Jump to content

Talk:International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

For previous discussions see the Archive Page

Recommend Removal of the so-called- 'Criteria for making legal arguments' section

[edit]

The section has no citations to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It has the appearance of a valid set of preemptory challenges, but actually serves to introduce Special pleading. For example, the state practice revealed by the post-war tribunals, including the trial of Eichmann, relied upon preexisting customs of war that were applied before they were affirmed, studied, or declared by the Law Commission to be binding international law in the Nuremberg Principles. Presumably those customs can still be relied upon, whether or not a particular statute or convention applies to all of the parties involved in a conflict. harlan (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend Removal of Monism vs. Dualism

[edit]

The distinction is irrelevant. The Justices of the Israeli High Court explained that there was no conflict in Israeli law to the principles of universal jurisdiction and jus cogens in their Eichmann trial opinion:

11. But we have also perused the sources of international law, including the numerous authorities mentioned by learned Counsel in his comprehensive written brief upon which he based his oral pleadings, and by the learned Attorney General in his comprehensive oral pleadings, and have failed to find any foundation for the contention that Israeli law is in conflict with the principles of international law. On the contrary, we have reached the conclusion that the Law in question conforms to the best traditions of the law of nations.


The power of the State of Israel to enact the Law in question or Israel's "right to punish" is based, with respect to the offences in question, from the point of view of international law, on a dual foundation: The universal character of the crimes in question...

You are arguing that the application of a dualist principle means that jus cogens only applies to the extent that it does not conflict with domestic Israeli law. That isn't the case. harlan (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The only mention that I can find of anyone claiming the San Remo conference resolution is still applicable is a private editorial contesting a published opinion of law from the Israeli High Court of Justice. The latter constitutes the actual opinio juris, while the former does not.

The San Remo Conference resolution and the mandate stood for the legal proposition that the Principle Allied Powers: Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan had the authority to establish the boundaries of Palestine - however they saw fit.

Israel claims that it was not a party to those agreements, and thus, it could not have inherited any of those powers by succession. Israel no longer accepts the mandated borders, and 'disputes' the determinations of Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan in such matters.

The mandatory powers put the boundary provisions of the San Remo conference resolution into effect in 1923. They chose to place an international border between the Golan Heights and the national home of the Jewish people. The claim that Israel believes that the resolution is still in force, and that it still applies to disputed areas not resolved by peace treaties is risible. Is it? The following passage precedes the part where Israel ex[plains it wasn't a party to the mandate era treaties. It talks about treaties between states, such customs and commercial activities. It says nothing about the mandate itself.

"the Government of Israel reached the conclusion that it could be said that on the basis of the generally recognized principles of international law, Israel which was a new international personality, was not automatically bound bv the treaties to which Palestine had been a party and that its future treaty relations with foreign Powers were to be regulated directly between Israel and the foreign Powers concerned."

The official position of the government of Israel is that:

'Israel declared itself independent on 15 May 1948, and was admitted to the United Nations on 11 May 1949. It has not recognized that it continues to be bound through succession by any treaty of which the Secretary-General is the depositary. The position of Israel has been explained in a reply to a questionnaire of the International Law Commission (A/CN.4/19; Yearbook of the Commission, 1950, vol. II, pp. 206-218).

The reply to the questionnaire explained that Israel wasn't a party to the mandate era treaties:

'The Government of Israel inclines to the view that there can be no automatic elevation of a dependent territory to the status of a party to a treaty simply because the terms of a treaty may have been made applicable to that territory by the Power in whose hands was entrusted the control of the foreign relations of that dependent territory.'

During the 633rd meeting of the UN Security Council, Abba Eban bluntly claimed that:

'Israel does not inherit the international treaties signed by Great Britain as mandatory power...'

The 1923 treaty agreement between the United Kingdom and France established the border between the British Mandate of Palestine and the French Mandate of Syria, and it made the Golan part of Syria. It contained the following provisions:

  • Any existing rights over the use of the waters of the Jordan by the inhabitants of Syria shall be maintained unimpaired.
  • The Government of Syria shall have the right to erect a new pier at Semakh on Lake Tiberias or to have joint use of the existing pier
  • Persons or goods passing between the existing landing-stage or any future landing-stages on the Lake of Tiberias and Semakh Station shall not by reason of the mere fact that they must cross the territory of Palestine be deemed persons or goods entering Palestine for the purpose of Customs or other regulations, and the right of the Syrian Government and their agents to access to the said landing-stages is recognised.
  • The inhabitants of Syria and of the Lebanon shall have the same fishing and navigation rights on Lakes Huleh and Tiberias and on the River Jordan between the said lakes as the inhabitants of Palestine, but the Government of Palestine shall be responsible for the policing of the lakes.[1]

The 1926 Accord stipulated that: "All the inhabitants, whether settled or semi-nomadic, of both territories who, at the date of the signature of this agreement enjoy grazing, watering or cultivation rights, or own land on the one or the other side of the frontier shall continue to exercise their rights as in the past." harlan (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ No. 565. — EXCHANGE OF NOTES * CONSTITUTING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BRITISH AND FRENCH GOVERNMENTS RESPECTING THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN SYRIA AND PALESTINE FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN TO EL HAMMÉ, PARIS MARCH 7, 1923, Page 7 Border Treaty

The New Introduction

[edit]

The new introduction is an argumentative editorial that contains dubious statements and quite a few factual errors. The International Court of Justice doesn't pass political resolutions, it simply provides advisory legal opinions.

International law regulates relations between states. In the mid-1990s various governments authorized cuts in aid and loan guarantees to Israel to offset Israeli funding for settlements in the West Bank and in Gaza. Since then billions of dollars have been withheld.

The United States, Great Britain, and the EU didn't want an advisory opinion from the ICJ, because it served no useful purpose. All of those governments had already made official statements holding that construction of Israel's security fence beyond the Green Line was illegal under the provisions of international law. The EU council statement read "Hence, the EU calls on Israel to stop and reverse the construction of the so-called security fence inside the occupied Palestinian territories, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in departure of the armistice line of 1949 and is in contradiction to the relevant provisions of international law." US Secretary of State Powell said "A nation is within its rights to put up a fence if it sees the need for one. In the case of the Israeli fence, we are concerned when the fence crosses over onto the land of others." President Bush said "Israel should freeze settlement construction, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people and not prejudice final negotiations with the placement of walls and fences". Foreign Office minister Lady Symons, said in an interview that a hearing at the international court on the issue of the wall would "serve to politicise the court in a way for which it was not designed." The Guardian noted that her objection came in spite of repeated declarations by the Foreign Office that the wall's encroachment onto Palestinian land was illegal. see EU Council statement -- Powell Statements -- UK Foreign Office Statement -- President Bush's Statement Those policy statements and funding sanctions are strong evidence of state practice in international law.

Costa Rica has established normal relations with the Palestinian state. see Costa Rica Opens Official Ties With ‘State of Palestine’. A state not recognized by the United Nations or the United States can still be a state as defined by international law, and therefore be bound by international law responsibilities.

Several states, including the United States, extended Israel de facto or de jure recognition "within the boundaries assigned to the Jewish state by UN GAOR 181(II)". When Israel subsequently applied for membership in the United Nations it pressed a titular claim to the provisional boundaries granted under UN auspices, and that was deemed sufficient. The same resolution created boundaries for an Arab state for the Palestinian people. US ambassador Jessup explained that in order to qualify as a state under international law, there must be a people, a territory, a government and a capacity to enter into relations with other states. See 3rd Session United Nations, Security Council official Records, U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 383, 1948. Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention of 1933 says that a state as "a person of international law" should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population (b) a defined territory (c) government (d)capacity to enter into relations with other states.

Although Palestine was not administered as a trust under Chapter XII or XIII of the Charter, it was a dependent territory under the terms of Chapter XI of the UN Charter. Under the explicit terms of UN GAR 181(II)Part 1, section C. Chapter 2 and 4, the protection of minority rights and property was guaranteed by the United Nations. Any dispute regarding interpretation was made subject to the jurisdiction of the ICJ. The Israeli representative specifically recognized that those undertakings did not depend upon the cooperation of the neighboring states and declared that Israel would not invoke domestic jurisdiction under Chapter 2 section 7 of the Charter. Those declarations were made during the hearings before the Ad Hoc Committee while it was considering Israel's application for membership in the United Nations. The verbatim transcripts of those sessions are available online via the UN Online Document System 01/01/1949: A/AC.24/SR.47 FORTY-SEVENTH MEETING, HELD AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON FRIDAY, 6 MAY 1949: [AD HOC POLITICAL COMMITTEE, GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 3RD SESSION]

01/01/1949: A/AC.24/SR.48 FORTY-EIGHTH MEETING, HELD AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON SATURDAY, 7 MAY 1949: [AD HOC POLITICAL COMMITTEE, GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 3RD SESSION]

01/01/1949: A/AC.24/SR.50 FIFTIETH MEETING, HELD AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON MONDAY, 9 MAY 1949: [AD HOC POLITICAL COMMITTEE, GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 3RD SESSION]

01/01/1949: A/AC.24/SR.51 FIFTY-FIRST MEETING, HELD AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON MONDAY, 9 MAY 1949: [AD HOC POLITICAL COMMITTEE, GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 3RD SESSION]

The UN can enforce certain provisions of international law. UN GAR 181 recommended the Security Council use military force under Chapter VII of the Charter to impose the Palestine partition plan. Nothing prevented a "Uniting for Peace"-style resolution from overcoming the objections of the permanent members in that instance. Regional security organizations, like NATO have operated under UN mandates on several occasions. harlan (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the new intro is not good. So I replaced it with the old one, which didn't say much, but didn't say anything wrong. The newer one was filled with inaccurate generalities and a step in the wrong direction. The whole first section "The basis for legal arguments" probably should go too. Since there is a great deal to say about IL and the A-I conflict, general observations should be kept to a minimum. John Z (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI...see this thread (permalink) at the science reference desk. This was the poorly conceived "experiment" alluded to here. — Scientizzle 20:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

introduction

[edit]

There should be a lead paragraph following this guideline. Do you mind if I write one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suppressiontest1 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The section doesn't appear to list any issues relevant to sovereignty that are grounded in an international law claim.

Jacob Robinson advised that the provisional Jewish and Arab states had come into existence on 29 November 1947. Sir Hersh Lauterpracht advised that the decision made on 29 November 1947 could not be invalidated despite the fact that other parties might interfere or try to cause the process to fail. see The Palestine Yearbook of International Law 1987-1988, Brill, page 279. Those views were also shared by the US State Department Legal Advisor, Ernest Gross, who advised that inaction by the Security Council would not invalidate the General Assembly transition plan. see Foreign Relations of the United States 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V, Part 2, pages 747-748 Many of those conclusions are also stated in the Opinion of Judge Elaraby in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Note that under the terms of the mandate the Jewish Agency remained the representative of the Jewish community of Palestine during the transition period, but the UN Commission for Palestine was under no obligation to recognize or appoint the Arab Higher Committee to positions in the proposed provisional government.

In the second phase of the contentious South West Africa cases, the ICJ held that individual League of Nations members, like Libya and Ethiopia, had no substantive rights in the conduct of the mandates that were exercisable independently of the Council, i.e. they lacked locus standi.

Article 5 of the mandate precluded Great Britain's initiative to grant the Arab States locus standi in the conduct of the mandate. The Chamberlain government policy violated the legal principle that "no one can transfer to another any greater right than he himself has" (Nemo plus juris ad alium transferre potest, quam ipse habet). Great Britain's conduct was condemned by the League of Nations Mandate Commission and the Jewish Agency. see Promise and Fulfilment - Palestine 1917-1949, Arthur Koestle, page 52 and The Gentile Zionists, N. A. Rose, page 126

The provisional government of Israel also rejected the legal standing of the Arab states: "8. The Israeli Government also rejected the Mediator's proposals. In a letter dated 5 July 1948 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Provisional Government of Israel, among other reasons for rejecting the proposals, arguments were put forward against the change of status of the future Arab Government of Palestine. The letter stated:

"The Provisional Government desires to point out that the territorial settlement laid down in the resolution (29 November 1947) was based on the partition of Western Palestine between the Jewish people and the Arab population of Palestine. The inclusion of the Arab portion of Palestine in the territory of one of the neighbouring Arab States would fundamentally change the context of the boundary problem.

"The Provisional Government cannot agree to any encroachment upon or limitation of the free sovereignty of the people of Israel in its independent State. While it is the basic aim and policy of Israel to establish relations of peace and amity with her neighbours on the basis of closest possible collaboration in all fields, the international arrangements which may be necessary to give effect to this policy cannot be imposed upon Israel, but can only be entered into as a result of an agreement negotiated between the interested parties as free and sovereign States.

"The Provisional Government would be ready to accept the provisions of the Economic Union as formulated in the Assembly resolution (29 November 1947), if all their basic premises were to materialize. This is not, however, the eventuality envisaged in the Suggestions. The partner State whom Israel is invited to join in a Union is, both in its political identification and its geographical dimensions, wholly different from the Arab State provided for in the resolution. Jewish consent to the Economic Union in the context of the resolution cannot therefore be binding in the new situation. It must now be left to the free and unfettered discretion of the Government of Israel, in the exercise of its sovereign rights, to determine what arrangements should govern Israel's relations with her neighbour or neighbours in the field of economic cooperation." see The Future of Arab Palestine and the Question of Plebiscite

For more information on the ICJ cases see the article on South West Africa. harlan (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break UN GAR 181(II) and International Law

[edit]
We have a reference for what the article states. What is the specific edit you would like to make? NoCal100 (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the statement tagged dubious is cited to one of innumerable sources, well known, and true. The standing of the Arab states is irrelevant to that statement. Harlan, you may be reading something into it which is not there. (It is not clear, but also not important what time period the tagged statement refers to, before or after the plan's passage.)John Z (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to address your points and answer any questions at the same time. This is an article about international law, your citation doesn't address any aspects of international law. The statement that the 'Arab States' or the so-called 'Palestinian Leadership' rejected the plan is a common narrative. It does not prevent the creation of a Palestinian State, and it has nothing to do with the stated topics of sovereignty, a treaty, or international law. The UN General Assembly resolution provided that 'The [UN] Commission after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of the Arab and Jewish States, shall select and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government.' The United Nations never conferred any provisional authority on the Arab League or the Arab Higher Committee.
Bowker does mention Israel's application for membership in the UN and 'the declarations and explanations' made by the representative of the State of Israel regarding the implementation of UN resolution 181(II). He fails to explain the significance of those undertakings under international law. He goes on to state that Israel didn't necessarily accept the explicit provisions of UN resolution 181(II), but regarded them only as a basis for negotiation. He also says that Abdullah and the Jewish Agency had agreed to their own partition plan, which permitted the annexation of dependent territory together with the inhabitants to the state of Transjordan. That certainly requires a great deal of legal explanation, but Bowker doesn't bother to supply any.
In fact, the terms of the resolution regarding the "Declaration" are part of a special international legal instrument. They aren't really the basis for negotiation, since their are no competent organs of the United Nations that can alter them (more on this subject below):

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, November 29, 1947...Part I. - Future Constitution and Government of Palestine...C. DECLARATION...Chapter 4: Miscellaneous Provisions...The provisions of chapters 1 and 2 of the declaration shall be under the guarantee of the United Nations, and no modifications shall be made in them without the assent of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Any Member of the United Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the General Assembly any infraction or danger of infraction of any of these stipulations, and the General Assembly may thereupon make such recommendations as it may deem proper in the circumstances.
Any dispute relating to the application or interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.

Henry Cattan wrote that the application of Israel for admission to the United Nations had been delayed, in part, because several countries had objected that Israel had failed to make the required "Declaration", and was not in compliance with the terms regarding protection of minority rights and the Holy places pursuant to the terms of UN GAR 181(II). Israel's representative declared that only Israel had given the required Declaration and assured the committee that it would not invoke Article 2, paragraph 7 of the Charter, regarding its domestic jurisdiction. see The Palestine Question, Henry Cattan, page 86 and page 87.
Lauterpact, Gross (see the link above), and a host of others have observed that the League of Nations had provisionally recognized the independence of the dependent territory of Palestine. The South West Africa cases subsequently established the General Assembly's authority to arbitrate any dispute regarding the disposition of the territory. The General Assembly employed some very longstanding customs of international law. It: (1) dictated the conditions on the internal governance of the new states, (2) outlined their respective territorial boundaries, and (3) made recognition contingent upon their making a declaration regarding minority rights (see UN GAR 181(II) Part 1 C. Declaration). Those declarations had been introduced as unilateral treaties by the League of Nations. See for example the discussion of the 1935 PCIJ Albanian Schools case in International Human Rights in Context, by Henry J. Steiner, and et.al, page 100.
The concept of granting titular rights to territory on the basis of minority rights treaties started in the 1870s with Serbia, Montenegro, and Romania. see Defending the Rights of Others, Carole Fink, page 37. The Clemenceau note attached to the Treaty of Poland explained that conventions protecting minority rights had long been an established procedure in the public law of Europe whenever a new state was created or large accessions of territory were made. He also pointed out that Poland had acquired its independence only through the assistance of the Great Powers. The Zionist goal of establishing a national home 'secured by public law' entailed the same legal obligations. see Sovereignty, Stephen D. Krasner, Princeton University Press, 1999, ISBN 069100711X, page 92-93.
Israel's territorial claims originate in the provision of the required declaration. During the fifty first meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee considering Israel's membership, Aubrey Eban was reminded that Palestine had only gained its independence from the Ottoman Empire through outside assistance. He made a declaration stating that the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel had been made in strict accordance with the explicit instructions of the General Assembly resolution. see A/AC.24/SR.51 FIFTY-FIRST MEETING, HELD AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON MONDAY, 9 MAY 1949 :AD HOC POLITICAL COMMITTEE, GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 3RD SESSION in the United Nations Online Documents System. Israel's declaration did contain the necessary provisions for the protection of minority rights. Eban's explanation and undertaking were noted in the text of A/RES/273 (III), 11 May 1949. The fact that the proclamation of the State of Palestine, supplied by the Palestine National Council, was accepted as in line with General Assembly resolution 181 (II) was acknowledged in A/RES/43/177, 15 December 1988.
The Minority Protection System provided under UN GAR 181(II) was cited in a study of minority protection treaties conducted by the UN Secretariat (E/CN.4/367, 7 April 1950, on pages 22-23), and the modern day Chairman-Rapporteur of the UN Working Group on Minorities subsequently advised that no competent UN organ had made any decision which would extinguish the obligations under those instruments. He added that it was doubtful whether that could even be done by the United Nations (the provision that 'No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the ground of race, religion, language or sex.' is enshrined in more than 20 international human rights conventions and the UN Charter itself). see the discussion in Justifications of Minority Protection in International Law, Athanasia Spiliopoulou Akermark, pages 119-122. The fact that both Israel and the Palestinians complied with the terms of the resolution is evidence of consent, which has long been a recognized form of evidence for opinio juris regarding a custom of international law. see for example the ICJ opinion in the Nicaragua v. United States case, and the discussion of the 1931 PCIJ Railway Traffic Case in An Introduction to International Institutional Law, Jan Klabbers, page 203.
Sir Hersch Lauterpacht explained the legal effectiveness of the operation of this system of minority protection treaties. He pointed out the Court's determination to discourage the evasion of these international obligations, and its repeated affirmation of 'the self-evident principle of international law that a State cannot invoke its municipal law as the reason for the non-fulfillment of its international obligations. see The Development of International Law by the International Court, Hersch Lauterpacht, page 262
In the case of Israel and the Palestinians the General Assembly continues to recognize self-determination and independent statehood as their 'inalienable rights'. see for example GENERAL ASSEMBLY REAFFIRMS PERMANENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR PALESTINIAN QUESTION, GA/10543 harlan (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
again, what is the specific edit you would like to make? Please don't quote lengthy paragraphs from sources- just state, precisely and succinctly, what changes you are proposing. NoCal100 (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that "Zionists accepted the plan" and etc. remains dubious. see for example 'The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, Simha Flapan, 'Myth One: The Zionist Accepted the UN Partition and Planned for Peace', and 'Myth Two: Arabs Rejected Partition and Launched War.' These issues are only relevant in this section of the article if they are recognized as a "Legal Issue Related to Sovereignty" under international law - AND if your source had actually made that particular statement. There was no such consensus. There were a few thousand Zionists in the Irgun, Lehi, and etc. who did not welcome the partition plan. In addition there were Zionists, like 'The Five' (Judah Magnes, et al), and The Communist Union (Preminger, et al), who supported a single state or bi-national solution.
Bowker only said the Jewish Agency welcomed the plan for a time, not that they accepted it. Ben Gurion's War Diary, and his 'Letters to Paula' indicate that the head of the Agency never accepted partition as a permanent solution. In any case, the Jewish Agency was not a sovereign at that time. As a matter of state practice, the provisional government of Israel did not accept the borders, i.e. 'Regarding borders, we have decided to evade the issue... We neither reject nor accept the UN proposals. This issue has been left open to developments.' see David Ben-Gurion, the State of Israel, and the Arab World, 1949-1956, Zakai Shalom, Sussex Academic Press, 2002, ISBN 1902210212, page 150. harlan (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

proving my freind wrong.

[edit]

my freind says it is imposible to put if its legal/illegal into the article summary because editors will just remove it -- seriously wtf. I told him that's crazy talk, mebbe if i dont have references or something but seriously the article is CALLED "international law and the arab-israeli conflict" -- if you dont mention if its legal its like havin an article legality of absinthe in the U.S. and it dont mention if its legal lol. \

just to show my freind how wrong he is I'm going to ADD the information and when it doesn't get removed I'LL LAFF IN HIS FACE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suppressiontest1 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


he also says that youre not going to just delete it but first you'll write a thousand words about how wrong it is. lol. save the trouble. i just googled 'international law israel consensus' and 'international law israel', thats how i got my information. so if you want to write a thousand words aobut how wrong it is why dont you just make it correct? but i dont believe anyone would do that it doesnt make sense unless there is some big conspiracy, which is crazy talk. if u dont like what i added why dont u just add the correct information? i hope i will prove my freind wrong soon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suppressiontest1 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does Israel template belong?

[edit]

Since this is about other countries besides Israel and we can't put all their templates up, it seems POV, WP:undue to have it up there. I'll remove it after comments and when can figure out where the html is hiding. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either the actions of other parties are discussed, or assumed illegal and so be pointed out

[edit]

This article is not about Israel's actions but about int'l law and the conflict. What about the actions of the other parties?

I added: "There is no dispute on the clear illegality of actions made by parties to the conflict other than Israel. Among these are the targeting of civilian population by rockets and mortar shells, use of suicide bombers, roadside shooting of civilians, use of children as fighters, use of schools and hospitals for military operations, etc. Also, the very fact of fighting a state in order to destroy it, as was done by many Arab countries and still is done by some, is illegal."

Bbeehvh (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responsibility for the outbreak of the 1948 civil war has never been authoritatively established. There is no legally recognized right of secession in international law. It is doubtful that Israel had the right to use violence against Palestinian communities in order to come into existence; to drive Palestinians across international frontiers; or to link-up Jewish population hubs with outlying settlements that had been deliberately established in Arab majority-controlled areas. All of those questions were, and still are, hotly debated. harlan (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It is doubtful that Palestinian communities had the right to use violance in order to prevent Israel from coming into existance; to put under siege and even take control of Jewish settlements and kill their inhabitants; to immigrate in large numbers from neighbouring countries in order to outnumber the Jewish community; All of those questions were, and still are, hotly debated.Bbeehvh (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The various pleadings in the Kosovo case [1] illustrate the fact there is no recognized right of secession, or belligerent recognition, because many states consider it a violation of the territorial integrity norm.
The Mandated State of Palestine had an Arab majority, and it had been recognized by the United States, Spain, and Italy ever since 1932. The Charter of the United Nations reflects the customary norm regarding the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The Security Council refused to implement the General Assembly Partition Plan, in part, on the grounds that the Charter did not authorize it to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state in order to impose a political solution. After the Jewish militias implemented Plan Dalet and the Deir Yassin massacre had occurred, the members of the Security Council met and decided that the entry of the Arab armies into Palestine at the request of the Palestinians would not, in and of itself, constitute an act of aggression. The Security Council finally decided that the actions of all the parties presented a threat to international peace. The Council ordered a cease fire and the establishment of permanent lines of demarcation. harlan (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to be a jerk, Bbeehvh, (although I often succeed despite myself!) but you might want to do some close reading of the content policies to get a little better feel for the requirements. The I/P articles, as a very sensitive issues, are something like a Wikipedia shark tank and any changes need solid sourcing/wording. Sol (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If so, why there is no section discussing the illegality/legality of the attempt to annihilate Israel? Neutrality?
The Arab intiative is partialy qouted. It should say "just solution ... according to UNGAR 194", rather than "just solution" to the Palestinian refugees problem. The difference being, in their view, the right of return. Don't you think this important clause should be included?
Other, law abiding nations practice targeting killing of terrorists, or at least who they consider as such, and it is relevant to the legality of the practice. Don't you think so?

Bbeehvh (talk)

You are citing an ordinary news report that doesn't even mention the Arab initiative. You seem to be conflating "some Palestinians" with "the PLO" and confusing "the right of return", "UNGA resolution 194", and "the Arab initiative".
Heather Sharp is currently an Education reporter for the BBC News , e.g. [2] She has never served as a BBC legal analyst. The PLO have formally accepted the text of UN Security Council resolution 242 as the basis of negotiations. The text of 242 requires a "just settlement of the refugee problem" and makes no mention of UN GA resolution 194. The text of 242 is considered legally binding on both Israel and the PLO, since it has been incorporated into the framework and texts of their international agreements. Those have included the Camp David Accords, the Oslo Accords, the Quartet Road Map, the Annapolis Summit framework, and etc. See for example the comment in that regard in the introduction of John McHugo, Resolution 242: A Legal Reappraisal of the Right-Wing Israeli Interpretation of the Withdrawal Phrase With Reference to the Conflict Between Israel and the Palestinians, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, October 2002, vol 51, pp. 858–9.[3]
Here is an official explanation of the Arab initiative provisions regarding UNGA resolution 194:

“Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem TO BE AGREED UPON in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194”: For the first time, the Arab world commits itself to an AGREED solution to the refugee problem, thus addressing Israel’s concern that the demographic character of the Jewish state not be threatened. To be sure, the initiative calls for achieving a just solution of the problem in accordance with UNGA Resolution 194, but it points out that the implementation of that resolution has to be agreed. The key point here is that Arabs understand well that the implementation has to be both fair and realistic, and certainly agreed upon. In other words, there is no possibility of a solution that will lead to the changing of the character of the Jewish state. Fortunately, there have been many suggested solutions, at Taba and elsewhere between Palestinian and Israeli interlocutors that point to the possibility of reaching a pragmatic settlement to this problem. It is true as well that the Arab initiative also addresses Arab needs: Israeli withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied in 1967, and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital. But previous negotiations between Israel, Palestinians and other Arab states have shown that these goals are well within reach.[4]

Try not to base your contributions solely on newspaper reports. They are seldom the best or most reliable source of information about international law. harlan (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research, WP:Synth, etc.

[edit]

This article still contains a lot of unsourced essay material that is based upon common misconceptions about international law. Stephen Schwebel explained that the parties to many of the post World War II international armed conflicts, e.g. Korea and Vietnam, did not recognize each other's statehood or the internationally agreed-upon permanent lines of demarcation between their territories. Those situations do not alter the customary prohibitions contained in common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions in any case. In addition, many of the arguments about the state of Israel's official policies and positions do not appear to have originated from any government source. harlan (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bbeehvh (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli gov't and court decision are published in Hebrew. Is it acceptable on English atricle?
Will you agree to the full text including "TO BE AGREED UPON in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194" ?
Will you agree that ACCORDING TO THE ARAB INTERPRETATION that means the right of return? There are three required elements to the solution (1) just (2) agreed upon (3) iaw 194. The last requirement, in Israe's view, makes the intiative a non starter.
Bbeehvh, read WP:STICK and stop trying to construct WP:Synth or WP:Coatrack narratives. I already quoted and cited an official explanation of the reference to resolution 194 in the Arab initiative's proposal.
The Israeli Supreme Court decision is available in English from the Court's website. [5] The comments about "sovereignty" in the article are irrelevant. The government of Israel denies that the Palestinian territories are part of its sovereign territory or jurisdiction because they are part and parcel of an armed conflict. See CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, para 8 [6] or E/1990/6/Add.32, para 5 [7]
You seem to be oblivious to the fact that the Court ruled that this is an international armed conflict (see the subsection of the opinion "The General Normative Framework, A. International Armed Conflict") and that in the framework of the existing law, terrorists and their organizations are not to be categorized as "combatants", but rather as "civilians". The Court concluded that there are extensive qualifications and limitations on the power of the state to carry out acts of "targeted killing". It said in light of that, §51(3) of Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 applies to terrorists unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. Some of those limitations are discussed in the Anat Kamm-Uri Blau affair article. harlan (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Harlan - your comments seem to be interesting, though, very hard to follow. I cannot figure what you want to say. Please don't be so laconic, and say something like: your XYZ is in my opinion contrary to QPR.
What claim do you support in the lengthy paragraph about the Court ruling and the armed conflict?
I see no ref to the Arab initiative, and I see no wrong in citing all 3 requirements they made, and I see no direct answer to my question. Maybe it is you who should read WP:STICK.
Thanks to the English ref to Court rulings.
Bbeehvh (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the opinion of Justice Evatt of the High Court of Australia "sovereignty is neither a question of fact, nor a question of law but a question which does not arise at all." Israel cites international laws that are only applicable to states, and applies them to Palestine all the time.
So far your edits here have been reverted by Sean, James, Sol, and myself. The topic of this article is international law, not international politics. You don't see any reference to the Arab Peace Initiative here, because that is a proposed political settlement. If you want to write about that topic, there is a subsection devoted to the Arab Peace Initiative in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article. I recommend that you stick to the verbatim analysis contained in the published source above or others like it and stop trying to construct your own narrative. The statement above specifically addressed Israel’s concern that the demographic character of the Jewish state not be threatened.
It said that agreed upon means there is no possibility of a solution that will lead to the changing of the character of the Jewish state.
Many of the unsourced items in the bullet list under the heading armed conflict have nothing to do with either the international law of armed conflict or the subject of armed conflict. In several instances the information is contradicted by the sources that I cited above, including the Israeli High Court ruling. The High Court ruling in the case where the State advanced the ticking bomb argument is also available in English. [8] harlan (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A.) If you decide to include the Arab Initiative, it is because you believe it is relevant to the Article. If you then decided to quote its language, it is probably because you thought that language is also relevant. Why, then, don't you qoute the language as a whole? Why the words "agreed upon" are relevant, and the words "iaw 194" are not?
B.) Who said that the "statement above specifically adressed israeli's concern" ? Is it your interpretation? Can you cite the source? I believe that the clause "iaw 194" is much more important that the clause "agreed upon". Why is it wrong to qoute the whole sentence?
C.) I agree that the sentence "ACCORDING TO THE ARAB INTERPRETATION that means the right of return" belongs at the article about the Arab Initiative.
D.) I replaced the BBC ref with the English ref to the Court ruling. Thanks.
Bbeehvh (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The terms of UNGA Resolution 194 have always been limited in scope to refugees with homes in Mandate Palestine who wished to return or be compensated. That figure included about three-quarters of a million people - not 4 million refugees. The phrase "in accordance with" does not broaden the scope of the resolution in any way. UNGA Resolution 194 was not conditioned upon the consent of the government of Israel. The addition of the stipulation "AGREED UPON" to the Arab initiative proposal meant that the consent of the government of Israel would have been one of the necessary criteria for any refugee settlement. In terms of contract law offer and acceptance analysis, that would be considered a counter-offer to the terms contained in resolution 194. All of the government of Israel's concerns were addressed by that arrangement, since it could simply decline to accept the terms of any undesirable proposal. Your proposed edit still has little, if any, relevance to the topic of international law. harlan (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Harlan - your interpretation of the language of the Arab Initiative may very well be correct - this is not the issue.
Still, what is wrong with citing the whole sentence, and leave the interpretation to the reader ? What makes your interpretation so much more important than the language of the decleration ? Why is it so imporatnt to omit these few words ?
You could simply say that there is an Arab Initiative, and refer to the Decleration itself. But once you cite it - you should cite it as a whole. You cannot be selective based on your private views. WP:NPOV.
Bbeehvh (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bbeehvh if you read the sections above, you'll notice that entire subsections of this article have been discussed and deleted. This article used to be little more than a giant unsourced Op-Ed. It became a dumping ground for material that was merged or removed from other articles. There are a number of subsections remaining that are not actually related to the topic of international law.
You are adding material to a subsection called "The legal consequence of subsequent events". Unless you can find a published source which says that the Arab peace initiative has produced legal consequences, that is simply more off-topic material.
FYI, I was discussing the text of an official Arab statement above, and the actual text of resolution 194. I'm not interpreting either. There are plenty of sources, including AIPAC, who point out that foreign-born third generation descendants of the refugees are not included within the scope of resolution 194. You omitted the published explanation of the criteria for the agreement contained in the statement above, while suggesting that we let the reader decide what it means. In that case, you should have quoted the whole thing and moved it to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article. Here is the part you omitted, e.g."For the first time, the Arab world commits itself to an AGREED solution to the refugee problem, thus addressing Israel’s concern that the demographic character of the Jewish state not be threatened. To be sure, the initiative calls for achieving a just solution of the problem in accordance with UNGA Resolution 194, but it points out that the implementation of that resolution has to be agreed. The key point here is that Arabs understand well that the implementation has to be both fair and realistic, and certainly agreed upon. In other words, there is no possibility of a solution that will lead to the changing of the character of the Jewish state." harlan (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we are in agreement. this article should stick to the legal issues, and therefore should not try to interpret the Arab Initiative. Hence, the article only briefly says that in 2002 the Arabs changed their position from principally NO into conditionally YES. Whether or not the initiative is helpful - the artcile can leave that to the reader.Bbeehvh (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partial quotation of Arab Initiative

[edit]

Petri Krohn - can you explain why a partial qoute, and to my opinion also misleading, of the Arab Initiative is better than a full qoute? At the price of three or four extra words the reader gets a correct picture. What is wrong about it? Bbeehvh (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit because you also removed a reference. The rest, I did not see particularly useful. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removing a ref is almost always a bad idea. If I had done so - you did well to revert it.
However, if you refer to the replacement of a (my) reference to Hebrew version of Israeli Supreme Court with (my) reference to the formal English translation - I think you did a poor service to the English reader. Please return to the English version.
If I added something probably I thought it IS useful. Why don't you discuss it if you think it is not useful?
Bbeehvh (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to restore the English language version of your reference. However, you should not expect others to clean up after your mess. Most often, you will just get blanket reverted. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This artricle has been hijacked

[edit]

I made the initial and subsequent draft of this article. It now contains a number of gross distortions, by, for example:

  • Making it seem like customary law is the only applicable international law that exists
  • Not even specifying what customary law applies
  • Making it seem like UN GA resolutions have the weight of international law in general and that the UNSCOP recommendation was enshrined in international law.

I don't have time to deal with it now, and would probably get lynched by the anti-Israeli patrol if I did. But I want to note this complaint and my disgust at the POV-warriors who are trying to turn Wikipedia into a propaganda pamphlet. Leifern (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion and incorporation into Arab Israeli-conflict article

[edit]

Should this article exist on its own? Or be incorporated into the Arab-Israeli conflict? The opening lede paragraph is so vague as to leave a reader to have to go to the Arab-Israeli conflict article for appropriate context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.51.221 (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is extremely vague and uninformative.

[edit]

The lead is extremely vague and uninformative. The very first paragraph:

"There is a broad international consensus that the actions(which?) of the nations involved'(which?) in the Arab-Israeli conflict violate prohibitions contained in international law.[1][2] However, this legality is disputed by some of the nations involved.(which?)[3]"

Going by the linked source, it reads:

"There is a broad international consensus that Israeli post 1967 annexation and barrier violate prohibitions contained in international law.[1][2] However, this legality is disputed by Israel.[3]"

Which is a poor lead for an article. it doesn't frame the topic, offer a time frame, note who the player are etc etc.--ArkhamAsylum2 (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

Propose to merge Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory into International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict - the Legal Consequences article is a stub, relying on a single source from 2004, and thus not passing the WP:NOTABILITY guideline per WP:NOTNEWS, being unlikely developed beyond stub level ever.GreyShark (dibra) 06:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The other article is a stub now, but it is about an extremely notable event that prompted a huge amount of literature. Google Scholar provides hundreds and probably thousands of hits. Obviously passes NOTABILITY and NOTNEWS. If it was merged anywhere it would be to Israeli West Bank barrier, not to here. Zerotalk 08:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree in so far that it should be merged with Israeli West Bank barrier, expanding its pertinent section further. The title and the body seem rather obviously problematic. A separate article may be authored if at one point in the future, as a section, it grows too lengthy. El_C 14:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (to one or other of the proposed articles) and develop there; if in the future the section grows disproportionately large, it can be split off into a new page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The other article passes NOTABILITY, its merger here would unduly burden this article Seraphimsystem (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from a (non-voting) non-user: The ICJ has decided only a handful of cases in its history, and the Israeli Wall advisory opinion is definitely up there in terms of importance. The stub nature of the article is more Wikipedia's problem than anything to do with the notability of the Israeli Wall advisory opinion. When I saw the proposal, I picked up the single most generalist, introductory book on international law on my bookshelf (Brownlie on International Law, 8th edition), and - just to give an indicator of its importance - the Israeli Wall advisory opinion is referred to ten times, on pages 61, 156, 578, 592, 643, 646, 653, 701, 757, and 759. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.88.147.32 (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing, given that stale and new evidence of independent notability arguing against the merge (uncontested). Klbrain (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not try to be about International Law

[edit]

Looking through Wikipedia (not exhaustively) I find articles International Law,Sources of International Law, Customary international law and International Law Commission (of the UN) and probably there are more.

So I think a straightforward "See also" to those would constitute enough guidance for a sufficiently interested reader.

Then the article could concentrate (it does already to some extent) on concrete matters and the specific legal issues, suitably referenced, around them.

Selfstudier (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_law_and_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict&oldid=1206087499"