So, let's go ahead and go back to the '1967' borders and end the 'occupation'
- Thread starter teddyearp
- Start date
Right, because it's illegal (only when Israel does it, of course) for a nation to defend itself and seize territory in the process.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,213
- 4,679
- 1,815
In a broader international context, the “Nationality law… showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship.”90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91
90 Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes of the Thirty-Second (Extraordinary) Session Devoted to Palestine (Geneva: League of Nations, 1937, pp. 86-7.
91 See, in general, Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), pp. 537-43; Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law (Cambridge: Grotius Publications Limited, 1991), pp. 178-81; Nguyen Quoc Dinh, Patrick Daillier, Alain Pellet, Droit international public (Paris: LGDJ, 1992), pp. 395-8; Peter Malanczuk, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law (London/New York: Routledge, 1997), pp. 76-7; Georges J. Perrin, Droit international public: sources, sujets, caractéristiques (Zurich: Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag, 1999), pp. 613-24; Joe Verhoeven, Droit international public (Bruxelles: Larcier, 2000), pp. 278-95; Oppenheim, supra note 4, pp. 510-23.
------------------------------
The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
123 British Government, Report on the Administration under Mandate of Palestine, 1924, p. 6.
124 Norman Bentwich, England in Palestine (London: The Mayflower Press, 1932), p. 106.
So, what you're saying is, the area was in the process of maybe some day being recognized as a nation, but the world powers that were doing so changed their minds after the war and decided to create a Jewish state instead?
And, as a result, the Arab nations surrounding Israel attempted to wipe out the Israeli state, but failed spectacularly.
Challenger
Gold Member
"The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."
Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
Challenger
Gold Member
Many of them were independant kingdoms in ancient times, but that is not the point I'm trying to make. The people in a particular territory develop their own culture and language over time. They become their own "nation" as Palestinians did, independance is irrelevant.
Challenger
Gold Member
Yes. Correct! It is illegal for a nation to acquire territory in war, defensive or otherwise.
Thus it would be illegal for any Arab nation in the region to destroy the nation of Israel and seize its territory.
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,127
- 280
The Arab states attempted to prevent the ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinians by the European colonizers. The native inhabitants were the Muslims and Christians. The Zionists came from Europe.
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 15,003
- 3,046
- 290
Article 22 sets out principles of well-being and development under the tutelage of advanced nations. At best, you might be able to argue that the intent is the self-determination of the inhabitants of the territories, but even that is a stretch. But no where does Article 22 name or specify which peoples are to obtain sovereignty nor does it assign sovereignty.
Further the Article specifies "inhabitants". The people who lived there. Denying that entire groups of people didn't actually live there or somehow don't count is silly.
Using this to claim that the Arab Muslim Palestinians and only the Arab Muslims Palestinians had sovereignty in 1922 is so much of a stretch it baffles the mind. Truly.
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 15,003
- 3,046
- 290
Still, in the absence of a two or three state solution, its certainly an option to cede the territories to Jordan and Egypt. This wouldn't preclude the eventual independence of a State of Palestine or Gaza. They would just have to make arrangements through Jordan and Egypt instead of Israel. That would at the very least eliminate the conflict with the Jewish people. Assuming, of course, that Jordan and Egypt remain reasonable in keeping their peace treaties and existing relationship with Israel.
My sense of it is that if the Palestinians were under Arab Muslim rule, they wouldn't bother with the whole independence thing.
My sense of it is that if the Palestinians were under Arab Muslim rule, they wouldn't bother with the whole independence thing.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,213
- 4,679
- 1,815
No.
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 15,003
- 3,046
- 290
Given that neither Jordan nor Egypt had any claim to sovereignty in these territories and given that there is no other entity in 1967 which could make such a claim other than Israel -- there are only two choices:
1. Israel has the only legal claim to sovereignty over the entire territory.
2. There was an absence of sovereignty in all or some of the territories.
Personally, I believe #1 is correct at the time we are discussing, due to the legal instruments which were in place at the time.
The only reasonable argument one could make is that since Israel failed to exercise her sovereignty, she had lost it. But that is difficult to argue given that the territories were under occupation by Jordan and Egypt and she was prevented from exercising her sovereignty.
But in the time frame we are discussing, only Israel has a valid claim.
Interesting. Using ethnic cleansing to...fight ethnic cleansing.
Why again is it that the surrounding nations, parts of which made up the area, refuse to absorb those displaced by the wars of aggression against the new Israeli state? I mean, if parts of the UK were designated by the world powers to be set aside to create a new independent state, I would expect the UK to resettle anyone displaced, not force them into concentration camps. It's almost as if the surrounding nations value the displaced more as political pawns than as people.
Given that neither Jordan nor Egypt had any claim to sovereignty in these territories and given that there is no other entity in 1967 which could make such a claim other than Israel -- there are only two choices:
1. Israel has the only legal claim to sovereignty over the entire territory.
2. There was an absence of sovereignty in all or some of the territories.
Personally, I believe #1 is correct at the time we are discussing, due to the legal instruments which were in place at the time.
The only reasonable argument one could make is that since Israel failed to exercise her sovereignty, she had lost it. But that is difficult to argue given that the territories were under occupation by Jordan and Egypt and she was prevented from exercising her sovereignty.
But in the time frame we are discussing, only Israel has a valid claim.
But under international law - they've always been referred to as occupied territories - that's even upheld by Israeli courts.
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 15,003
- 3,046
- 290
Well, that sounds suspiciously like a logical fallacy, even if true and I doubt it is.
Who is sovereign over the territory, then? Who was the previous sovereign? What legal instrument transferred that sovereignty from the previous sovereign? In what year did that sovereignty come into effect?
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,213
- 4,679
- 1,815
It is the people of the place who have sovereignty. Governments and states have sovereignty only as extensions of the people's sovereignty.
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 15,003
- 3,046
- 290
That's a nice, romantic notion, but not true. Sovereignty is not a individual or even a collective right of groups of peoples, per se. Even peoples who seek self-determination through secession can't necessarily achieve sovereignty. There are laws against changing the territorial integrity of an existing sovereign.
Status of territories captured by Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice both describe the West Bank and Golan Heights as "occupied territory" under international law, However Israel's government calls all of them "disputed" rather than "occupied",[1] Israel's government also argues that since the Gaza disengagement of 2005, it does not militarily occupy the Gaza strip, a statement rejected by the United Nations Human Rights Council and Human Rights Watch because Israel continues to maintain control of its airspace, waters, and borders.[2][3]
Israeli judicial decisions
In two cases decided shortly after independence, in the Shimshon and Stampfer cases, the Supreme Court of Israel held that the fundamental rules of international law accepted as binding by all "civilized" nations were incorporated in the domestic legal system of Israel. The Nuremberg Military Tribunal determined that the articles annexed to the Hague IV Convention of 1907 were customary law that had been recognized by all civilized nations.[23] In the past, the Supreme Court has argued that the Geneva Convention insofar it is not supported by domestic legislation "does not bind this Court, its enforcement being a matter for the states which are parties to the Convention". They ruled that "Conventional international law does not become part of Israeli law through automatic incorporation, but only if it is adopted or combined with Israeli law by enactment of primary or subsidiary legislation from which it derives its force". However, in the same decision the Court ruled that the Fourth Hague Convention rules governing belligerent occupation did apply, since those were recognized as customary international law.[24]
The Israeli High Court of Justice determined in the 1979 Elon Moreh case that the area in question was under occupation and that accordingly only the military commander of the area may requisition land according to Article 52 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague IV Convention. Military necessity had been an after-thought in planning portions of the Elon Moreh settlement. That situation did not fulfill the precise strictures laid down in the articles of the Hague Convention, so the Court ruled the requisition order had been invalid and illegal.[25] In recent decades, the government of Israel has argued before the Supreme Court of Israel that its authority in the territories is based on the international law of "belligerent occupation", in particular the Hague Conventions. The court has confirmed this interpretation many times, for example in its 2004 and 2005 rulings on the separation fence.[26][27]
In its June 2005 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Gaza disengagement, the Court determined that "Judea and Samaria" [West Bank] and the Gaza area are lands seized during warfare, and are not part of Israel:
The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 832). His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been "annexed" to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05 The Gaza Coast Regional Council v. The Knesset et al. (yet unpublished, paragraph 3 of the opinion of the Court; hereinafter – The Gaza Coast Regional Council Case). In the center of this public international law stand the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereinafter – The Hague Regulations). These regulations are a reflection of customary international law. The law of belligerent occupation is also laid out in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949 (hereinafter – the Fourth Geneva Convention).[28][29]
Israeli judicial decisions
In two cases decided shortly after independence, in the Shimshon and Stampfer cases, the Supreme Court of Israel held that the fundamental rules of international law accepted as binding by all "civilized" nations were incorporated in the domestic legal system of Israel. The Nuremberg Military Tribunal determined that the articles annexed to the Hague IV Convention of 1907 were customary law that had been recognized by all civilized nations.[23] In the past, the Supreme Court has argued that the Geneva Convention insofar it is not supported by domestic legislation "does not bind this Court, its enforcement being a matter for the states which are parties to the Convention". They ruled that "Conventional international law does not become part of Israeli law through automatic incorporation, but only if it is adopted or combined with Israeli law by enactment of primary or subsidiary legislation from which it derives its force". However, in the same decision the Court ruled that the Fourth Hague Convention rules governing belligerent occupation did apply, since those were recognized as customary international law.[24]
The Israeli High Court of Justice determined in the 1979 Elon Moreh case that the area in question was under occupation and that accordingly only the military commander of the area may requisition land according to Article 52 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague IV Convention. Military necessity had been an after-thought in planning portions of the Elon Moreh settlement. That situation did not fulfill the precise strictures laid down in the articles of the Hague Convention, so the Court ruled the requisition order had been invalid and illegal.[25] In recent decades, the government of Israel has argued before the Supreme Court of Israel that its authority in the territories is based on the international law of "belligerent occupation", in particular the Hague Conventions. The court has confirmed this interpretation many times, for example in its 2004 and 2005 rulings on the separation fence.[26][27]
In its June 2005 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Gaza disengagement, the Court determined that "Judea and Samaria" [West Bank] and the Gaza area are lands seized during warfare, and are not part of Israel:
The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 832). His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been "annexed" to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05 The Gaza Coast Regional Council v. The Knesset et al. (yet unpublished, paragraph 3 of the opinion of the Court; hereinafter – The Gaza Coast Regional Council Case). In the center of this public international law stand the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereinafter – The Hague Regulations). These regulations are a reflection of customary international law. The law of belligerent occupation is also laid out in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949 (hereinafter – the Fourth Geneva Convention).[28][29]
It strikes me that, if those territories are not "occupied" but belong to Israel, then all of it's inhabitants are or should be Israeli citizens, so anything but a one-state solution would be meaningless.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Gabbard slams 'politically motivated' surveillance as effort to 'intimidate' her following criticism of Harris- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 1
-
Tennessee prepares to execute Oscar Smith, 3 years after last-minute reprieve- Started by Mack The Finger
- Replies: 1
-
TREASON, Insurrection SEDITION AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES = Trump Party
- Started by merrill
- Replies: 1
-
