Talk:International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Linking to UNGA and UNSC Resolutions

I added the See Also section and listed the fourth Geneva Conventions and the Wikipedia articles of Resolutions mentioned in the article itself. They are very relevant and in no way constitute an endorsement of any set of legal arguments.--A. S. A. 23:08, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

This is an article about international law, not on various UN resolutions that one party or another would like to see being interpreted as international law. If a specific resolution is mentioned in the text, there should be a link to it, as there is with 242. The common strategy for articles on this topic is to endlessly obfuscate the issues - the point of this particular article is to avoid that and focus strictly on legal issues. --Leifern 19:49, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

[edit] Revision of the article

An article written by a single person is never healthy, as no single person can make a perfect article.

No, but I was hoping that the next contribution would actually add and not subtract from the article. --Leifern 23:25, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

I took the liberty of doing some edits where I found it fit:

"Criteria for making legal arguments": I didnt really like this section at all, and Im not quite sure it should be included in the article at it is not directly linked to the conflict. I did however edit it to reflect customary internation law a bit better, the way it was one could be under the impression that the principle of customary international law is controversial, which it isnt.

"Monism vs dualism": Im familiar with the principle, so are most other who engage in law, but this is not relevant at all for this article. I doesn not change the fact that states are bound by international law, its only relevant for domestic courst and domestic law, which isnt the issue of this article. I removed the section.

The other edits were rather minor to balance out the article a little, and also to clarify some issues. I still believe some sections are a bit awkward but I'll stop at this for now. --Cybbe

I've consulted with several attorneys on this matter, and the monism vs. dualism issue is essential for understanding differing interpretations of international law. There is indeed considerable controversy on the supremacy of "customary international law," so making it seem otherwise is misleading to the reader. I reverted all of Cybbe's edits; not because I have pride in authorship but because most of them took away from the first drafts of the article. --Leifern 23:17, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
One more thing: the fact that you want to omit "criteria for making legal arguments" becuase it isn't relevant at all because it isn't "linked to the conflict" demonstrates very aptly the tendency among many pundits to view "international law" in this context as "what I would like to see." International law is neither a form of political rhetoric nor the means for one state to impose its will on another. It is founded in the acceptance among states of practices, rules, etc., etc. If "customary international law" were the binding principle in this conflict, Israel would prevail in all cases. --Leifern 23:23, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
I ran into this exact problem on another article; tendentious assertions that customary international law was binding, combined with a belief that the specific editor knew exactly what was and wasn't part of customary international law. Jayjg (talk) 23:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It may not be clear to Cybbe that this article needs to move from general principles to specific issues, and not vice versa. If you start with the premise that party X is in violation of international law and then try to adjust reality to fit this premise, you'll end up with the conclusion that a) criteria for making legal arguments is irrelevant; and b) all the answers can be found in the vague application of international law. Indeed, if customary international law provided all the guidance for this issue, Israel would come up on top. Virtually every state involved in a conflict in the last 100 years has behaved much more badly than Israel. In either event, it is the burden of the accuser to establish which customary international law applies. Meanwhile, the United States is challenging the notion that international law of any type supersedes domestic law and national sovereignty. --Leifern 00:45, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

I think I have successfully fused some of the points made by Cybbe and Leifern. For example, in my opinion the best way to deal with the Dualism/Monism issue is to include it but mention the reservations of relevancy that have been talked about. I also did my best to balance the many points of Israeli advocacy Leifern has inserted, which while not without foundation, still required some balance form the other side. I am not such a simpleton to imagine that this will be the end of it (LOL) but at any rate as long as Talk is open and consensus continues, let us K.B.O. :-) --A. S. A.

This is fine for now, but needs further review at some point. From what I can tell, there is huge controversy within the international community whether domestic law can supersede international law - even including principle of jus cogens; whether Cybbe wants to call it monism vs. dualism or something else, even the assertion that it's irrelevant undermines the credibility of the article. It would be equivalent of someone saying that international law is irrelevant to this issue because the Palestinians are not citizens of a sovereign state - it's certainly someone's opinion, but it would be to ignore a major part of the argument. --Leifern 12:08, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)


My main objection with that specific part of the article is that it should not be included in this article at all, but rather in an article about international law. The point are not specific for this conflict i.e. an historic article doesnt start with a brief introduction the sources of history. As for the points in the article, it badly reflects the fact that customary international law is one of the most important sources of international law, there is no controversy surrounding this fact. See article 38 of the ICJ-statues for relevant sources of international law, custom is one of them. There might be controversy surround what is and what's not customary international law, but the current article doesnt reflect that. As long as this article doesnt include international custom as a(n important) source of international law, it gives a wrong impression of what can be used as legal arguments. And custom doesnt have to be formalised through a treaty, as one might get the impression of from reading this article.
The article also badly reflects relevant sources on interpretation of treaties. These can be found formalised in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treates, articles 31-33, and none of this is reflected in this section. To include this is much more important than monism/dualism. Monism vs dualism has nothing to do with the interpretation of treaties, it deals with the application of them. To give an example of the difference, in the US, which has a monistic system, the fact that the US has signed treaties banning torture means that this is also part of the domestic law, one doesnt have to pass a sepereate bill to include this in domestic law. For Israel, as I understand has a dualistic system, Knesset would have to pass a seperate bill addressing torture for this to be reflected in domestic law, courts would have to base their decisions on Israeli law even though Israel might have signed and ratified a treaty. In that sense, domestic law supersedes international law, but Israel would still be in breach of its international commitments if it allowed torture, even if hasnt included this in domestic law. This is a distincion I believe you've failed to see, breaching domestic law and international commitments. Monistic/dualistic approaches doesnt change a states obligations, one enters a treaty voluntarily and accepts the duties given, even if it isnt included in domestic law. I have a hard time understanding what you mean by saying domestic law can supersede Jus Cogens, if you mean that a state can escape from the obligation e.g. to refrain from acts of genocide by allowing it in national legislation, you are wrong. Id really like some references to jurists coming with these claims, seeing their arguments for myself. As for relevance, in what part of this conflict is this theoretical distinction relevant? It might be for considerations the Israeli Supreme Court does, but bring it forward then, it isnt included in the current article:
And accusing me of omiting criterias of interpreting international law when the current article so badly reflects both customary international law and theories of interpretation of treaties truly shows the flaws of the current article, and how it is vastly biased toward Leiferns POV. Include the points in article 38 of the ICJ-statutes, include the points given in article 31 of the Law of Treaties, and this section would reflect international law much better than it currently does. I dispute the factual accuracy of statements like "any legal argument bound in international law must start with a reference to the applicable statute." and shoddy formulations surrounding customary international law. If you have sources for this, show them. --Cybbe 14:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
The article is clearly incomplete, but you were the one who decided to cut entire sections out. It common practice in articles such as these to explain the basis for various arguments and then outline them. As a matter of fact, treaties and tractates have to be signed and ratified in order to be binding upon parties in the sense that they become part of domestic law. For example, the US asserts that it complies with relevant treaties concerning laws of war by incorporating these in the military code. There are no states that would readily agree to subordinate their legislative process to "international customary law" - doing so would violate the preamble to virtually every treaty, etc., in that national sovereignty is absolutey inviolable.
To put my 2 cents in, Leifern, you seem to be just confused about some of the issues and what "Monism vs. Dualism" means, as well as on several factual points. Monism vs. Dualism really does not belong in this article because nobody's positions in the conflict is relevant to it. It has to do with the theory of international law and international vs. municipal law within a state. What Cybbe says is generally right and completely uncontroversial. If I wanted to be a POV warrior and slant the article one way or the other, I do not know how I would use monism vs. dualism.
There is NO "controversy within the international community whether domestic law can supersede international law." It is very simple. Domestically, domestic law "supersedes." Internationally, international law supersedes. Here is an example which might clarify things. The US Congress passed the "Byrd Amendment" contrary to the will of the US executive and the UNSC, which had in a binding decision outlawed trade with Rhodesia. The US law was supreme in the US and no one could get in trouble for trading with Ian Smith. However, if the case had somehow gone to the ICJ, the US could have been ruled in breach of binding international law, and been made to pay say $1 billion to give to the UN Secretary General for his new fleet of black helicopters, while its citizens could continue to trade with Rhodesia to their hearts' content.
In addition, customary law is, if anything, superior to treaty law e.g. in the US, UK and Israel - it is about on a par with "self-executing" treaties or treaties with enabling legislation, to oversimplify. In Germany, contrary to your "There are no states .. " statement, Article 25 of the German Constitution explicitly makes customary international law superior to any German law but the Constitution itself. In the US, UK, and Israel, legislation should be interpreted to be consistent with customary law if possible, but legislation can violate and overturn customary law domestically. In Germany it cannot. Treaties themselves are nothing but agreed-on violations of national sovereignty so your statements about the inviolability of sovereignty just don't make sense to me.
So again, there is no controversy about whether customary law is binding, or "supreme." Everyone agrees that customary law was historically prior and is often logically prior to treaty law. The question is never this one, but whether say, a general rule, say "No eating of people, even very tasty ones" is customary law or not. 99+% of the time there is no controversy. In some cases, different authors and nations disagree, but there is a lot more agreement than many seem to think.--John Z 23:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
You seem to be confused about the nature of international law: plenty of jurists, judges, and courts write books, articles, opinions, etc., about how one can best interpret and discern international law in the absence of a legal system; these writings do not constitute law per se - they are intended to provide guidance in cases concerning international law. The concept of customary international law is another framework to plug into this (still evolving) system.
The United States is plainly embarking on an interpretation of international law that gives no credit to the opinions of non-US courts or non-US interpretation. My point about jus cogens is that states routinely flout these principles by asserting national sovereignty. If you throw 20 rocks at random in the UN General Assembly, 10-15 would probably hit representatives from governments who don't give a flying f*** about jus cogens, except to the extent they can use the term for their own political purposes. --Leifern 15:01, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Cybbe, you mention a lot of interesting points you consider to be missing from the article. How about you do a revision with them in mind and then Talk can progress based on actual article text.--A. S. A. 03:44, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I dont think this section belongs in this article. The section deals with international law, not the Arab-Isreali conflict per se. It would be relevant in an article about international law, but here it is malplaced
If the majority still thinks it should be included, it cant stand as it currently is. Statements such as "In other words, any legal argument bound in international law must start with a reference to the applicable statute" are simply wrong, and I've given referances to very authorative sources to prove this. As long as this article only mentions customary international law as "controversial" its simply not telling the truth. And by including a not very relevant theoretical distinction (monism/dualism) and not including what the Law of Treaties actually says on the topic of interpretation, its unbalanced and a bad piece of work. No references have been to prove statements such as the one mentioned above. The Law of Treaties and ICJ statutes can be found here: [1] [2] (see article 31 in the Vienna-Convention and article 38 in the ICJ-statutes). These are highly relevant and authorative sources. --Cybbe 12:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
I propose you revise the article accordingly. Your points here seem very solid and referenced. They would be easier to study further when they are actually incorporated.--A. S. A. 13:46, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
The statutes you refer to have absolutely no relevance to the issue at hand. The Vienna Convention in general and Article 31 in particular simply provides a framework for entering into treaties and actually strengthens my point; Article 38 of the ICJ statutes simply provides a listing of the factors that need to be considered in resolving a dispute. Neither of these proposes the supremacy of international law over domestic law and national sovereignty, nor do they make customary international law the primary source for international law - quite the contrary. --Leifern 13:59, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
Im afraid scholars of international law don't agree with you. Article 38 does list relevant sources of international law, customary international law is certainly one of them. What the current article says is, simply put, wrong. The supremacy of international law over domestic law is another matter not related to what is considered relevant sources of international law. If you have sources for your claims, dont be afraid to show them. And, please answer, why should this "introduction" if it can be called that, to international law, be in this article? --Cybbe 15:03, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Disagree with what? I don't even understand what you're disagreeing with me about. I never claimed that customary international law isn't a source of international law - of course it is! I am certainly open to changing the term "statute" (if that's what's bothering you) to include elements incorporated in customary international law. If you look up "customary international law," you'll see that I'm responsible for much of what little has been written about it. --Leifern 16:25, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
(sorry for the late response) I think I've made perfectly clear that i don't agree with including this section at all. This is an encyclopedia, not a textbook introduction, and if I would like to look up the Arab-Israeli conflict, i dont need an introduction to international law. I would find that in a seperate article, even if this article specifically deals with legal issues. I'd like a debate on whether it is necessary to include this at all in this article, I do disagree with how it is presented, but the main issue is the fact that its included at all. I'm perfectly aware you have written some in the customary IL. article, (you wrote it right after my first edit here,) and I think it's fine to have more people working on those articles (im a bit lazy myself). Still, pieces such as the one included in this article should have their place in other articles, ie. the article about international law. I wont edit here before this issue is bashed out, and I'd like to hear different views on why this should be included in this article. We should present the different legal views, not judge them. --Cybbe 14:49, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)


It's been my experience that "against international law" in this context usually means "what I think should be international law," or "what a consensus of repressive regimes labels a violation of international law," or "something I disagree with politically." The mere fact that people routinely say that something is against international law because the UN General Assembly branded it as such, illustrates my point rather nicely. A careful reading of international law will make it abundantly clear, for example, that Israel's administration of the West Bank and Gaza are neither an occupation nor illegal by any legal criteria; I appreciate thay many people think that it amounts to an occupation for all practical purposes, or that it is immoral, unwise, or imperialist - but these are political arguments and not legal arguments. So while I agree that it shouldn't be necessary to include a section on what international law is, it plainly is necessary. Unless there are people who would rather obfuscate the issue.
Having said this, I am happy to write an article - plainly referenced in the introductory section of this one - about fallacious legal arguments in general and co-oping pseudolegal arguments for political purposes in particular. But what I will insist on is that the body of this article doesn't succumb to rhetorical fallacies - if I see a political argument cloaked in legal terminology, I'll mercilessly cut it. And I'll go to work on the article on International law, which right now is a confusing pile of you-know-what. --Leifern 22:59, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

I'd like to see a clear statement from an Israeli government source that Israel is not bound by international customary law. The duality principle that I've seen described in many places is that treaties and international conventions entered into by Israel don't become binding under Israeli law until the Knesset says so. That's treaty law, not customary law. The very purpose of customary law is that it binds states regardless of their agreement. The usual approach taken by Israel when accused of violating customary law is to deny that the law in question belongs to customary law, not to deny that it is bound by customary law per se. --Zero 09:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For example: "although the Supreme Court of Israel has held since 1988 that the relatively terse 1907 Hague Regulations apply to the OPT because they form a part of international customary law, to this day it has maintained that the far more expansive Fourth Geneva Convention is not justiciable in Israeli courts because it "constitutes treaty law as opposed to customary law," which has not been formally incorporated into municipal law by an act of the Israeli legislature" (Harvard International Law Journal, Winter, 2003, p99) --Zero 10:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Yes, this relates to the distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties. In that decision the SCI held that Hague had passed into customary law, and enunciated the principle for the first time that treaties which had passed into customary law were self-executing in Israel. In effect the court signed the treaty for the government, although IIRC this was the government's position anyway. Like every other state, Israel holds that customary law is binding - it just reserves to itself the right to determine what is customary law, especially when it is an internal matter. Of course 99+% of the time what is customary law is uncontroversial. --John Z 23:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The International Court of Justice

This is simply pushing your POV by having you judge what is and what's not international law. As for your example, you should be aware that the judges of ICJ have found that the "Israeli administration" of the West Bank indeed is an occupation, so it should be obvious to anyone that you are yourself letting your view getting clouded by your political opinions. By removing arguments you dont like by labelling them political or irrelevant you are taking the role of judge and not merely a reporter of different views. That is not what an encyclopedia should be about. --Cybbe 17:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
But of what relevance is the advisory ruling by the ICJ? Did the ICJ make international law in that case? And I find it ironic that you claim that Leifern has been "pushing his POV" by judging what is and what's not international law, considering that that is exactly what you have been doing on all these articles. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The ICJ opinion didn't really take a position on whether this was an occupation - it simply assumed that it was. It also issued its opinion without hearing arguments for the Israeli side. I'll grant you that's because Israel (like all European countries) didn't accept the court's jurisdiction, but what kind of court issues anything without taking into account both parties' side of the story? In any event, it is entirely accurate what Jayg writes - the ruling has absolutely no legal relevance. --Leifern 23:42, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
While ICJ rulings do not have the binding force of UNSC resolutions, they nevertheless represent the world's foremost authority about what is and is not international law. The UN often defers to the court to delineate specifically what is legal and what is not. The court does not order anyone it do anything, but that doesn't mean that it's rulings are not international law.--AladdinSE 00:43, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
First, an advisory body cannot possibly create international law, by definition - it can rule on what it imagines international law to be, just as any expert in international law can write a book or paper on the subject. Second, it is your claim that it is "the world's foremost authority about what is and is not international law"; the fact that quite a few countries don't accept its jurisdiction or authority should tell you where the flaw in that claim lies. Finally, as Leifern points out, the ICJ did not rule that the West Bank is occupied, it simply assumed it. Jayjg (talk) 00:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Imagines? Hardly. The ICJ makes determinations of what is and is not international law. And many more nations do accept it's authority and jurisdiction than do not. It's really not surprising how people/governments on the wrong side of repeated rulings and findings, or their supporters, continually try to disparage, de-signify and and then ultimately shrug off the ICJ. -AladdinSE 07:13, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Alladin's opinion that "(t)he ICJ makes determinations of what is and is not international law" is unsurpising, but not relevant to the article. A fundamental principle regarding the ICJ is that "the Court has no jurisdiction to settle a dispute without the consent of the parties", as has been pointed out by any number of sources.[3] As it itself admits "It is true that the Court's jurisdiction is always a limited one, existing only in so far as States have accepted it".[4] And no wonder it affirms thus, since it is part of it's charter; even in state to state disputes, in which the ICJ has been asked to rule, "The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case."[5] Clearer evidence the the ICJ does not make International law could hardly be found. And if a large number of countries do not accept the court's jurisdiction, then clearly it cannot be making "customary international law" either. Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Funny, you are both saying the legal arguments uses by the world most acknowledged judges are wrong on basis on jurisdiction, but I never contended the ruling was binding, nor that it created international law, but that it clearly doesnt use political arguments. And you are both lying when you're saying the court did not take a position on whether it was an occupation or not, it did, and if you had read the judgment you would have known that. It would be refreshing if you actually used sources for once. You are saying the courts arguments have no value on grounds of jurisdiction, thats a logical flaw, as that would be the same as me saying the Israeli POV cant be applied as it lacks jurisdiction. Agains you are both confusing relevance with "binding". I simply wants to show that when Leifern is excluding arguments on the grounds that they are "political", he is taking a staunch POV and refusing to accept arguments that might exist that contradicts his views. The ICJ does not use political arguments, and I thrust them far more than either of you two or countless web sites in support of Israel. This article is already heavily biased, based on writing from a single point of view in the true meaning of the word. --Cybbe 11:59, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
I will accept that the wording on the ICJ and its advisory opinion needs work, though the ruling simply assumes that "occupation" is the right term - it doesn't even address arguments that it isn't. --Leifern 12:16, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
See paragraphs 70-78 for the Courts reasoning concerning the territories status. --Cybbe 16:34, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
An observation and a ruling are quite different things. Jayjg (talk) 16:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That was a premise for their ruling and again, i refered to them to show that there do exist legal reasoning that shows these territories are occupied, to counter Leiferns claim that such arguments are "political". I never said they "ruled" that the territories are occupied, but reasoning in the judgment concluded such. The point is, when Leifern (and you) claim some arguments are "political", you are taking a stand and deciding what is legal reasoning and whatis not, based on your political views. Whil e I myself certainly have my views on these issues, I dont refuse the other side the right to be heard, I just make sure both views are countered for in a fair and balanced manner (this current article is imo not). By including this first section that has no place in this article, one takes a step away from reporting and up to judging and deciding. --Cybbe 18:13, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I just wanted to clarify my position. The ICJ is not binding unless parties to a dispute have agreed to it's arbitration. In advisory opinions and the like (where there is no arbitration), the court makes determinations on international law that are considered, by the majority of the world, to be the most reliable anywhere. P. S. I also created a new section because that Revision of the article was getting a little long-winded, and most of our discussion of late has centered on the ICJ.--AladdinSE 04:07, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Not only is the ICJ not binding except when parties agree to it, but as its own charter states, any binding decisions it does make have effect outside that specific decision. And as soon as you start claiming that its decisions are considered to be the most reliable "by the majority of the world", you move from the realm of international law into the realm of politics. Jayjg (talk) 16:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We were having a discussion in which the jurisdiction and competence of the ICJ was impugned, and to point out that more countries accept it's jurisdiction and competence than do not (by far) is not an act of politicking. --AladdinSE 04:24, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Noting the fact that they do so is not politicking; but their reasons for doing so have everything to do with politics. Jayjg (talk) 17:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's true that the statutes say decision have no effect outside that specific decision, but Court practice shows that the Court indeed refers to prior judgments when they examine cases brought before it. Prior judgments are relevant. --Cybbe 13:19, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, their own charter says they shouldn't, and they admit they shouldn't, yet they do so anyway. Highly problematic. Jayjg (talk) 17:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not really. If i recall correctly, one of the reasons for this is the significance of prior judgments in anglo-american legal systems, although Im not familiar enough with those systems to give any more detailed explanation . Prior judgments are used so its not necessary to clarify the same aspects of international law at every case, although cases are still treated individually. As for the fact that treaties aren't always followed to the exact wording, that is not too controversial, organisations do evolve and establish practices with time. E.g. according to the UN-charter all five veto-powers have to vote in _favour_ for a resolution to be valid, practice is that it is sufficent that none of the five powers vote _against_ the resolution. --Cybbe 21:41, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

This article contains hardly anything that isn't just a rehash of the same arguments that can be found all over Wikipedia. It's essential purpose is a defense of Israel. --13:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is pretty painful to find out that international law pretty much ends up on Israel's side, isn't it? In any event, its structure and content is supposed to present both sides of an argument, so feel free to edit to give "your" side more credence. --Leifern 15:43, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
Actually the opposite is true. You are here as an Israeli advocate, everyone knows that. --Zero 00:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Zero, it would be tempting to return the compliment by speculating about your motivations, but since you "ask," I'll tell you that my purpose here is to give readers the opportunity to forge an informed opinion about this and other issues that interest me. My secondary interest is to learn more about things by researching and writing about them. It's my conviction - and nearly 30 years of interest in the issue has confirmed this again and again - that any reasonable person who considers the facts will arrive at a much more charitable view of Israel and Jews than if he/she relied on mainstream media. I encourage anyone who is interested in learning more about this to read sources on all sides of the issue before making up their minds. I don't need a biased article to persuade people that Israel's side has merit - I only need a carefully constructed, factual article. --Leifern 11:52, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
  • Zero, try to be nice, ok, everyone has a right to be "here" and contribute in a civilized manner and be part of the on-going Wikipedia process of writing GOOD articles. You know, it's funny how you don't notice or make a stink about the blatantly pro-Arab "advocates" around "here" either, by the way exactly where is "here" I dunno, sometimes I think people wake up in the morning and think to themslves "let's see how we can screw Israel or Israelis today" don't you think? IZAK 05:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The problem is not necessarily that someone has a POV, Leiferin obviously has his, as do Zero, Izak and myself. The problem is when an article is written (almost) entirely by one side. Even though both views are "presented", it should be obvious than an advocate of one side is not the best one to write the arguments for the other side. Even the current, somewhat modified version shows an imbalance toward the side Leifern favours. --Cybbe 13:49, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy suggests doing exactly what Leifern has done. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A_consequence:_writing_for_the_enemy. Jayjg (talk) 17:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If I thought I could write a pristine, unbiased article myself, I'd do so somewhere were it couldn't be edited. I am under no illusions that my initial draft was the final word on this, but I did my best to structure it in a neutral way that didn't use "my" side's arguments as premises for the article. The thing that I often run into here is that one side tries to prevent the other side's arguments to even come to light. I subscribe (more or less successfully) to Hillel's approach of first presenting my opponent's arguments persuasively, then presenting mine - with hope - even more successfully. --Leifern 14:17, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Leifern, where in this unbiased article of yours can we read that the Israeli Supreme Court routinely acknowleges that the Israeli position in the territories is "belligerent occupation" as per the Hague Convention and that this interpretation is not disputed by the government in its submissions to the court? --Zero 14:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can only repeat myself, Zero. I am not representing that this article is the ultimate, neutral word on this matter. I have only attempted to create a structure and outline that accomodate all the relevant points of view. The Israeli Supreme Court's position absolutely has a place in the article, though I don't think it's as simple as you present. I have not locked the article for editing (I couldn't if I wanted to, and I don't), so feel free to edit, amplify, clarify, etc. --Leifern 21:26, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
The Supreme Court is not the Government of Israel; their positions on various matters often disagree. Jayjg (talk) 01:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there are plenty of examples where the administration doesn't like the court's opinion, but both the government and the court agree that the court is the highest legal authority in Israel. Both of them acknowledge that when the court and the administration disagree on a matter of law, the court wins. The Basic Law of the Judiciary gives the Supreme Court (in its dual role as High Court of Justice) explicit authority to overrule the government. Therefore, we can distinguish between the official legal position determined by the court, and the current administration's stated opinion that they'd like it to be different. --Zero 08:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For the record, the High Court of Justice is empowered "to order State and local authorities and the officials and bodies thereof, and other persons carrying out public functions under law, to do or refrain from doing any act in the lawful exercise of their functions" (Basic Law on the Judiciary, III-15-d-2) --Zero 09:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Refugees

There is absolutely no justification for removing critical information about UNWRA. Daniel Pipes is a prestigious historian, and Joan Peters is equally so, only her work is disputed by left wing historians, just like the work of New Historians are disputed by Right wing historians. In any case, these are the objections raised by the critics of UNWRA. They do not have to be historically accurate, they just have to be objections which are documented. Some could take many Arab claims on this article as irrelevent to the discussion or innacurate, but they are claims nontheless. The importance is that these are the arguments raised, and that they have basis in history.

Guy Montag 17:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is an article about international law. Whether the refugees had lived there for 500 years or 5 years is irrelevant under either the UNRWA or the UNHCR definitions. It is also irrelevant to international law whether UNRWA's checking procedures are good enough to detect fraudulent registration. Finally, UNHCR's official definitions are if anything more inclusive than UNWRA's, and until a UNHCR decision a few years ago there was a serious problem with very needy people missing out on both. This is also hardly at all relevant to international law. Finally, it is really funny that you put Daniel Pipes (who is a bigot but at least has some academic credentials) on the same level as Joan Peters (who has no credentials at all and is recognised as a fraud by everyone except the lunatic right). --Zero 09:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(It's funny how Joan Peters is denounced for everything under the sun except the facts she presents. I guess that only proves that she's right.) I suppose it isn't relevant whether someone has lived somewhere for 5 or 500 years, provided they lived there. If UNRWA violates the definitions they're supposed to adhere to, or administratively changes them to suit their own purposes, we do have a proble related to international law. --Leifern 17:54, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

And people have a criticism of how UNWRA defines refugees with regards to international law. Deal with it. You can keep your lefty rants and ad homonim attacks on historians to yourself, or start a blog. I dont care about your opinions. I am just here to make sure that criticism as put forth by credible sources of how the refugees are defined is put in. Guy Montag 10:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You just want to put your own opinions in. We are not fooled. --Zero 10:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who are we? I am not the one censoring valid information. Guy Montag 03:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"We" means everyone here including your "nationalist right wing" self.

--Zero 05:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now that you are done undermining your "argument" with poisoning the well and ad homonim attacks, why dont you actually provide a valid argument that doesnt involve attacking me? The thing is, I dont think you have one. Just dont think that you are on some high horse by hiding behind a facade of "objectivity" neither you or any human bieng has. At least I make sure everyone knows my ideological views, but that doesnt invalidate the evidence I provide. Whatever, keep hiding under "Mr.Objective" but I am not buying it. Either provide rational reasons, non withstanding my idealogy, or dont waste my time.

Guy Montag 07:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The legal definition of a refugee can be found here[6] (article 1). Also see this additional protocol [7]. Israel has signed and ratified both these conventions. --Cybbe 17:27, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Ehmm, yes, but the Palestinian refugees aren't covered by either of them. (Jewish refugees were, though, but their refugee status was resolved because someone took the trouble of repatriating them). --Leifern 17:54, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Cybbe, article 1(D) of your first link was until recently interpretted as excluding Palestinian refugees, even those who for some reason were not able to receive assistance from UNRWA (such as those in countries where UNWRA doesn't operate). In addition, even those receiving sustenance from UNWRA were excluded from the legal protections afforded by the 1951 convention. In 2002, UNHCR adopted a revised interpretation that filled some of those gaps. An analysis and links to the primary documents are here. --Zero 01:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You are (both) probably be correct there, I have not taken the time to look into the refugee-situation. --Cybbe 12:22, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What exactly is currently in dispute

I was asked by Guy to have a look at the recent discussion/dispute over this article; frankly, I don't have enough time to do it justice, and I don't expect to in the next couple of months. However, I do have one suggestion: it would probably be very useful for Guy, Zero, or someone else to attempt an honest, NPOV summary here of what issues are in dispute, so that they can be addressed one by one and so that outsiders can more quickly get their heads around what is being argued. Note that the idea is not initially to summarize the arguments on each side, just to identify what matters are being disputed. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:36, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an article about international law. None of the material Montag wants to include demonstrates a connection to the subject. The opinion piece of Pipes that Montag claims as a source does not even mention international law. It also does not contain the recent-immigration myth that Montag is inserting. The problem here is that Montag wants to fight the Arab-Israeli conflict on this page from the "nationalist right-wing" viewpoint (this is not an ad hominem, it is a quote from his user page), like it is fought on so many other pages. The solution is to identify something of relevance to the present topic and present it in an NPOV fashion. Montag's text is neither, so it should be deleted. --Zero 01:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Zero, perhaps the points you keep deleting need to be rephrased to make the connection to international law more clear, but if there is a question whether some of those who seek protection as refugees are international law in fact qualify for that status - then that is clearly relevant to an article about international law. Characterizing Joan Peters' work as an "recent-immigration myth" does not constitute constructive criticism; I read her book, and the only thing you could quibble with is whether her inferences are reasonable - there is certainly no discernible ideological agenda in it. Your attempts at deleting the sections rather than editing them makes it look like these are facts you would prefer not to give the light of day. --Leifern 02:11, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Regarding Peters, I have to disagree. There is a strongly discernable ideological agenda in it, and her use of sources is tendentious at best. Regarding the rest, I have responded below. Jayjg (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
The question of whether some of those who seek protection as refugees in fact qualify for that status is an issue of UNRWA's administrative procedures. There are other articles such as UNRWA and Palestinian refugee where it is appropriate to discuss whether UNRWA admits persons it should not admit according to the law (and those issues are already covered there). This page should be about the law itself and issues of an essentially legal nature. Joan Peters is even more irrelevant and also has articles devoted to her already. Whether refugees arrived in a place generations ago or only a few years ago has no bearing in any international law related to refugees that I've ever heard of. Joan Peters can't be mentioned here without airing the controversy again (for example, I would insist on noting that the only citations she gets in the academic literature are in order to ridicule her); do we need that? I'm trying to cut off some peripheral material that can't be presented in an NPOV fashion without a large amount of argumentation that can already be found elsewhere. I'm not opposed to adding links to the proper pages. --Zero 03:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I certainly agree with Zero that we do not need to hash out the Joan Peters material in this article. Peters' work is, to put it gently, controversial, and furthermore has little to do with standing in international law, under which it would make little difference whether the Palestinians were present since 900 or 1900. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:53, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

The Joan Peters claim is solely connected with the way UNWRA classifies refugees. The main part is the Daniel Pipes argument which relates how Palestinian refugees are classified. The entirety of the information I offered was to provide criticism of the way UNWRA classifies Palestinian refugees, as opposed to how general refugees are classified. I have absolutely no reason to bring the Arab Israeli conflict into every subject related to it, especially one focused solely on international law. I dont know how you want to word it, but that was the point. Even the agency that is supposed to take care of all refugees says that there is a "protection gap" for Palestinian refugees and all others. The reason I was annoyed at Zero is that unlike other posters who give the common curtesy of explaining deletion of information, he does no such thing, giving me the impression that he is so wise that no explanation is required. This could have been solved with common curtesy that I did not recieve.

Guy Montag 07:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

As far as Peters goes, as I alluded to above, her work is highly controversial, and I don't think she needs to be specifically quoted here. As for the definition of refugee, and whether the UNRWA's should be mentioned in this article, it seems to me that the controversy about who should qualify does touch on International Law, insofar as the critics of the UNRWA insist that the definition used for Palestinian reugees violate international norms regarding refugee definition. Jayjg (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source for claim?

Please give an example of a serious claim "that UNRWA's residency requirements is in violation of customary law and relevant treaties". Otherwise it is going to go. --Zero 01:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The material is cited in this sentence: "Critics of the definition that UNRWA uses have raised objections as to the number of people that should be considered refugees under international law, by noting that the practice of awarding refugee status to descendants was not mandated by the later 1951 convention." Although I will leave the argumentation to Lefiern, the general argument I think that he is citing is this [8].

Guy Montag 05:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing at that link about my question. The word "law" is not even used. --Zero 10:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll email Leifern and see if he can bring an example you are interested in. I do not kno what caliber of an example you wish to have, but since Leifern wrote the sentence, maybe he has a better idea of what he meant.

Guy Montag 19:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The criteria UNRWA uses for who is a refugee is not based on any international treaty; it is simply their administrative determination without the advice or consent of affected states. This is not a trivial matter, since refugees are protected persons according to various other treaties. Since it also affects the kind of aid, support, and - most importantly from a legal point of view - repatriation rights they are entitled to, UNRWAUNHCR is subject to criticism of being a relief organization for people in economic, not political distress. If it turns out, for example, that a significant number of refugees are descendants of individuals who had lived in, let's say, Ramallah, from 1947 to 1948 but were originally from Syria, there should be a demand that they at least have the legal right to apply for residency in Syria. Just to make it clear, it would be a violation of treaties to hold a state accountable for an administrative determination, and it would be a violation of customary law to apply criteria that have no precedence. --Leifern 20:50, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
The UNRWA definition is an _operational_ definition, as the article clearly says. I cant see how that can be in violation of any treaties or customary international law, and any sources making these claims would be helpful to clarify.--Cybbe 21:08, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Well, the argument was made here[9] in support of the Palestinians, in this article in Camera [10], FrontPage here: [11], and many others. (I'm not asking you to agree with these sources, btw, but you asked for some examples.) If you accept that refugees are entitled to special treatment according to international law, then the validity of someone's refugee status is relevant. This argument, it must be said, can cut both ways, but it still needs to be made. --Leifern 21:44, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
I still cant see that any of these sources actually make the claim that the definition is in violation of international law. Critic against the definition is fine, but it should be rephrased so that it doesnt make objections no-one has raised. I might of course have overlooked something in those sources, but they didnt say the definition was in violation of anything, just "classic" critic: the term is used in a wrong manner (a semantic argument), that the term does not give the refugees any political rights (which still is different from being in violation of anything) and that other refugees around the world do not inherit their status. These are not arguments saying the definition used is in violation of anything, just that it is a bad definition. It doesnt matter whether I personally agree or not (I do actually not have any strong opinions on this defition issue), but it does matter that no-one has argued that the definition is in violation of any treaty. --Cybbe 15:52, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
This may be relevant: [12] Jayjg (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Lapidoth deals with the questions of "Right of Return", "Right of Compensation" etc., but doesnt say whether the UNRWA definition "is in violation of customary law and relevant treaties" (as the article says). She mentions that another definition _should_ be chosen (which I see as an argument towards a peaceful and equitable solution and not that the current definition is ultra vires), but agree with Guy that Leifern should elaborate on this specific issue and show who these critics who make these claims are. --Cybbe 20:09, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify, is anyone here disputing that Palestinian refugees have a unique status in international law? Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Not really, but theres a difference between unique status and "in violation", a quite important difference. --Cybbe 21:03, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
It seems odd that there would be a unique set of laws for Palestinians, and all other peoples use a different set of refugee laws. Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. Seems to me that a lot of what is involved is that most refugee situations are settled soon enough that the question of second generation refugees is moot. Because the original Palestinian refugees have lingered in the camps without any country granting them or their descendants citizenship, an unusual situation has occurred. It wouldn't astound me if, less visibly, similar situations have arisen in Central Africa, but the refugee camps there aren't old enough for anyone to have grown to adulthood as a second-generation refugee. Still, I would assume that children born in the camps there are also considered by UNRWA to be refugees. No? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:41, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
It can be argued (and often is argued) that the different treatment of Palestinian refugees from most others is odd, as Jayjg puts it, and some say they don't like it. However I have never seen anyone serious (a lawyer, a government spokesperson, a historian, whatever) arguing that it is illegal. Such an argument would be hard to make given that the difference derives straight from the plain text of the 1951 Convention. It says: "This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance." It was obvious then and still is obvious now that UNRWA meets that definition. Nor were Palestinians the only ones covered by that clause. There were still in Europe at that time a large number of displaced people under the care of the International Refugee Organization, and they were excluded too at least until the IRO was disbanded. Maybe there were also others too; I don't know.
To answer Jmabel's question: I'll take it that you meant "UNHCR" not "UNRWA". There is no statute that requires children of refugees living in camps with refugees to be classified as refugees as well. The way things work now is that there are certain minimum requirements legally binding on signatories of the Convention, but the host states have the power to do more than the minimum. One of the standard extras that UNHCR always tries to get the host states to accept is that dependent families of refugees get the same protections. According to the UNHCR handbook, most host states do this (link in the article). There are also legal obligations from humanitarian law. As for grandchildren and great-grandchildren, I think there are no rules and one would have to look at the individual cases to see what is done in practice. --Zero 10:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
The following claims are wrong: "In all other known refugee situations, refugees have had to have lived in the vacated area for some minimum length of time before their departure, and they also had to provide some documentation to establish eligibility." The first claim is the opposite of the facts: UNRWA does impose a residency requirement, but the 1951 Convention does not. The second is also wrong, as the 1951 Convention does not specify any particular documentary evidence. Actually it is very well recognised both in theory and practice that many genuine refugees don't have documents. --Zero 10:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Zero, this may come as a shock to you, but you are not editor-in-chief of these articles, nor are you a persuasive authority on this matter. You asked for documentation on the whether the current criteria for UNRWA refugees is in keeping with international law, which we documented that it wasn't; then you simply delete a section that you never brought up before. This is unacceptable, and I'll continue to revert such unilateral edits. --Leifern 13:55, May 4, 2005 (UTC)\
You were asked for evidence and you provided none. I read the articles you linked to and they don't support you. As for whether I deleted a section I never brought up before, are you blind? What do you think I wrote about copiously above? --Zero 15:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
To answer your questions: a) no I am not blind; b) you wrote about something completely different, ignoring my points. In any event, I started a rewrite of the section that should take all our points of view into account. --Leifern 16:34, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Jerusalem

I'd like to see a source for the strenuous protests of Israel. They don't sound exactly like Israeli government statements to me, although I am not denying they could be. One should distinguish between statements of supporters of Israel, etc and official Israeli statements. I hope all are agreed that the official statements are the important ones and what Wikipedia should emphasize - even if they are often quite different from what is commonly thought. #3 sounds a bit fishy. The 1947 corpus separatum was pretty big, I thought containing all of even today's enlarged Jerusalem. In any case, one frequently seen but utterly insupportable assertion made here is that Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967. It did not. What it did was extend its civil law to Jerusalem, and by the way, it did not really offer the Arab residents citizenship, just permanent residency. Israel explicitly denied annexing Jerusalem in 1967, in the only statement it has ever made using the word "annexation" for any of its post 67 actions. [13]--John Z 04:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

They are not government statements, they are the amateur version that can be found on right-wing web sites. You are right about the Corpus Separatum - all of the present municipal area of Jerusalem lies within it except for two small portions in th[e west and the northern portion from Beit Hanina upwards. In the east and south, the C.S. extended well beyond Abu Dis and Bethlehem. So that "objection" is silly and I removed it. As for whether Israel really annexed Jerusalem, I think it did. You are right that the law did not explicitly mention sovereignty and you are also right that Israel denied the annexation in front of the UN. However, everyone knew that Israel was taking this land with the firm intention of keeping it forever, which is annexation regardless of what they were pretending. Since then there have been countless official Israeli statements and actions that treated eastern Jerusalem as part of Israel in every respect. --Zero 11:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the link provided to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website? Jayjg (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'll edit it to conform to the Israeli MFA verbage on the issue. It won't change the substance one bit, and will make your edits look ridiculous. But then again, I'm used to Zero deleting paragraphs that don't fit his/her political opinion. But now I have to take my daughter to school. --Leifern 12:07, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
I have read in an analysis of the Israeli annexation of East-Jerusalem and the Golan Heights that Israel has been careful to not use the word "annexation" (at least in the latter area, although i do believe this was the case of E-J too). If I remember correctly it was stated from the Israeli government after UNSC-resolutions regarding the Golan Heights that the annexation (they didnt use that word) would not prejudice negotiations on where the final border would lie (in accordance to res242). Someone with better knowledge of official Israeli sources than me could perhaps confirm this. BTW, I read this in the book "Right of Conquest" [14] but I have since returned it to the library I lent it from and will probably not lend it just to provide the details of these claims. And please assume good faith even though I cant give any better sources than this at the moment, I'm just asking whether anyone knows this in more detail. --Cybbe 19:11, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
I see I might have shot a bit early, so just disregard most of those comments as they are already reflected in the article. Still, the Golan Heights could be incorporated in this section, as most of the arguments both from the Israeli and the international side are the same with regard to that area. There are some differences, but those should be easy to reflect. --Cybbe 22:09, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Recently restored in the article: "While the international community has remained silent on the Palestinian claim to Jerusalem as their capital, international bodies such as the United Nations have condemned Israel's Basic Law concerning Jerusalem as a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and therefore hold that the establishment of the city as Israel's capital is against international law." This seems to me to set up an inappropriate parallel. The international objection to Jerusalem as capital has been strongly tied to the objection to the effective annexation of East Jerusalem and the surrounding territories. As far as I am aware, the PA has no stated intent of turning Jerusalem "whole and undivided" into a Palestinian capital: they just want a piece of it. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:22, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

While that may be true in general, this particular section deals with claims to Jerusalem as the capital of either country. Both the Israeli Knesset and the Palestinian legislature have passed laws making Jerusalem the political country. It was Israel's passage of the Basic Law that attracted all the condemnation and criticism; when the Palestinians do the same, there is deafening silence. Reasonable people may infer that the international community views one claim as illegal and the other as legal, and that needs to be noted. --Leifern 22:29, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, reasonable people can see that the claims made by the side with physical possession have an importance that the wishful thinking of the other side can't match. The laws passed by the Palestinian legislature on Jerusalem are generally ignored because they have no actual effect. Israel's annexation of Jerusalem, on the other hand, has very great effect. It is the actual annexation, not merely the Basic Law as such, that is condemned. Jmabel's point is also valid. Your attempt to portray the situation as symmetrical is a distortion. --Zero 01:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
You originally wrote the claim was false, not that the assymmetry was irrelevant. In any event, mentioning reactions to both does not mean that they are comparable in every way; any reasonable person would understand that, and if they don't we can make it clear. It would not be unreasonable to expect some kind of reaction to a controversial claim made by the Palestinian legislative body. It needs to be mentioned, though I am open to edits to make it clearer. --Leifern 01:56, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Operational"

Closely related to the above, Zero recently commented out a paragraph that began "Since the definition used by UNRWA is operational rather than legal, obligations and rights related to Palestinian refugees under international law are a matter of some debate." I'm not sure the paragraph is valuable, but I'm wondering at the rationale for deleting it, which seems to be a claim that the distinction between "operational" and "legal" is meaningless. I don't think that's the case: there is a big difference between an agency saying "We need some criteria. Here's what we are going to use," and saying "These criteria constitute or derive from international law." -- Jmabel | Talk 00:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Jayjg (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to something being there, but it should describe the opinion of some named party with the legal grounds stated. UNRWA is a legally established organization that was given a mandate (always subject to UN approval) to do things like fine-tune the definitions it operated by. In principle it could do things that are illegal, but what are those things and what laws are they supposed to violate? All I've seen so far are vague claims without any attempt to tie them to actual facts and actual legal principles. The 1951 refugee convention does not apply because it explicitly excludes the refugees in UNRWA's hands. What you need is some person/body with legal credentials who says "UNRWA's definition of refugee is illegal because ..." --Zero 02:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Zero, I think you've misread (but since you are generally a good reader, that suggests a need to reword if this is restored). "…rather than legal…" here doesn't (or shouldn't) carry any suggestion of "illegal". "…operational rather than legal…" here means "based in operational practice rather than in specifical law". I don't think anyone intended to suggest that UNRWA's definition was specifically counter to international law, just that it was a administrative decision made in the absence of clear guidance from international law. How about "Since the definition used by UNRWA was originally made on an operational basis rather than dictated by specific international law…"? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:49, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
I guess I am drawing too much from the history of that paragraph rather than from the current wording. I still have the objection that some party should be named as expressing these concerns (or a citation should be given for where the debate is described). However, I'll put it back except for the last part, which I really think does not belong here. It has always been a concern, to some extent admitted by UNRWA, that the processes of vetting registrants sometimes fails to catch people who don't actually meet the definition, sometimes fails to deregister people who died, etc, but this is not a problem of the definition. Rather, it concerns the implementation of the definition. It is already covered at UNRWA and Palestinian refugee. --13:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UN/ICJ Details about West Bank Barrier added

This text was moved from the Israeli West Bank barrier page. That page was very long and the level of detail seemed more appropriate here. Technically, issues about the barrier are a subset of the occupied/disputed territories but given the length, I made it its own section. SeattliteTungsten 06:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed some duplicated information (the list of countries which in some way or another submitted statements to the court objecting to it hearing the case).
  1. First of all, it is not necessary to present this information twice (see the above paragraph which already mentions this).
  2. Second, there is no reason for a lengthy list of all countries (I find it more justifiable to present the list of the 150 countries which supported the opinion's legal rationale than those who objected to it hearing the case on political grounds in a section devoted to international law). To keep the length down and readability up, lists such as these should be avoided, or at least used consistently (I prefer the former). Naming key players such as the US, EU or Russia is fine, but not all 23 or all 150.
  3. Third, checking _some_ (not all) statements at the ICJ webpage,[15] I found at least one country included in the list that did NOT submit any objections to the court (Sweden, which explicitly wrote: "the Swedish government has no objection to the Court's examination of the issue put before it". I therefore assume twenty countries is correct (the number originally given), although if someone can prove otherwise by looking through all 49 statements, feel free to update. --Cybbe 17:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks. These are good points. (The text previously inserted was copied from the other page... I was only organizing not writing new Wikipedia text.)
  • note that "countries that support the ruling" is different from "countries that oppose the ICJ hearing the case, i.e., for jurisdictional or procedural reasons". (For instance, one might agree that Osama Bin Laden should be found guilty of crimes for substantive reasons but one might disagree that the U.S. should capture/arrest/try him for jurisdictional or procedural reasons.)
  • agreed, the list was too long -- I changed it to "every member of the G8 and several other European states" which is a short summary representing the wide support against hearing the case among the "large developed nations" group.
  • I removed some unsourced material.
  • I changed the uncited description of "twenty countries..." to "[the U.S. Resolution] further noted that twenty three countries, including every member of the G8 and several other European states, had 'submitted objections on various grounds against the ICJ hearing the case.'" The U.S. Congress may have gotten some of this list wrong but it is likely to be mostly correct and the article now just says that the Resolution "noted" X rather than "X is true".
SeattliteTungsten 02:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The position of Sweden is more complex. The Minister for Foreign Affairs said, "In our opinion, the judgment of the Court is incorrect" and stressed that Sweden "will not accept a solution to the issue of the Palestinian refugees that has not been agreed upon in direct negotiation between the parties." [16] He talks about settlements being illegal and the rights of Israel to protect its citizens, too, among other things. This is not inconsistent with the citation above referring to the ICJ examining the issue in an advisory opinion in that Sweden seems to believe that the substance was correct but the process and jurisdiction was incorrect. Therefore, the US HR probably correctly included Sweden in the list.
SeattliteTungsten 18:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
She talks about the decision of the Israeli Supreme Court in your above-mentioned quotation.. Including Sweden in a list of countries which submitted objections to the ICJ hearing the case when it beyond doubt submitted a note stating the exact opposite is of course wrong. The written statement can be found here,[17] and I dont find the Swedish position particularly complex either. --Cybbe 18:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for correcting my misreading about which court. Still, the position is pretty clearly stated at the bottom of her letter where she says in three repeated bullet points that the solution should be based on "direct negotiation between the parties" in contrast to something that is non-negotiated like military, judicially imposed, or something unilateral. Trying to enforce a judicial decision at the ICJ would be in direct contrast to a negotiated solution.
SeattliteTungsten 19:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
This is not a debating forum, but the court did not rule on the final outcome of negotiations, only on the legal consequences of unilateral Israeli activities on occupied territory, in line with the Swedish (and most other countries') position that such action is contrary to IL and prejudges the final outcome. But let's keep this on topic--Cybbe 19:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we should stay on topic and I apologize if I have digressed. The topic here is what material should be in the ICJ/UN section of the IL&AIC page. There was sourced text that said "Sweden... submitted objections... against the ICJ hearing the case" which you deleted. In this case, I did not revert your deletion because it seemed like it might be a good idea to get more information for the reasons you stated or to drop the level of detail for the reasons you stated. However, maybe not. Generally, cited quotes and summarized text on topic should not be deleted. The Wikipedia policy is, "[d]o not delete cited quotes, summarized statements... If you feel an article is unbalanced, add balancing views from cited sources of your own." [18] For the moment, I think the current "every member of the G8 and several other European states" is not bad but I may do more research and come back to it.
SeattliteTungsten 20:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
You can read the Swedish submission to the Court in its entirety on the ICJ website. I will continue to delete material so easily proven to be false as this was, even if the obvious false claim is sourced. No policy on WP obliges us too keep proven lies just because they are sourced, and this has nothing to do with POV policy. Id rather stick with correct primary sources than false secondary ones. --Cybbe 23:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Cybbe is obviously correct on this issue. --Zero 02:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess something even as seemingly obvious as "do not delete cited quotes" has two points of view! -SeattliteTungsten 06:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli views of the peace process redirects here?

That doesn't make much sense to me. International law and Israeli views seem to be entirely different ideas. What's going on here? Starwiz 03:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the history of that page, it's been a bit of a battleground. It would be perfectly legitimate to go there and turn it into an article rather than a redirect. - Jmabel | Talk 04:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Settlements in Territories

  • I restructured this with "one side is... [bullet points]; the other side is... [bullet points]" similar to the other parts of this page.
  • I added a statement of introduction, "The legality of settlements in the occupied/disputed territories is very controversial" which is more-or-less taken from the introduction to the Israeli West Bank Barrier page. I did not write this introduction but it seemed like a good way to introduce a controversial subject.
  • the Fourth Geneva Convention quotation is excerpted with a format as close as possible to the format used on the icrc.com site. The text is cut and paste. All paragraphs are shown in their entirety. Ellipses are used to designate text not relevant here.
  • I am not sure what is the purpose of the quote from ICRC commentary about deportation and transfer having a different meaning because they have different direct objects ("deportation and transfer of nationals" vs. "deportation and transfer of protected persons"). Obviously, the context is different but the text from the commentary does not address whether the meaning is forcible (the Israeli interpretation) or not (the ICJ interpretation). I left it in although I think it is an obvious/irrelevant point to any POV.

SeattliteTungsten 23:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, how you present art. 49 of Geneva IV is unacceptable. You have not, as you claim, presented the entire article, only two of the paragraphs, without indicating which paragraph they are from. I don't advocate presenting the entire article for several reasons, including that five of those are irrelevant to the matter at hand. I have, however, accepted the inclusion of the first paragraph as a matter of good faith, even though absolutely noone claim it applies these settlements, as is obvious.
Now, if we had presented the entire article everyone would see these were different and distinct paragraphs, dealing with seperate issues. When we dont (for several reasons), it's essential to indicate which paragraph we are citing. Both for the sake of seperating them, as it is misleading not to, and for the fact that this distinction is used both by the ICJ and the ICRC. Thus, information provided later in this section makes absolutely no sense if we leave out this information. This crucial piece of information has to be presented, it has to be done explicitly as citing the entire article is not an option.
I'm also moving the article to the top of this section, not as an integral part of the Israeli arguments, in additon to some rephrasing (such as using settlements instead of neighborhoods when the source (in this case the Israeli MFA) use that term). I also added the UNSC view on Israeli settlements. --Cybbe 19:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we are nearly there. I removed some part of the UN quotation that was about politics not about law. I also changed the text to be more parallel so they both say "...believes X. Arguments in favor of this are:" I added a citation to U.S. policy which, since the Carter administration, has been that settlements are not illegal under international law.
I still don't understand why you think the commentary noting that the meaning is different "since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power" is at all important or material to any POV. Obviously, it is different "since they do not refer" to the same people being deported or transfered. The commentary does not address whether the "different" meaning is still "forcible" (the Israeli position) or not "forcible" (the ICJ position). I'm not arguing that this should be deleted... I just don't understand it and would like to.
Please note that what you find "unacceptable" or "obvious" is just your POV. Other people may have a different POV. Thanks.
SeattliteTungsten 20:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The protection granted by Geneva IV is for the local population, not for an occupying powers own population . As such, it is irrelevant whether the transfers of persons are forcible or not, as this paragraph is intended to "prevent a practice ... to colonize those territories". In order to prevent this, transfers are forbidden. The effects are of course the same on the local population whether the colonizers moved there by their own free will or not. It is not the movement, forcible or not, of nationals that are forbidden, it is the movement of them into an occupied area. The fact that it isn't Protected Persons that are moved is relevant for the meaning given to transfers, i.e. compulsary in 49.1 (as it is the persons moved that are protected), but not necessarily so for 49.6 (as it is not the persons moved that are protected, it is the persons residing in the occupied territory). This is reflected in the commentary. You should also note that, in paragraph 1 the word "forcible" is included, in paragraph 6 it is gone. If it meant forcible it would say so, it doesn't. The omission of "forcible" in paragraph six is not a working accident, and there's no need for the ICRC to comment on an absent word.
Thank you for your response. It does seem to me that this explanation is reading a bit into the text. For instance, the reasoning that "forcible" was excluded from 49.6 must mean it is non-forcible is speculation. You could, by the same reasoning ("they omited {X} when they could have said {X}, ergo, the meaning is {not-X}"), argue that they could have said "since the meaning in 49.6 unlike 49.1 includes voluntary movement..." yet they chose only to say "since they do not refer to the movement [of the same groups]...", ergo lacking any explanation in the commentary that the new definition of transfer is non-forcible we conclude that it the meaning must still be "forcible" as in 49.1 which is, of course, how the English phrase "deport and transfer" would generally be understood. Anyway, thanks again for the response. SeattliteTungsten 08:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
And I too would like how you deducted the official US policy on settlements from the source given. I did a search for the US policy on the settlements last year, what I found was a policy of not really having a policy (legally), that is, avoiding giving a definite answer. The US stance is too complex to sum up as you have done, they have chosen not to comment on the legality of them (at least the last 20 years). Please review this talk page Talk:Israeli_settlement#American_position_on_the_settlements. I'm commenting this out at the moment, as it probably best kept outside an article dealing with legal questions.
And yes, I am of course aware that what I write in talk-pages, my observations and opinions, by definition is my POV. --Cybbe 23:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"official U.S. policy since the Reagan administration has been that settlement is not illegal under international law; [http://www.fmep.org/reports/vol07/no1/08-us_government_policy_on _israeli_settlement_in_the_occupied_territories_1967_1996.html]" : this is not a fair summary of the source. The linked article refers to disagreements, euphemism and ambiguity, not to a clear policy that the settlements are legal. --Zero 22:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. position is nuanced but, IMHO, can be generally summarized as above. Nevertheless, I agree that, at least, it is too complicated to state as above.
Similarly, "shared by much of the world community" is also too vague so I will remove it and opt for simpler introductions in the same tone as other parts of the page. (How much of the world community? Weighted by people, countries, GDP? ICJ? Countries who said it is political and should not be considered by the ICJ? General Assembly or Security Council? Does "from territories" really mean something different from "from the territories"? etc.) SeattliteTungsten 07:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fatah, Hamas, PLO, PNA

I noticed that a paragraph in this article needs to be reworked in light of recent developments, namely the assertion that the Palestinian National Authority has limited means to exert influence or control over "other" Palestinian organizations, among them Hamas. It used to be that the PNA stationery also included the PLO logo. But since Hamas is not a part of the PLO, it can no longer be said that the PLO and PNA are equivalent; in fact, I'm not sure what the status is of the PLO in general. I have to think about how to rephrase this for legal purposes, as I'm sure those who actually make decisions aren't even sure how to think about it. For example, is Hamas bound by agreements entered into by the PLO? --Leifern 20:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I havent really dug into this, a superficial search revealed nothing of interest. I would propose to change it to simply PNA for the moment, the relationship between PLO/PNA is probably best dealt with in other articles. As for Hamas, I'm quite sure they are bound by agreements entered into by the PLO in their capacity as PNA, just as new governments in regular states are bound by agreements made by their predecessors. Even though Hamas won the election and will form government, the goverment will still be PNA, represented by Hamas. But the relationship PLO/PNA confuses matters, I admit. --Cybbe 23:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, the PLO used to be - or perhaps nominally is - the umbrella organization for several organizations, and Hamas was a renegade. But what complicates this a bit is that the Oslo process was predicated on mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO. Now it appears we're back to square one in principle - Israel doesn't accept Hamas, and Hamas doesn't accept Israel. I don't know what to do with it, but it can be a placeholder in our minds as things unfold. --Leifern 00:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outstanding UN Resolutions

Is there a list available of all the UN Resolutions which are still oustanding? I mean related to the MEPP and not wider region, so Israel, the OT, Golan, Lebanon, Hizballah etc. 86.17.246.75 11:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most Israelis?

It is very hard for me to believe that "most Israelis" today consider Gaza part of Israel. I have asked for citation. - Jmabel | Talk 19:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Still lacking any citation, I will edit this. I figure my uncited assessment of the situation is as good as anyone else's. - Jmabel | Talk 18:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment moved from the page itself

An anonymous user made the following markup in the page itself (obviously a newbie mistake made in good faith); I've brought it here for possible discussion; I've taken the liberty of formatting a bit better. - Jmabel | Talk 18:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggest remove following sentence in brackets (As a practical matter, these distinctions may not matter much: once a war breaks out, the efforts shift toward ending it and preventing it from starting again rather than hashing out legal distinctions.) Either end paragraph or suggest continuation as follows: The attempt to extend the principle has led to wars of aggression for which the prior justification has proved mostly unfounded, such as the invasion of Iraq by the United States and allies in 2003. [anon comment moved from article]

[edit] Very unbalanced

In the section "Occupied" vs. "Disputed" territories there is lengthy argumentation on behalf of the Israeli government position; there is no comparable argumentation of the Palestinian (or any other) position. While the description of the Israeli government position is basically accurate:

  1. Many of the points raised have nothing to do with either the section topic of "Occupied" vs. "Disputed" territories nor with the article topic of international law (e.g. "Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Qur'an")
  2. The position is stated in a partisan and polemical manner (e.g. "The language of 'occupation' has allowed Palestinian spokesmen to obfuscate this history"), whereas the other positions are, as far as I can tell, described neutrally.

I believe, per point 1, that this section should be significantly pared back to only on-topic material (and the other positions possibly expanded) and per point 2 that it should use the same neutral language as the other positions (because, frankly, if we state all of the other positions with comparable vigor, this article will degenerate into a hate-fest). - Jmabel | Talk 21:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been four days, and the only "response" I've had is further expansion of the Israeli point of view. - Jmabel | Talk 04:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Ten days on and only more so, with language now like "Israel has thus liberated Jerusalem in its best interest." - Jmabel | Talk 00:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This section is a joke. The vast, vast majority of countries and international bodies consider them occupied. This is a perfect example of wiki users pushing POVs which are marginal in the real world, but these users make them appear as if there is real serious debate on the issue. I am not aware of any international bodies, legal or other, which regard the WB and Gaza as anything other othan occupied. To my knowledge, only Israel itself disputes the term, and even within Israel, most people call them occupied. Israeli papers call them occupied, and Israeli politicians call them occupied. This section is really a joke people. Some users here have managed to impose their POV's on wiki and make it appear as if there is a dispute where there is none. They are, in fact, occupied territories. A handful of people dispute this, fine, that is irrelevent however. A student of history 15:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
For one, Israeli "papers" (if you mean official ones) do not call them occupied. You may have based that assumption when a user misread a source pertaining to the West Bank a long while ago. Even when some (including Israelis) call "occupied", they may use it simply as a popular term, not because they actually agree with its definition in context with the territories. There are no POV's that have been "imposed" at least none in an incorrect fashion, and keep in mind, the user above you is talking about issues from more than 3 months ago, not today. In any case, it proves to show your definition of "neutrality". --Shamir1 21:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh they don't? Ha'aretz and the Jerusalem post refer to them as occupied, these are two of the biggest and most popular in Israel. This is not an assumption of mine, I read these papers every day. Even Supreme court justice Ehud Barak has repeatedly confirmed them to be occupied in repeated rulings: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881873895&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=136433. I could post links to dozens of stories, but you get the picture. You don't read Ha'aretz? You should, it's the single best source for news on this issue. A student of history 17:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The public position of the Israeli government in diplomatic and public relations contexts is that the territories are "disputed". The real position of the Israeli government is that (except for East Jerusalem and Golan Heights) the territories are occupied. Ever since 1967, Israel has claimed in legal contexts to be applying the international law of occupation to the territories. Most tellingly, the legal status of the territories comes up over and over in the High Court yet the Israeli government has never argued before the court that the territories are not occupied. Here is a partial list from official English translations of High Court judgements (available at [19]).

  • Case 785/87 (1987): "the Respondent continues to hold the territory by force of belligerent occupation and is subject to the laws of customary international law that apply in war-time."
  • Case 7015/02 (2002): "Judaea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip are effectively one territory subject to one belligerent occupation by one occupying power" ... "The two areas are part of mandatory Palestine. They are subject to a belligerent occupation by the State of Israel."
  • Case 10356/02 (2002): "Israel’s belligerent occupation of the occupied territories is subject to the main norms of customary international law that are enshrined in the Hague Convention."
  • Case 2056/04 (2004): "Since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria [hereinafter – the area] in belligerent occupation."
  • Case 7957/04 (2005): "The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation."

I've copied some statements which are especially clear and unqualified, but there are plenty of other cases (example 493/81, 1981) where the laws of belligerent occupation are explicitly evoked regarding Israel's legal position in the Territories. One can also see that in all the cases I listed (and it is also true of all the others I looked at) that the state of Israel does not argue before the court against this interprettation.

As for the Geneva Conventions, the issue is not whether the situation is belligerent occupation (which is accepted by both the court and the state) but whether the particular provisions regarding belligerent occupation which appear in the 4th Geneva Convention apply. Several of the judgments listed above state that distinction very careful. The court repeatedly notes this issue and avoids ruling on it. The Israeli government disputes the belief of the great majority of legal authorities (including the SC and ICJ) that the Geneva conventions are part of customary international law. --Zerotalk 01:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, A student of history. By Israeli papers, I thought you meant official documents, not newspapers. Many Israelis use the term "occupied", many use the word "Palestine", the majority use the "West Bank" (in Hebrew of course). However, the common term occupied does not mean they necessarily agree with the definition others have of it, as the sense and legality of occupation differs. And the cited statements from cases come from the complaint, not the judgment. The closest I see in the judgment is: "IDF forces entered many areas that were in the past under its control by virtue of belligerent occupation and which were transferred pursuant to agreements to the (full or partial) control of the Palestinian Authority" (emphasis added). This still does not say that Israel is occupying or has occupied the West Bank. "By virtue of belligerant occupation" means that they were ruled on the basis of military rule. That is the way the term is used. It does not refer to the West Bank as the "occupied territories." --Shamir1 02:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Every single one of those quotations is from the court judgement. Not a single one is from the complaint. --Zerotalk 12:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Zero0000 is right Shamir1. The Israeli Supreme court in those links uses the term 'belligerent occupation', and yet you still claim that they do not recognize the WB as 'occupied'? What, then, does 'belligerent occupation' mean? You are on the fringe Shamir1, face it. A student of history 15:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
"What, then, does 'belligerent occupation' mean?" I explained that loud and clear, A student. The statements (mine and the document's) are written carefully. What I encourage you to face is the official website of the government of Israel. [20] --Shamir1 02:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Clearly you don't know what "belligerent occupation" means. It occurs when a country sends agents (eg. its army) into a region outside its own borders in a hostile fashion (i.e., without invitation; actual resistance is not required) and exercises firm control there. The legal definition derives from the Hague Convention and the Geneva Conventions. It corresponds with what ordinary people mean when they say "occupied". It doesn't make any difference whether the firm control exercised is of the military or civilian type. --Zerotalk 13:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "disputed territories" Myth

The article claims: "The official Israeli government position is that: ... 'The West Bank and Gaza are "disputed" '".

Has the Israeli government used the term "disputed territories" in any formal diplomatic statements or legal docs? Have they made any formal legal claim to all or part of the territories? Unless someone supplies a source for this "disputed territories" myth I will delete it all. (Or if I forget, someone else please trashit. "Be Bold"). Fourtildas 06:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New historical research: secret Israeli memos about legality of post Six Day War occupations

APF: Secret memo said to prove Israel knew occupation was illegal. This isn't my area of specialty, its just a news story I came across today. --Abnn 05:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)