanis and Vincent Lemire - 978-90-04-37574-1 Downloaded from Brill.com03/21/2019 10:36:34AM via free access This is an open access title distributed under the terms of the prevailing CC-BY-NC-ND License at the time of publication, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided no alterations are made and the original author(s) and source are credited. The Open Jerusalem project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) (starting grant No 337895) Note for the cover image: Photograph of two women making Palestinian point lace seated outdoors on a balcony, with the Old City of Jerusalem in the background. American Colony School of Handicrafts, Jerusalem, Palestine, ca. 1930. G. Eric and Edith Matson Photograph Collection, Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/item/mamcol.054/ Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Dalachanis, Angelos, editor.
    [Show full text]
  • The Israeli Experience in Lebanon, 1982-1985
    THE ISRAELI EXPERIENCE IN LEBANON, 1982-1985 Major George C. Solley Marine Corps Command and Staff College Marine Corps Development and Education Command Quantico, Virginia 10 May 1987 ABSTRACT Author: Solley, George C., Major, USMC Title: Israel's Lebanon War, 1982-1985 Date: 16 February 1987 On 6 June 1982, the armed forces of Israel invaded Lebanon in a campaign which, although initially perceived as limited in purpose, scope, and duration, would become the longest and most controversial military action in Israel's history. Operation Peace for Galilee was launched to meet five national strategy goals: (1) eliminate the PLO threat to Israel's northern border; (2) destroy the PLO infrastructure in Lebanon; (3) remove Syrian military presence in the Bekaa Valley and reduce its influence in Lebanon; (4) create a stable Lebanese government; and (5) therefore strengthen Israel's position in the West Bank. This study examines Israel's experience in Lebanon from the growth of a significant PLO threat during the 1970's to the present, concentrating on the events from the initial Israeli invasion in June 1982 to the completion of the withdrawal in June 1985. In doing so, the study pays particular attention to three aspects of the war: military operations, strategic goals, and overall results. The examination of the Lebanon War lends itself to division into three parts. Part One recounts the background necessary for an understanding of the war's context -- the growth of PLO power in Lebanon, the internal power struggle in Lebanon during the long and continuing civil war, and Israeli involvement in Lebanon prior to 1982.
    [Show full text]
  • March 16, 2020 PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER I Before
    ICC-01/18-79 16-03-2020 1/32 NM PT Original: English Case: ICC-01/18 Date: March 16, 2020 PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER I Before: Judge Péter Kovács, Presiding Judge Judge Marc Perrin de Brichambaut Judge Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou SITUATION IN THE STATE OF PALESTINE Public Written Observation of Shurat HaDin on the Issue of Affected Communities Source: SHURAT HADIN – Israel Law Center Israel, 10 HaTa'as Street Ramat Gan, 52512. Phone: 972-3-7514175 Fax: 972-3-7514174 Email: [email protected] 1/32 Case: ICC-01/18 ICC-01/18-79 16-03-2020 2/32 NM PT Document to be notified in accordance with regulation 31 of the Regulations of the Court to The Office of the Prosecutor Counsel for the Defence Fatou Bensouda James Stewart Legal Representatives of the Victims Legal Representatives of the Applicants Unrepresented Victims Unrepresented Applicants (Participation/Reparation) The Office of Public Counsel for The Office of Public Counsel for the Victims Defence Paolina Messida Xavier-Jean Keita States’ Representatives Amicus Curiae The competent authorities of 'palestine' All Amici Curiae The competent authorities of The State of Israel REGISTRY Registrar Counsel Support Section Peter Lewis Detention Section Victims and Witnesses Unit Victims Participation and Reparations Other Section Philip Ambach Case: ICC-01/18 2/32 ICC-01/18-79 16-03-2020 3/32 NM PT 1. Consistent with the Pre-Trial Chamber's order of Feb 20, 20201, granting leave to submit observations, and in accordance with Rule 103 to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Shurat HaDin – Israel Law Center (SHD) respectfully submits its written observation in respect of the issue of jurisdiction in the case regarding “The State of Palestine”.
    [Show full text]
  • Editor Aya Walid Shamaa Translator Samah Miqdad
    Editor Translator Aya Walid Shamaa Samah Miqdad Israel Kills Families Targeted by Israeli Terror in 2012 Editor Aya Walid Shamaa Translator Samah Miqdad Book: Israel Kills “Families Targeted by Israeli Terror in 2012” Documentary Study First Edition © All Rights Reserved Women for Palestine Website: www.womenfpal.com Email address: [email protected] Telephone: +970-8-28 28 164 Mobile: +970-59-888 90 70 Address: Al Khozondar Building, Ahmad Abd El Aziz St., Al Remal, Gaza, Palestine Supervision: Ibtisam Saymah Editor: Aya Walid Shamaa Introduction by: Dr. Adnan Abu Amer Proofed by: Refaat Alareer Team: Alaa Al-Hasanat Heba Hamdan Kholoud Abu Jazar Dima Aydiya Summer Abu Madi Yasmin Saqallah Asal Abu Taqiya Iman Abu Sal Doaa Abdulatif Abeer Abu Mokhadah Photographers: Asmaa Hamad Majdi Suliman Momen Qureqe Israel Kills Families Targeted by Israeli Terror in 2012 Contents Preface 1 Method of Documentation 2 Contents of study 4 First Day November 14, 2012 25 1 Testimony of Um Mohammed, Wife of the Martyr, Ahmed Jabari 27 2 Testimony of Um Hamid al-Hams, Wife of the Martyr, Mohammed 28 3 Testimony of Nisreen Arafat, 28, Mother of Martyr Ronan 29 4 Testimony of Ahlam Al-Ashi, 24, Mother of Omar 30 5 Testimony of Fatima Abu Al-Meza, 15, Sister of the Martyr Essam 31 6 Testimony of Samiha Badr Al-Kaseeh, 47, Mother of Martyr Mohammed 32 7 Inaam Abu Sawaween, 33, Daughter of Martyr Mahmoud 33 Second Day, November 15, 2012 35 1 Testimony of Khansa Mesmeh, 27, Wife of Martyr Habes 37 2 Testimony of Hesham Al- Ghalban’s Mother 37 3 Testimony of
    [Show full text]
  • “Just War” Case Study: Israeli Invasion of Lebanon
    “Just War” Case Study: Israeli Invasion Of Lebanon CSC 2002 Subject Area History EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Title: “JUST WAR” CASE STUDY: ISRAELI INVASION OF LEBANON. Author: Major Christopher A. Arantz, U.S. Marine Corps Thesis: This essay examines Israel’s overall reasons for invasion of southern Lebanon, and compares them to just war theory’s war-decision law and war-conduct law. This examination will establish that Israel achieved her objectives before war termination, which lead to some unjust actions. Discussion: Between 1948 and 1982 Israel had engaged in conventional combat four times against Arab coalition forces. In all cases, Israel fought for survival of its state and established a military dominance in the region. In the years leading up to 1982, the Israeli government sought ways to eliminate security problems in its occupied territory and across its border with southern Lebanon. Israel defined its security problems as terrorist excursions that threatened the security of its people and property in northern Israel. This paper will examine Israeli conduct of deciding to go to war and their conduct of war in relation to just war theory. Three areas will be examined; 1) Did Israel have a just cause, use a legitimate authority and the right intention for invading Lebanon as in accordance with Jus ad Bellum? 2) Did Israel conduct the conflict in accordance with Jus in Bello? 3) What are the long-term ramifications for the region since the invasion? Conclusion: 1. War does not have to be just, but it clearly helps the overall outcome when world opinion believes a war is being conducted for just reasons, and clearly outlined.
    [Show full text]
  • The Occupation and the Employment of the Israel Defense Forces
    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive DSpace Repository Theses and Dissertations 1. Thesis and Dissertation Collection, all items 2002-12 Breaking consensus : the occupation and the employment of the Israel Defense Forces Scoratow, Leon B. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/3316 Downloaded from NPS Archive: Calhoun NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California THESIS BREAKING CONSENSUS: THE OCCUPATION AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES by Leon B Scoratow December 2002 Thesis Advisor: Glenn E Robinson Second Reader: Jeffrey Knopf Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED December 2002 Master’s Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE: Breaking Consensus: The Occupation and the 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Employment of the Israel Defense Forces 6. AUTHOR Leon B Scoratow, LT, USN 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING Naval Postgraduate School ORGANIZATION REPORT Monterey, CA 93943-5000 NUMBER 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel's Wars, 1947-93
    Israel’s Wars, 1947–93 Warfare and History General Editor Jeremy Black Professor of History, University of Exeter European warfare, 1660–1815 Jeremy Black The Great War, 1914–18 Spencer C. Tucker Wars of imperial conquest in Africa, 1830–1914 Bruce Vandervort German armies: war and German politics, 1648–1806 Peter H. Wilson Ottoman warfare, 1500–1700 Rhoads Murphey Seapower and naval warfare, 1650–1830 Richard Harding Air power in the age of total war, 1900–60 John Buckley Frontiersmen: warfare in Africa since 1950 Anthony Clayton Western warfare in the age of the Crusades, 1000–1300 John France The Korean War Stanley Sandler European and Native-American warfare, 1675–1815 Armstrong Starkey Vietnam Spencer C. Tucker The War for Independence and the transformation of American society Harry M. Ward Warfare, state and society in the Byzantine world, 565–1204 John Haldon Soviet military system Roger Reese Warfare in Atlantic Africa, 1500–1800 John K. Thornton The Soviet military experience Roger Reese Warfare at sea, 1500–1650 Jan Glete Warfare and society in Europe, 1792–1914 Geoffrey Wawro Israel’s Wars, 1947–93 Ahron Bregman Israel’s Wars, 1947–93 Ahron Bregman London and NewYork First published 2000 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, NewYork, NY 10001 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2001. © 2000 Ahron Bregman All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
    [Show full text]
  • Prosiding Silin 2017
    SILiN 2017; Seminar Internasional Pertama Literature Nusantara Sanksi Pelanggaran Pasal 113 Undang-undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2014 tentang Hak Cipta, sebagaimana yang diatur dan diubah dari Undang-undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2002, bahwa: Kutipan Pasal 113 (1) Setiap Orang yang dengan tanpa hak melakukan pelanggaran hak ekonomi sebagai mana dimaksud dalam Pasal 9 ayat (1) huruf i untuk Penggunaan Secara Komersial dipidana dengan pidana penjara paling lama 1 (satu) tahun dan/atau pidana denda paling banyak Rp 100.000.000,00 (seratus juta rupiah). (2) Setiap Orang yang dengan tanpa hak dan/atau tanpa izin Pencipta atau pemegang Hak Cipta melakukan pelanggaran hak ekonomi Pencipta sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 9 ayat (1) huruf c, huruf d, huruf f, dan/atau huruf h untuk Peng guna an Secara Komersial dipidana dengan pidana penjara paling lama 3 (tiga) tahun dan/atau pidana denda paling banyak Rp 500.000.000,00 (lima ratus juta rupiah). (3) Setiap Orang yang dengan tanpa hak dan/atau tanpa izin Pencipta atau pemegang Hak Cipta melakukan pelanggaran hak ekonomi Pencipta sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 9 ayat (1) huruf a, huruf b, huruf e, dan/atau huruf g untuk Pengguna an Secara Komersial dipidana dengan pidana penjara paling lama 4 (empat) tahun dan/atau pidana denda paling banyak Rp 1.000.000. 000,00 (satu miliar rupiah). (4) Setiap Orang yang memenuhi unsur sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (3) yang dilakukan dalam bentuk pembajakan, dipidana dengan pidana penjara paling lama 10 (sepuluh) tahun dan/atau pidana denda paling banyak Rp 4.000.000.000,00 (empat miliar rupiah). Proceedings SILiN 2017; Seminar Internasional Pertama Literature Nusantara Salatiga Jum’at, 8 September 2017 Editor: Kastholani, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Temple Mount Faithful – Amutah Et Al V
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 45 Issue 3 Spring 1996 Article 18 1996 Temple Mount Faithful – Amutah Et Al v. Attorney-General, Inspector-General of the Police, Mayor of Jerusalem, Minister of Education and Culture, Director of the Antiquities Division, Muslim WAQF - In the Supreme Court Sitting as the High Court of Justice [September 23, 1993] Menachem Elon Aharon Barak Gavriel Bach Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Menachem Elon, Aharon Barak & Gavriel Bach, Temple Mount Faithful – Amutah Et Al v. Attorney-General, Inspector-General of the Police, Mayor of Jerusalem, Minister of Education and Culture, Director of the Antiquities Division, Muslim WAQF - In the Supreme Court Sitting as the High Court of Justice [September 23, 1993], 45 Cath. U. L. Rev. 866 (1996). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol45/iss3/18 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Catholic University Law Review [Vol. 45:861 TEMPLE MOUNT FAITHFUL-AMUTAH ET AL. v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF THE POLICE MAYOR OF JERUSALEM MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE DIRECTOR OF THE ANTIQUITIES DIVISION MUSLIM WAQF In the Supreme Court Sitting as the High Court of Justice [September 23, 1993] Justice Menachem Elon, Deputy President, Justice Aharon Barak, Justice Gavriel Bach V. THE PARTIES Petitioners Petitioner 1: Temple Mount Faithful Amutah Petitioner 2: Chairman, Temple Mount Faithful Amutah Petitioners 3, 4, 5, 6: Members of Temple Mount Faithful Amutah Respondents Respondent 1: Attorney-General Respondent 2: Inspector-General of the Jerusalem Police Respondent 3: Mayor of Jerusalem Respondent 4: Minister of Education and Culture Respondent 5: Director of the Antiquities Division Respondent 6: Muslim Waqf Petition for an order nisi.
    [Show full text]