Talk:International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict

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

message: The distinction is irrelevant. The Justices of the Israeli High Court explained that there was no conflict in Israeli law to the principles of universal jurisdiction and jus cogens in their Eichmann trial opinion:11. But we have also perused the sources of international law, including the numerous authorities mentioned by learned Counsel in his comprehensive written brief upon which he based his oral pleadings, and by the learned Attorney General in his comprehensive oral pleadings, and have failed to find any foundation for the contention that Israeli law is in conflict with the principles of international law. On the contrary, we have reached the conclusion that the Law in question conforms to the best traditions of the law of nations.
The power of the State of Israel to enact the Law in question or Israel's "right to punish" is based, with respect to the offences in question, from the point of view of international law, on a dual foundation: The universal character of the crimes in question...
You are arguing that the application of a dualist principle means that jus cogens only applies to the extent that it does not conflict with domestic Israeli law. That isn't the case.       
harlan (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend Removal of Monism vs. Dualism 

message: The only mention that I can find of anyone claiming the San Remo conference resolution is still applicable is a private editorial contesting a published opinion of law from the Israeli High Court of Justice. The latter constitutes the actual opinio juris, while the former does not.   
The San Remo Conference resolution and the mandate stood for the legal proposition that the Principle Allied Powers: Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan had the authority to establish the boundaries of Palestine - however they saw fit. 
Israel claims that it was not a party to those agreements, and thus, it could not have inherited any of those powers by succession. Israel no longer accepts the mandated borders, and 'disputes' the determinations of Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan in such matters.
The mandatory powers put the boundary provisions of the San Remo conference resolution into effect in 1923. They chose to place an international border between the Golan Heights and the national home of the Jewish people. The claim that Israel believes that the resolution is still in force, and that it still applies to disputed areas not resolved by peace treaties is risible.  Is it? The following passage precedes the part where Israel ex[plains it wasn't a party to the mandate era treaties. It talks about treaties between states, such customs and commercial activities. It says nothing about the mandate itself.
 
"the Government of Israel reached the conclusion that it could be said that on the basis of the generally recognized principles of international law, Israel which was a new international personality, was not automatically bound bv the treaties to which Palestine had been a party and that its future treaty relations with foreign Powers were to be regulated directly between Israel and the foreign Powers concerned."'''
The official position of the government of Israel is that:
'Israel declared itself independent on 15 May 1948, and was admitted to the United Nations on 11 May 1949. It has not recognized that it continues to be bound through succession by any treaty of which the Secretary-General is the depositary. The position of Israel has been explained in a reply to a questionnaire of the International Law Commission (A/CN.4/19; Yearbook of the Commission, 1950, vol. II, pp. 206-218).
The reply to the questionnaire explained that Israel wasn't a party to the mandate era treaties: 
'The Government of Israel inclines to the view that there can be no automatic elevation of a dependent territory to the status of a party to a treaty simply because the terms of a treaty may have been made applicable to that territory by the Power in whose hands was entrusted the control of the foreign relations of that dependent territory.'
During the 633rd meeting of the UN Security Council, Abba Eban bluntly claimed that:
 'Israel does not inherit the international treaties signed by Great Britain as mandatory power...'
The 1923 treaty agreement between the United Kingdom and France established the border between the British Mandate of Palestine and the French Mandate of Syria, and it made the Golan part of Syria. It contained the following provisions: 
*Any existing rights over the use of the waters of the Jordan by the inhabitants of Syria shall be maintained unimpaired.
*The Government of Syria shall have the right to erect a new pier at Semakh on Lake Tiberias or to have joint use of the existing pier
*Persons or goods passing between the existing landing-stage or any future landing-stages on the Lake of Tiberias and Semakh Station shall not by reason of the mere fact that they must cross the territory of Palestine be deemed persons or goods entering Palestine for the purpose of Customs or other regulations, and the right of the Syrian Government and their agents to access to the said landing-stages is recognised.
*The inhabitants of Syria and of the Lebanon shall have the same fishing and navigation rights on Lakes Huleh and Tiberias and on the River Jordan between the said lakes as the inhabitants of Palestine, but the Government of Palestine shall be responsible for the policing of the lakes.No. 565. — EXCHANGE OF NOTES * CONSTITUTING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BRITISH AND FRENCH GOVERNMENTS RESPECTING THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN SYRIA AND PALESTINE FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN TO EL HAMMÉ, PARIS MARCH 7, 1923, Page 7 Border Treaty
The 1926 Accord stipulated that: "All the inhabitants, whether settled or semi-nomadic, of both territories who, at the date of the signature of this agreement enjoy grazing, watering or cultivation rights, or own land on the one or the other side of the frontier shall continue to exercise their rights as in the past." harlan (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommended Deletion of the 'Origins' section  

message: The new introduction is an argumentative editorial that contains dubious statements and quite a few factual errors. The International Court of Justice doesn't pass political resolutions, it simply provides advisory legal opinions.
International law regulates relations between states. In the mid-1990s various governments authorized cuts in aid and loan guarantees to Israel to offset Israeli funding for settlements in the West Bank and in Gaza. Since then billions of dollars have been withheld.
The United States, Great Britain, and the EU didn't want an advisory opinion from the ICJ, because it served no useful purpose. All of those governments had already made official statements holding that construction of Israel's security fence beyond the Green Line was illegal under the provisions of international law. The EU council statement read "Hence, the EU calls on Israel to stop and reverse the construction of the so-called security fence inside the occupied Palestinian territories, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in departure of the armistice line of 1949 and is in contradiction to the relevant provisions of international law." US Secretary of State Powell said "A nation is within its rights to put up a fence if it sees the need for one. In the case of the Israeli fence, we are concerned when the fence crosses over onto the land of others." President Bush said "Israel should freeze settlement construction, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people and not prejudice final negotiations with the placement of walls and fences". Foreign Office minister Lady Symons, said in an interview that a hearing at the international court on the issue of the wall would "serve to politicise the court in a way for which it was not designed." The Guardian noted that her objection came in spite of repeated declarations by the Foreign Office that the wall's encroachment onto Palestinian land was illegal. see EU Council statement -- Powell Statements -- UK Foreign Office Statement -- President Bush's Statement Those policy statements and funding sanctions are strong evidence of state practice in international law.
Costa Rica has established normal relations with the Palestinian state. see Costa Rica Opens Official Ties With ‘State of Palestine’. A state not recognized by the United Nations or the United States can still be a state as defined by international law, and therefore be bound by international law responsibilities. 
Several states, including the United States, extended Israel de facto or de jure recognition "within the boundaries assigned to the Jewish state by UN GAOR 181(II)". When Israel subsequently applied for membership in the United Nations it pressed a titular claim to the provisional boundaries granted under UN auspices, and that was deemed sufficient. The same resolution created boundaries for an Arab state for the Palestinian people. US ambassador Jessup explained that in order to qualify as a state under international law, there must be a people, a territory, a government and a capacity to enter into relations with other states. See 3rd Session United Nations, Security Council official Records, U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 383, 1948. Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention of 1933 says that a state as "a person of international law" should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population (b) a defined territory (c) government (d)capacity to enter into relations with other states. 
Although Palestine was not administered as a trust under Chapter XII or XIII of the Charter, it was a dependent territory under the terms of Chapter XI of the UN Charter. Under the explicit terms of UN GAR 181(II)Part 1, section C. Chapter 2 and 4, the protection of minority rights and property was guaranteed by the United Nations. Any dispute regarding interpretation was made subject to the jurisdiction of the ICJ. The Israeli representative specifically recognized that those undertakings did not depend upon the cooperation of the neighboring states and declared that Israel would not invoke domestic jurisdiction under Chapter 2 section 7 of the Charter. Those declarations were made during the hearings before the Ad Hoc Committee while it was considering Israel's application for membership in the United Nations. The verbatim transcripts of those sessions are available online via the UN Online Document System  
01/01/1949: A/AC.24/SR.47 FORTY-SEVENTH MEETING, HELD AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON FRIDAY, 6 MAY 1949: [AD HOC POLITICAL COMMITTEE, GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 3RD SESSION]
01/01/1949: A/AC.24/SR.48 FORTY-EIGHTH MEETING, HELD AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON SATURDAY, 7 MAY 1949: [AD HOC POLITICAL COMMITTEE, GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 3RD SESSION]
01/01/1949: A/AC.24/SR.50 FIFTIETH MEETING, HELD AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON MONDAY, 9 MAY 1949: 
[AD HOC POLITICAL COMMITTEE, GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 3RD SESSION]
01/01/1949: A/AC.24/SR.51 FIFTY-FIRST MEETING, HELD AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON MONDAY, 9 MAY 1949: [AD HOC POLITICAL COMMITTEE, GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 3RD SESSION]
The UN can enforce certain provisions of international law. UN GAR 181 recommended the Security Council use military force under Chapter VII of the Charter to impose the Palestine partition plan. Nothing prevented a "Uniting for Peace"-style resolution from overcoming the objections of the permanent members in that instance. Regional security organizations, like NATO have operated under UN mandates on several occasions. harlan (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the new intro is not good.  So I replaced it with the old one, which didn't say much, but didn't say anything wrong.  The newer one was filled with inaccurate generalities and a step in the wrong direction.  The whole first section  "The basis for legal arguments" probably should go too. Since there is a great deal to say about IL and the A-I conflict, general observations should be kept to a minimum. John Z (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI...see this thread (permalink) at the science reference desk. This was the poorly conceived "experiment" alluded to here. — Scientizzle 20:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New Introduction 

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

message: my freind says it is imposible to put if its legal/illegal into the article summary because editors will just remove it -- seriously wtf.  I told him that's crazy talk, mebbe if i dont have references or something but seriously the article is CALLED "international law and the arab-israeli conflict" -- if you dont mention if its legal its like havin an article legality of absinthe in the U.S. and it dont mention if its legal lol.
\
just to show my freind how wrong he is I'm going to ADD the information and when it doesn't get removed I'LL LAFF IN HIS FACE  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suppressiontest1 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: he also says that youre not going to just delete it but first you'll write a thousand words about how wrong it is. lol.  save the trouble.  i just googled 'international law israel consensus' and 'international law israel', thats how i got my information.  so if you want to write a thousand words aobut how wrong it is why dont you just make it correct?  but i dont believe anyone would do that it doesnt make sense unless there is some big conspiracy, which is crazy talk.  if u dont like what i added why dont u just add the correct information?  i hope i will prove my freind wrong soon!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suppressiontest1 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  proving my freind wrong. 

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

message: I made the initial and subsequent draft of this article. It now contains a number of gross distortions, by, for example:
* Making it seem like customary law is the only applicable international law that exists
* Not even specifying what customary law applies
* Making it seem like UN GA resolutions have the weight of international law in general and that the UNSCOP recommendation was enshrined in international law.
I don't have time to deal with it now, and would probably get lynched by the anti-Israeli patrol if I did. But I want to note this complaint and my disgust at the POV-warriors who are trying to turn Wikipedia into a propaganda pamphlet. Leifern (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This artricle has been hijacked 

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

message: The lead is extremely vague and uninformative. The very first paragraph:
:"There is a broad international consensus that the actions(which?) of the nations involved'(which?) in the Arab-Israeli conflict violate prohibitions contained in international law.[1][2] However, this legality is disputed by some of the nations involved.(which?)[3]"
Going by the linked source, it reads:
:"There is a broad international consensus that Israeli post 1967 annexation and barrier violate prohibitions contained in international law.[1][2] However, this legality is disputed by Israel.[3]"
Which is a poor lead for an article. it doesn't frame the topic, offer a time frame, note who the player are etc etc.--ArkhamAsylum2 (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead is extremely vague and uninformative. 

message: Propose to merge Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory into International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict - the Legal Consequences article is a stub, relying on a single source from 2004, and thus not passing the WP:NOTABILITY guideline per WP:NOTNEWS, being unlikely developed beyond stub level ever.GreyShark (dibra) 06:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given that stale and new evidence of independent notability arguing against the merge (uncontested). Klbrain (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150525082008/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160421122334/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160421122334/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110207231639/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/26.3/benvenisti.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/26.3/benvenisti.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706021237/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706021237/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050510175923/http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/Rome_Statute_120704-EN.pdf to http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/Rome_Statute_120704-EN.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060203015921/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/isrplo.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/isrplo.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140825085245/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060517152912/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/f3b95e613518a0ac85256eeb00683444?OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/f3b95e613518a0ac85256eeb00683444?OpenDocument
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060517152912/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/f3b95e613518a0ac85256eeb00683444?OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/f3b95e613518a0ac85256eeb00683444?OpenDocument
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050411161104/http://www.badil.org/Publications/Other/UNHCR-1D-Handbook92.htm to http://www.badil.org/Publications/Other/UNHCR-1D-Handbook92.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081226020443/http://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/classes/iflr/customary.html to http://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/classes/iflr/customary.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728142712/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/6EB54A389E2DA6C6852560DE0070E392 to https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/6EB54A389E2DA6C6852560DE0070E392
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228223541/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1687.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1687.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Looking through Wikipedia (not exhaustively) I find articles International Law,Sources of International Law, Customary international law and International Law Commission (of the UN) and probably there are more.
So I think a straightforward "See also" to those would constitute enough guidance for a sufficiently interested reader.
Then the article could concentrate (it does already to some extent) on concrete matters and the specific legal issues, suitably referenced, around them.
Selfstudier (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should not try to be about International Law