Showing 753 results

Archival description
Print preview
Card view Table view
602 results with digital objects Show results with digital objects
PAMPHLET 036 003
PAMPHLET 036 003
MP-PA-PAMPHLET_036-003 · Part
Part of Mosquito Press
  1. V.I. LENIN ON JOHN MACLEAN. John MacLean and Karl Liebknecht1 "Notwithstanding desperate persecution by the bourgeoisie, and notwithstanding the suppression of free speech and press, there has become outlined in every country during the war a trend of revolutionary internationalism. This trend has remained faithful to socialism. It has not yielded to chauvinism; it has not allowed it to be covered up by lying phrases about defence of the fatherland; but, on the contrary, it has exposed all the falsehood of these phrases, the whole criminal nature of the present war which the bourgeoisie of both coalitions is waging with predatory aims in view? To this trend belong, for instance, MacLean in England, who was sentenced to eighteen months hard labour for his struggle against the predatory English bour- geoisie, Karl Liebknecht in Germany, who was sentenced to hard labour by the German imperialist robbers for the 'crime' of advocating a revolution in Germany and exposing the predatory character of the war on the German side. To this trend belong also the Bolsheviks in Russia, who are being persecuted by the agents of Russian republican and democratic imperialism4 for the same 'crime' for which MacLean and Karl Liebknecht are being persecuted." 8th September 1917 - 'On the Stockholm Conference', Collected Works, Vol. XXI, Book I, p. 119. Working Class 'Treason' "In every country, the capitalists are pouring oceans of lies, calumnies, vilifications and accusations of treason upon those socialists who are behaving as Karl Liebknecht is behaving in Germany, or as the Pravda-ists5 are behaving in Russia, i.e., who are destroying the 'inner unity' between the workers and the capitalists, between the work- ers and the Plekhanovs6, between the workers and the 'centr- ists'7 of each country, and who are creating unity among the workers of all countries in order to put an end to the predatory, murderous, imperialist war, in order to rid man- kind of the yoke of capitalism. "In Germany, the capitalists are persecuting Karl Lieb- knecht and his friends as traitors. In Germany, too, our comrade, Karl Liebknecht, has been repeatedly threatened
PAMPHLET 036 002
PAMPHLET 036 002
MP-PA-PAMPHLET_036-002 · Part
Part of Mosquito Press

1917-1977 60th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Contents page A. V.I. Lenin on John MacLean 1. John MacLean and Karl Liebknecht....................3 2. Working Class Treason...............................3 3. The Stockholm Conference............................4 4. The Zimmerwald Left & its British Supporters........6 5. The Masses Move Against the War.....................6 6. John MacLean - Soviet Consul........................7 B. J.V. Stalin's Tribute to John MacLean..................8 C. Appendix - Lenin and MacLean...........................8 D. Reference Notes.......................................13 Publisher's Note These references in Lenin's Works to John MacLean can all be found in the collection 'Lenin on Britain' (Martin Lawrence, 1934, republished under the title 'British Lab- our and British Imperialism', Lawrence & Wishart, 1969). Vanguard Books for works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tsetung, John MacLean, James Connolly, Michael Mc- Creery, WPS Manifesto, Scottish Vanguard, Peking Review. Printed and Published in Scotland by the Workers' Party of Scotland (Marxist-Leninist) c/o Vanguard Books, 270 Paisley Road, Glasgow.
PAMPHLET 035 018
PAMPHLET 035 018
MP-PA-PAMPHLET_035-018 · Part
Part of Mosquito Press

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT BAZO-PS, Contact "G. MITCHELL, 90, John St., Glasgow Gl
PAMPHLET 035 017
PAMPHLET 035 017
MP-PA-PAMPHLET_035-017 · Part
Part of Mosquito Press

Other publications available from BAZO-PS "The Zionist Connection" by Dr. A.M. Lilienthal £10 plus £1.30P &p Kuneitra-The City Israel desroyed compiled by Louis Eaks 10p plus 16p p&p "Zionist Relations with Nazi Germany" by Faris Glubb £1.00 plus 25p P&p The Holocaust Victims Accuse by rabbi Moshe Shonfeld £1.50 plus 20p p&p "Zionism & Racism" by EAFORD £2.00 plus 40p p&p Sunday Times Torture-in-Israel Report free plus 30p p&p "Israeli Socialism-Myth or Reality?" by Arab League free plus 20p p&p Begin & Co: As they Really Are by Israel Shahak £1.50 postage paid "Nazi-Zionist Collaboration" by Jews Against Zionism & Anti-Semitism £1.50 plus 30p p&p Perfidy by Ben Hecht £2.00 plus 40p p&p Palestine; Facts in Focus by BAZO-PS 50p plus 20p p&p
PAMPHLET 035 016
PAMPHLET 035 016
MP-PA-PAMPHLET_035-016 · Part
Part of Mosquito Press

THE ILLEGITIMACY OF ISRAEL The people of Palestine have never given their consent to any transfer of title over their country nor have they recognized any sovereignty in the occu- pier. "In present day international law," observes Professor Schwarzenberger, "it is by itself not sufficient to transform wartime occupation into a transfer of sovereignty. Even in the relations between belligerents, not to speak of third States, the title requires to be consolidated by positive acts of recognition or consent or, at least, by acquiescence of the former territorial sovereign."³⁵ In the absence of international legal machinery available to the Palestinians to put an end to the usurpation of Palestine, one cannot really speak of laches or acquiescence or prescription. In these circumstances, neither the inalienable right of the Palestinians to their homeland nor the illegitimacy of Israel are eroded by time. ³⁵ G. Schwarzenberger, International Law, 3rd ed., p. 302.
PAMPHLET 035 015
PAMPHLET 035 015
MP-PA-PAMPHLET_035-015 · Part
Part of Mosquito Press

PALESTINE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW contained in the Charter. The admission of Israel to UN membership therefore cannot be construed to involve a legitimation of its creation. Moreover, as will be explained in greater detail in Section 3 of Chapter VIII, Israel was admitted to membership of the UN only after it gave to the General Assembly formal assurances concerning the implementation of its resolutions, and, in particular, concerning the implementation of the resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948. Despite such assurances, Israel has violated those resolutions, as well as a very large number of other resolutions, both of the General Assembly and the Security Council. In these circumstances, any argument that Israel's admission to the UN involved a retrospective legiti- mation of its creation would be tantamount to rewarding it for its breach of UN resolutions and of the conditions of its admission. c. Prescription Lapse of time does not cure Israel's illegitimacy, nor make legitimate its usurpation of the land of Palestine. Professor Giraud has observed that in contrast to private law, no prescription is envisaged by international law to regularize irregular situations.32 Even those who consider that prescription has a place in international law must concede that Israel cannot free itself from the stain of illegitimacy so long as its title is contested. Grotius considered the basis of prescription to be the presumed voluntary abandonment of his territory by the previous sovereign. In other words, prescription is grounded in acquiescence of the rightful sove- reign. Lauterpacht states: "The limits and conditions of acquisitive prescription in international law are not above controversy. Although its requirements are not as stringent as in the municipal sphere, the patent illegality of the purported acquisition, combined with continued protests on the part of the dispossessed State, are sufficient to rule out the legalization, in that manner, of the original illegality."33 Likewise, D. P. O'Connell observes: "Proof of actual consent to a territorial claim, or of failure to protest against it . . . is also essential in the case of prescription, for acquiescence in the possession of territory by a foreign State is a precondition of that possession being peaceful and constituting an effective reversal of the title of the definitive sovereign."34 In the case of Palestine, there exists no acquiescence on the part of the Pales- tinians to Israel's usurpation, nor any abandonment of their claim. 32 E. Giraud, "Le Droit International et la Politique", Hague Recueil, Vol. III, 1963, p. 425. 33 H. Lauterpacht, Recognition in International Law, p. 428, Cambridge University Press, 1947. 34 D. P. O'Connell, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 489-490.
PAMPHLET 035 014
PAMPHLET 035 014
MP-PA-PAMPHLET_035-014 · Part
Part of Mosquito Press

THE ILLEGITIMACY OF ISRAEL that no difference exists. Recognition by an Arab State would confer no legiti- macy nor title on the State of Israel. The reason is obvious. The territory in- volved is the territory of Palestine, which belongs to the Palestinians, and no State, Arab or non-Arab, can alienate it. At present, there is no Government which represents the Palestinians, or which can speak on their behalf. According to reliable estimates, the total number of Palestinians at the beginning of 1972 was 3,138,000 distributed as follows: 963,000 in the territory of the East Bank of Jordan; 717,000 in the territory of the West Bank; 389,000 in the Gaza Strip; 364,000 in Palestinian territory occupied by Israel before 1967; 257,000 in Lebanon; 174,000 in Syria; 150,000 in Kuwait; 124,000 in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya, the Gulf States and other countries. At the first Palestinian National Congress, convened in Jerusalem between 28 May and 2 June 1964, it was resolved that "the Palestine Liberation Organ- ization shall alone possess the right to represent the Palestinians and to speak on their behalf" (Resolution 5). Moreover, Article 4 of the Palestine National Covenant, adopted at the same Congress, declared: "The people of Palestine shall, after the liberation of their homeland, decide their own destiny in accordance with their own desire, will and choice." The Palestinians have ceded their rights to no other Government; no other Government can abrogate their right to their own land. The conclusion, therefore, is that the recognition of Israel by other States, even by an Arab State, does not remove the illegitimacy of Israel, nor impair the natural and inalienable right of the Palestinians to their homeland. b. Admission of Israel to the UN Admission to the UN did not involve recognition of Israel's legitimacy. The principle was established early in the life of the League of Nations that co- membership in the organization does not involve mutual recognition of the member States. The same principle applies in the UN. ³¹ Admission to member- ship of the UN, like recognition by other States, does not affect the status of Israel or cure its illegitimacy. Admission to the UN is not a kind of religious sacrament which, like baptism in Christianity, washes away human sin. The UN is not vested under the Charter with any power to legitimate a State which is illegitimate. The admission of a State does not depend upon the legiti- macy or otherwise of the State applying for membership. Nor does the proce- dure of admission involve any inquiry into the constitutional legitimacy or the manner of creation of the applicant State. All that is required under the Charter is evidence of its ability and willingness to accept and carry out the obligations ³¹ See Oppenheim, op. cit., 8th ed. Vol. I, p. 134, and D. P. O'Connell, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 169.
PAMPHLET 035 012
PAMPHLET 035 012
MP-PA-PAMPHLET_035-012 · Part
Part of Mosquito Press

THE ILLEGITIMACY OF ISRAEL "De jure recognition means full complete recognition. It does not refer to the legality of the recognized Government. De facto recognition means the situation created by the continuance or the establishment of diplomatic relations with a new Government, irrespective of its origin."20 In the Tinoco arbitration, Chief Justice Taft laid down the principle that recognition of a Government is determined by inquiry into "its de facto sove- reignty and complete governmental control," but not into "its illegitimacy or irregularity of origin."21 De Visscher states: "One might be inclined to think that State recognition is strictly a juridical institution governed by precise legal criteria . . . Observation demonstrates that this is far from being the case, and the matter, in varying degrees, depends on politics much more than on law."22 The same author remarks that "recognition is based on effectiveness of power, not on the internal constitutional legality of its origins."23 Again, Lauterpacht declares that "legitimacy of origin as a criterion of recognition was rejected in favour of the principle of effectiveness of governmental power."24 Rousseau observes that recognition does not entail moral approbation, but solely an ascertainment of effectiveness.25 Recognition, then, is neither evidence of the legitimacy nor a means of legitimation of the recognized State. Just as recognition has no effect upon the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the recognized State, so also recognition has no effect upon the question of title of the recognized State to the territory under its occupation. As an example among many, in 1936 a large number of States accorded de facto or de jure recognition to Italy's annexation of Ethiopia, but this recognition did not legalize Italy's occupation of Ethiopian territory nor vest Italy with title over such territory. Recognition by other States does not remove the vice with which an occupation is tainted: "La reconnaissance par les Puissances ne peut avoir au point de vue juridique aucune influence sur la validité de l'occupation . . . La reconnaissance du fait accompli par les Puissances civilisées est impuissante à couvrir le vice qui entache la prise de possession."26 The rule that recognition has no bearing on the title of the recognized State to the territory under its occupation is, however, subject to one qualification. 20 Philip M. Brown, "The Legal Effects of Recognition", AJIL, Vol. 44, 1950, p. 617. 21 AJIL, 1924, p. 152. 22 Translation from De Visscher, Théories et Réalités en Droit International Public, 4th ed., pp. 254-255, Pedone, Paris, 1970. 23 Ibid., p. 321. 24 H. Lauterpacht, Recognition in International Law, p. 102, University Press, Cambridge, 1947. 25 Charles Rousseau, Le Conflit Italo-Ethiopien, p. 235, Pedone, Paris, 1938. 26 Gaston Jèze, Etude Théorique et Pratique sur l'Occupation, p. 298, Paris, 1896.