Reply With QuoteI am waiting to see if he shows up to the ADC confrence next weekend. www.adc.org
Balanced and equality for ALL?
Last night watched Obama's speech for the AIPAC foreign policy forum. Holy crap is he good! I don't think I was ever more impressed by a candidate.
McCain is in a lot of trouble. Obama is a better speecher, he is more charismatic and he is better looking.
Obama has a tough stance against Iran.
You can read his whole speech here.
Equality..was civil rights lawyer..let's wait and see
I am waiting to see if he shows up to the ADC confrence next weekend. www.adc.org
Balanced and equality for ALL?
Fear of the unknown has america by the neck, I hope americans who love our country wake up and back obama, McCain is all about destroying america like his buddy george bush..
Somehow in today's political climate - I doubt it.Originally Posted by Mary3
What he said.....
He staked out some hawkish positions, declaring that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," and termed Israel's attack in September on Syria's alleged incipient nuclear facility "entirely justified to end that threat."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull
What his "advisor" said the next day.
But a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties" as part of "an agreement that they both can live with."
"Two principles should apply to any outcome," which the adviser gave as: "Jerusalem remains Israel's capital and it's not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull
The candidate of change?
A constant flux of change.
He actually was for a Jewish Jerusalem before he was against it.
http://minx.cc/?post=266017
Hillary will NEVER be President
Obama is a FORMER President
Joe Biden is in Scranton eating paste.
Be there?
He's a charter member.
Hillary will NEVER be President
Obama is a FORMER President
Joe Biden is in Scranton eating paste.
You lost me. Where did Obama change his stance?
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama did not rule out Palestinian sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem when he called for Israel's capital to remain "undivided," his campaign told The Jerusalem Post Thursday.
Now how does Undivided equate with giving part of it over to Palestinian control?
This isn't rocket science Aaron.
Obama talks out of all his orifices.
Hillary will NEVER be President
Obama is a FORMER President
Joe Biden is in Scranton eating paste.
I'm sorry but I am ignorant to how Jerusalem is divided between Palestinian and Israeli control. Is Jerusalem currently divided between the two? Or is it totally under the control of Israel now?
Info you requested..
http://www.hcef.org/
The Status of Jerusalem: Legal Aspects
By Rev. Majdi Siryani
The legal aspects related to the Jerusalem question are numerous, very complex, and deeply rooted in historical, religious and political factors. Actually, it is not easy to dissociate these elements from one another. Moreover, at this very time when mainly emotional judgments are dominating the stage, it is a difficult task to talk about the legal aspects of this question. Indeed, much of the literature on the Jerusalem issue is unfortunately partial, biased and far from objective. Oriented mass media has lot to do with this.
Nonetheless, it is essential to dissociate the legal aspects from the other aspects for a better understanding. Accordingly, the central legal issues concerning Jerusalem could be identified as follows:
Territorial sovereignty;
municipal administration;
the Holy Places.
Because of its identification as the Holy City of the three monotheistic religions, the city of Jerusalem alone has different groups with significant non indigenous populations laying claims to title. Without denying the religious implications of the problem, it is abundantly clear that the core of today's struggle centers on territorial sovereignty. The advanced claims range from exclusive sovereignty of one party to exclusive sovereignty of the other party.
The troubling problem is the fact that both parties claim Jerusalem as the capital of their respective States and neither is willing to relinquish its claim. On the other hand, the creation of new facts on the ground, which constitute a fait accompli, is becoming a further complication to the already highly complicated question.
This paper has the aim to clarify the background regarding the legal issue of territorial sovereignty, which is essential to the understanding of the current legal status of the City, as well as to the understanding of many other legal issues inherent to this question. The basic objective of this paper is to briefly analyze the principal claims to title to Jerusalem advanced by both parties to the conflict.
Our inquiry will consider two principal groups of claims: the first group is the historical connection to this land, and the second group is the recent legal claims to title that are supported by arguments and documents. This analysis will help answer the question of whether or not the parties have a sound legal basis for their claims, and therefore a sound basis for their political control over the City.
Historic Claims
The first type of the advanced claims to sovereignty over the city is the historic claim. Both Arabs and Israelis propound historic connections to Palestine dating back to biblical times. While Jews trace back their roots to the patriarch Abraham, circa 1800 BC, Arabs base their claim on their time immemorial status as the majority population of Palestine. They claim the Canaanites as their ancestors.
Moreover, Israeli claims are said to be based on divine covenant, election and donation, "God gave us the land," forgetting to say that it was acquired by conquest as often stated in the book of Joshua: "Joshua conquered the entire country; he left no survivors." (Joshua 10:40).
First, the idea that the establishment of the State of Israel is the actualization of a divine promise needs clarification. From a theological standpoint, to identify today's Israel as the restoration of the Old Testament Israel, without the Old Testament's conceptions of priesthood, sacrifices, monarchy, and more essentially the renewal of the covenant, is doubtful. God's commitment to Israel needs to be seen as part of the total perspective of God's purpose for the whole of humanity. As for the prophets, when they spoke about God's future dealings with Israel and the nations, they spoke in terms of their contemporary realties.
However, Israelis nowadays do not place primary emphasis on this religious dimension, which is more of a Christian idea. According to recent statistics, the number of Israelis living in Israel, who believe in JHWH, are fewer than those who do not believe are.
From a legal point of view, the basic criterion in any claim to territory is occupation. The key element in resolving such claims according to the ICJ is the effectiveness of occupation.
The Israeli claims do not include any long-standing territorial occupation and use of the territory; rather, they claim an ancient religious and cultural connection to it. In reality, established history reveals that consolidated Jewish rule lasted only 400 years, from 1000 BC to 587 BC. During nineteen centuries since their dispersion after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, they ceased to exist in Palestine as a people. A general history of non rule cannot serve as the basis for historic claims.
Moreover, this claim, supposedly accepted, ignores the rules of prescription existing in any legal order. A title to property is lost if not claimed within a reasonable period of time. This loss is conditioned also upon the "peaceful and uninterrupted reign" by an occupying power, which replaced the legal sovereign. This latter, the occupying power, could press the legal claim of prescription only if its possession of the territory extended for a reasonable time, and was open, notorious and active.
As for the Arab's occupation, it was more significant both in terms of numbers and authority. The Islamic conquest put an end to the rule of the West in the year 638, and except for the brief interlude of the Crusades in the twelfth century, Jerusalem remained under the Arabs up until 1967. This tenure gave them a prescriptive right to Palestine.
The demographic shift in favor of the Jewish population in the aftermath of the 1948 war was the result of involuntary massive wartime displacement. Thus, the legal conclusion is that this involuntary shift does not effect the Palestinian historic claims.
Finally, international stability cannot condone the acceptance of such claims. The term is disruptive, dangerous, and constitutes a threat to world peace and stability. The acceptance of the principle of historic rights could lead us to non desirable conclusions.
The historic claims are thus outlawed for two main reasons: first, they lack any legal validity since they are not based on occupation. Second, because of the dangerous impact they could have on today's political thinking.
Recent Claims
I) The Seminal Roots: The Balfour Declaration and the Mandate:
Israel's claims to Palestine in general, and to the city of Jerusalem in particular, found their first legal support in the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The Declaration came in the form of a monumental letter from British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour to Baron Rothschild. It had been since referred to as one of the seminal documents leading to the establishment of the State of Israel. The Declaration had been characterized as having significant legal bearing upon its claims to the country.
We have to bear in mind the following facts:
The Declaration was issued on November 2, 1917, when Turkey, not Britain, ruled Palestine. Britain thus had no legal authority to make such a promise.
At no time did the British possess any right of sovereignty over Palestine. The terms of the Mandate, according to the ICJ, did not include any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty.
The promise was made without the consent of or even the consultation with the indigenous population.
A promise made by a third party to another third party about the property of yet another third party is no more than a unilateral political declaration. However, the provisions of the Declaration were incorporated in the text of the League of Nations Mandate over Palestine entrusted to Britain in 1922. Regardless of the its initial illegality, the Declaration obtained multilateral assent and became binding as international law. Additional authority was obtained when the US adhered to the Mandate in 1924. The sanction of international recognition was henceforth given.
On November 29, 1947, UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), known as the Palestine Partition Plan, emphasized that "The States [Arab and Israeli] shall be bound by all international agreements and conventions, both general and particular, to which Palestine has become party."
When in May 1948 Israel declared its statehood, there has been no record whatsoever of any protest of the States parties to the Mandate or others against the Israeli reliance upon the Balfour Declaration as legal basis for its territorial claims. This failure of the States to protest gave legal authority to the Declaration. It is thereby established as international law through the recognized customary lawmaking process of the implicit agreement of States expressed by toleration, acquiescence and silence.
It is true then that the Balfour Declaration acquired legal authority, but to ensure this legal authority, the Declaration must be interpreted consistently with the basic limitations of the international law rules. Accordingly, unless the parties to the conflict recognize the preeminence of the two safeguard clauses on the favor clause, and interpret them in the context of the Mandate system as a "sacred trust of civilization" to the mandated people, the Declaration would have no legal meaning or authority. Definitely, therefore, the continuing legal validity of the Declaration is a very limited and conditional grant to the Israeli claims.
It is worth noticing that until this moment Jerusalem was not mentioned by name but treated as an integral part of Palestine.
II) The Palestine Partition Plan: GA Resolution 181(II):
On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted with the full authority of thirty three votes in favor to thirteen against and ten abstentions GA Resolution 181(II), known also as the Palestine Partition Plan. The Plan proposed the following:
the establishment of two States, an Arab State and a Jewish State;
minority protection guarantees;
provisions for individual emigration and citizenship;
internationalization of Jerusalem under a "Special Regime";
supranational integration through the "Economic union of Palestine".
The entire Plan was to be placed under international supervision, and the SC would retain jurisdiction over all attempts to "alter the Plan by force".
GA Resolution 181(II) was denounced as illegal on the ground that:
It was anti Charter and immoral;
The UN did not have any authority over Palestine. It only had super visionary power.
Nonetheless, and despite the fact that according to international legal doctrine the UN had gone ultra vires, the combination of different circumstances and later developments gave the Resolution legal authority:
the Resolution was adopted by the two thirds vote required for important questions;
all subsequent resolutions concerning the Palestinians right to self determination, to return, and others were consistent with the basic provisions of the Resolution;
all subsequent resolutions were consistent with the continued existence of the State of Israel as one of the two States proposed in the Plan, provided that Israel complies with the obligations and restrictions which are conjoined with the authorization to establish a State; and finally,
both Arabs and Israelis accepted when they signed the Lausanne Protocol on May 12, 1949 as the basis for a territorial settlement.
the validity of the Resolution is not dependent upon its subsequent effectuation.
Therefore, we are led to conclude that the Palestine Partition Plan continues to provide legal authority, combined however with restrictions upon that authority, for each of two states in Palestine.
The Resolution was not implemented, and the partition of Palestine came as a result of the 1948 war between the Arabs and the Jews. The city of Jerusalem was divided too. The Jordanians controlled the eastern part and the Israelis the western part. Soon after, the Israeli leaders declared the establishment of the Israeli State. In their declaration of independence, they relied upon GA Resolution 181(II), as well as their historical connection to Palestine, as the legal basis of their statehood.
III) "Void of Sovereignty" Claim:
In the absence of an official title, Israeli scholars formulated a different argument, the "Void of Sovereignty" claim, to demonstrate that their control over West Jerusalem is legal. According to this claim, Jerusalem, as well as the whole Palestine, was, in legal terms, a terra nullius, open to occupation.
This "Void of Sovereignty" claim is rejected on the ground that no such void or suspension existed, because during the Mandate period, the community of citizens of Palestine held sovereignty subject to Great Britain's administration. Palestinians carried Palestine citizenship and were represented by a UN's recognized organization (Arab Higher Committee). In fact, under the British Administration, Palestinian legislative, executive, and judicial bodies existed. This Palestinian entity, that had the indicia of a national State, enjoyed the right to sovereignty by virtue of its inalienable right to self determination.
How would Jerusalem, then, which is the heart of this entity, be considered as a terra nullius (the property of no one)!
In 1949, Israel moved the Knesset, the Supreme Court, and its ministries to West Jerusalem. On January 23, 1950, the Israeli government proclaimed Jerusalem as the political capital of the State of Israel.
The international community, including the US, refused to recognize the Israeli measures and maintained their embassies in Tel Aviv.
In 1967 war broke out between Arabs and Israelis. As a result of the war, Israel occupied the West Bank, including Jerusalem.
IV) Israeli Claims to East Jerusalem:
East Jerusalem constitutes a more complicated issue. They have to prove that their occupation was lawful under international law, and they have to prove that they could go on interminably with this occupation.
a. The "Self Defense" Claim:
The first claim was that the Israeli occupation was the result of "self defense" measures permitted under article 51 of the UN Charter. The Israeli claim is built on the assumption that there was an imminent threat of "armed attack" from the part of Egypt. Therefore, it acted in defensive conquest. As for occupying East Jerusalem, Israel assert that Jordan struck first.
Regardless of the uncertainty of these allegations that had not been proven or accepted a lawful war in origin could not go on being lawful to whatever lengths it might be pursued. Assumingly the "self defense" claim is right [although it is debated]; the conclusion that title to territory may be obtained by "defensive conquest" is a defective conclusion. According to article 2(4) of the Charter, a State exercising national defense may go beyond its national boundaries to repel an attack, but it may not go beyond its territories to acquire territories. Such legal conclusions are repugnant to the principle of "imminent threat and proportionality." Being a territory taken during hostilities, East Jerusalem, as well as the whole West Bank, according to international law criteria, is under belligerent occupation.
page 1 of 2
page 2 of Info you requested
page 2 of 2
b. The "Missing Reversioner" Theory:
Another path was followed to cover the gap in the "defensive conquest" claim. Professor Yehuda Blum contended that Jordan was not a legitimate sovereign in Palestine. Since there was no ousted legitimate sovereign "a missing reversioner" to whom the territory would revert, and given that Israel has a relatively stronger title to the territories, therefore, Israel could make possession of Judea and Samaria. According to this line of thinking, the legal standing of Israel in the Occupied Territories is that of a state which is lawfully in control of territory in respect of which no other states can show better title.
The "Missing Reversioner" theory is built on the following assumptions that:
Israel acted in self defense;
Jordan was not a legal sovereign;
belligerent occupation yields sovereignty; and
the Palestinian people have no right to self determination.
All of these assumptions were refuted under international law. Another time, Israel was not able to legally justify its presence in East Jerusalem.
c. Jerusalem was "Open to Occupation":
Another assumption asserted that Israel acquired sovereignty because Jerusalem was open to occupation. This assumption is built on the fact that according to GA Resolution 181(II), sovereignty over Jerusalem did not vest in neither Israelis nor Palestinians, but in the UN When the UN relinquished its intent to internationalize Jerusalem, it relinquished its sovereignty over the City which became open to occupation. This title became available to either Israelis or Arabs through the legitimate means. This is another defective argument, and for multiple reasons, that will not stand in law. The essential point is the fact that ignores the existence of a people and their recognized right to self determination.
These arguments and many others have been advanced to justify the Israeli presence in the Occupied Territories, but so far as its presence in East Jerusalem is concerned, Israel has failed to gain any recognition whatsoever to territorial sovereignty neither from the international community as a whole, nor from any single state. In all their claims, they overlooked or ignored a crucial point: the Palestinian people have an inherent and internationally recognized right to self determination.
Although Israel's claims to sovereignty over East Jerusalem have been legally challenged and condemned, Israel purported to apply its domestic law to East Jerusalem and its environs declaring that the "complete and unified" Jerusalem is the "eternal capital" of Israel.
V) The "Judaization" of Jerusalem in the Aftermath of the 1967 War and the International Community:
As a result of the 1967 war, Israel occupied the West Bank including East Jerusalem. Promptly after, on June 18, 1967, Israel brought East Jerusalem under direct Israeli law by acts that amount to annexation (de facto annexation). Following the enactment of these laws, the GA adopted Resolution 2253(ESV) declaring the invalidity of this enactment. After several months of passionate on-stage debate, the SC unanimously adopted (by fifteen votes) its famous Resolution 242 (1967).
In addition to the famous principle of "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territories by war", and despite its ambiguous verbiage, the operative paragraphs of the Resolution provided for:
the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;" and,
the "Termination of all claims of states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty and territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area." SC Resolution 242 (1967) did not mention Jerusalem separately.
Jerusalem was treated as an integral part of the Occupied Territories.
The focus of attention shifted now from the General Assembly to the Security Council. All the consequent SC resolutions will stress the same aforementioned principles. Along with GA Resolution 181(II), SC Resolution 242 (1967) became the basis and the framework of any possible solution.
However, Israel never accepted to comply with the UN resolutions. On the contrary, it continued its policies aiming at the "Judaization" of the City. In May 1980, a bill declaring Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel was introduced to the Knesset (Basic Law Bill). By this unilateral declaration, Israel reinforced the de facto process of altering the status and character of Jerusalem. The S.C. responded by passing Resolution 476 (1980), by a vote of 14 to 0. The US abstained.
The S.C. warned Israel not to take measures that would effect the status of Jerusalem, and reaffirmed that these "legislative and administrative measures and actions have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention."
Despite the international condemnation, the Israeli government ratified and enacted the mentioned bill on July 30, 1980. This action promoted the passage of S.C. Resolution 478 (1980) on August 20 of the same year.
This Resolution passed by a vote of 14 to 0. Again US abstained. The S.C. took punitive measures against Israel and considered its actions as null and void. Paragraph 5 called upon all members not to recognize the Israeli measure. Furthermore, it called for the withdrawal of all diplomatic missions located in Jerusalem. This resolution was based on the conviction that the so-called "Basic Law" constituted a proscribed attempt to alter the status and character of Jerusalem.
The GA too reacted by passing GA Resolution 35/169E. Only Israel voted against it. Again on December 10, 1981, the GA adopted Resolution 36/120E. It stated that the GA "Determines once again that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the Occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem and in particular, the so-called "basic law" on Jerusalem and the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith."
One of the latest resolutions, just to mention an example, was the one that followed the Israeli Inter ministerial Committee's decision for Jerusalem to start the first phase of work on the Hill of AbuGhneim (Har Homah). This GA Resolution declared illegal and invalids all the Israeli actions. The Resolution requested also "internationally guaranteed provisions to ensure the freedom of religion and conscience of its inhabitants, as well as permanent free and unhindered access to the Holy Places by faithful of all religions and nationalities."
Numerous United Nations GA and S.C. resolutions were passed. Nevertheless, Israel continued its practices. The cardinal principles of the UN resolutions on Jerusalem are:
the principle of "nationalities" and self determination for the two peoples of Palestine;
the principle of "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by means of war;"
the principle that all Israeli legislative and administrative measures constitute a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, in general, and international law, in particular, and thus are null and void; and
the demand that Israel must rescind all measures already taken and desist forthwith from taking any further measures.
As for the international community, the refusal of placing diplomatic missions in Jerusalem is a clear refusal to all what is going on in Jerusalem.
VI) Actual Legal Status of Jerusalem:
Since 1967 Jerusalem has been de facto annexed. The rest of the Occupied Territories remained under military rule. Formal annexation would have created a knotty problem: whether to grant full rights to the Palestinians which by the 2010 may become majority, or to continue maintaining a system of apartheid. In both the West Bank and East Jerusalem, however, Israel refused to apply the law of belligerent occupation.
Israel is the de facto sovereign. However, Israel does not possess any legal title to the City, and its de facto sovereignty is not more than a mere administrative control by force of arms. None of the 194 world's sovereign States has recognized Israel's claimed legal title, and in fact none of them accepted to locate its embassy in Jerusalem. The international community continues to reject all Israeli practices aiming at altering the character and status of the City. A single act of control is not enough to establish a transfer of title through prescription as Israel might hope. Not even continuous occupation and growing settling of the country would help Israel get the title.
Furthermore, the Israeli assertion of sovereignty has been weakened when Israel and the PLO, as the representative of the Palestinian people, signed the Declaration of Principles five years ago. By recognizing the Palestinian people hood, Israel undermined all of its claims. When Israel accepted to negotiate the issue of Jerusalem, it implicitly accepted the Palestinian sovereignty on the City. A link between the Palestinian Jerusalemites and the rest of the Palestinian people has been agreed upon. The Israelis cannot anymore claim the City as a terra nullius.
Under international law, the inhabitants of the City (Muslims, Jews and Christians) who were at the time when the Arab Israeli conflict started are the de jure sovereign in the City. Those inhabitants were and still are integral part of the Palestinian people. It is, thus, the community of the citizens of Palestine who had the right to exercise sovereignty.
The legal basis of their title is their time immemorial occupation and use of the territory.
However, the crucial issue now is the legal implications that are resulting from the Israeli refusal to comply with international law:
settlements, land confiscation, house demolition, closures, these practices are altering the character of the City and its status. A fait accompli had been created irreversibly on the ground of the reality. It is true that ex injuria lex non oritur, but within the international community major circumstances could paralyze such a principle.
VII) Perspective for a Solution:
It is true that both Arabs and Israelis hope to prove the legal validity of their claims to Jerusalem, but it is also true that legal validity by itself has not led to a solution until now. Relatively speaking, Palestinians are the de jure sovereign, and Israelis are the de facto sovereign, and none would relinquish its claims. Neither the legal validity nor the military power has been able to bring about a solution.
The ideal way for meeting objectives is that antagonists set down for serious negotiations. As the permanent status negotiations approach, the interested governments find themselves confronted by a complex agenda:
the nationalist claims: two claimants (Israelis and Palestinians);
the religious rights: three claimants (Christians, Jews and Muslims of the World).
Obviously, the key features of any possible solution are following principles:
it must be pursued in the context of a global solution to the Palestine question;
any unilateral control over the city is totally unacceptable;
adequate recognition of the special rights of the three religious communities must be guaranteed.
The hoped for solution is expected to simultaneously satisfy both Israelis and Palestinians, on the one hand, as well as Jews, Christians and Muslims of the world, on the other hand. A more realistic approach to the problem by both parties is an absolute imperative. A lasting and durable peace in the Middle East depends on the outcome of these negotiations. Any zero sum settlement must be then ruled out from the beginning, and compromise must be the rule of the game.
Conclusion
It is important at the outset to reiterate that international law by itself will not be able to bring about a solution for the Palestinian problem. Nonetheless, we have to bear in mind that international law is the only way to bring about a just and peaceful solution, thus a durable solution.
"Any zero sum settlement must be then ruled out from the beginning, and compromise must be the rule of the game".
Conclusion
"It is important at the outset to reiterate that international law by itself will not be able to bring about a solution for the Palestinian problem. Nonetheless, we have to bear in mind that international law is the only way to bring about a just and peaceful solution, thus a durable solution".
So basically you are saying Obama lied to AIPAC.
Hillary will NEVER be President
Obama is a FORMER President
Joe Biden is in Scranton eating paste.
And how does this jibb with the "negotiated settlement" horsehockey?
June 5, 2008 AP
President Abbas stated: “The whole world knows that East Jerusalem, holy Jerusalem, was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.” Saeb Erekat stated: “[Obama] has closed all the doors to peace….without East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state there won’t be peace with Israel.”
Oh I forgot. The messiahlike verbiage of "The Chosen One" transends all that which comes before.
If only Carter/Clinton/Bush had only stated. "Yes We Can".
Hillary will NEVER be President
Obama is a FORMER President
Joe Biden is in Scranton eating paste.
How is that a lie?
Easily done I see.
Hillary will NEVER be President
Obama is a FORMER President
Joe Biden is in Scranton eating paste.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions