UN court to rule 'against Israel'

[G-Man]

Not really the issue. You stated earlier that "The six days war started after Egypt sent troops into Sinai, thus breaking the cease fire agreement with Israel, which legaly means that they automatically continue the war" and I pointed out that in fact a ceasefire was already in place before any arrangements were made on Israeli withdrawl (which wasn't until 1957) so even if Egypt did move forces into the Sinai this did not violate the 1956 ceasefire conditions.


Agreed but moving into the Sinai was not an act of war. It was a probable prelude to war, and could be considered a viable Casus Belli but was not an act of war in itself.

It violated the 1957 withdrawal conditions, meaning that Sinai was supposed to return to Israeli control - and that Egyptian forces were on Israeli land.

Actually the UN did define the extent of the state of Israel under the 1947 partition plan (Resolution 181). These borders were altered radically by Israeli military success in the War of 1948 and the UN brokered the new borders/armistice lines during negotiations between the belligerants.

These borders were the UN proposal for the division of the land after the British withdrawal. It was based on ethnicity rather than nationality and it never said that the borders it drew are the borders of the Palestinian state.

 

[G-Man]

If it were Russia, Israel wouldn't get so lucky.

http://www.iaf.co.il/Templates/Flig...=322&docfolderID=841&docID=7210&docType=EVENT

 

[Hotpoint]

It violated the 1957 withdrawal conditions, meaning that Sinai was supposed to return to Israeli control - and that Egyptian forces were on Israeli land.

It did not violate the actual ceasefire which is what you implied by saying the war resumed as soon as Egypt militarised the area. And it wasn't "Israeli land" as the Sinai was never Israeli territory just occupied, as opposed to ceded, or even annexed, land.

These borders were the UN proposal for the division of the land after the British withdrawal. It was based on ethnicity rather than nationality and it never said that the borders it drew are the borders of the Palestinian state.

No but they were the borders of the Israeli state.

 

[boogaboo]

It did not violate the actual ceasefire which is what you implied by saying the war resumed as soon as Egypt militarised the area. And it wasn't "Israeli land" as the Sinai was never Israeli territory just occupied, as opposed to ceded, or even annexed, land.

No but they were the borders of the Israeli state.

So.. we saw the knife at our direction..
Although it didn't hit yet, we decided to retaliate anyway DA!

 

[Hotpoint]

http://www.iaf.co.il/Templates/Flig...=322&docfolderID=841&docID=7210&docType=EVENT

Quite a few Russians flew alongside the EAF (Egyptian Airforce) during the post 1967 "War of Attrition". Bit of trivia I was told by my lecturer in Middle-Eastern Politics is that apparently the Russian "advisors" had been really mocking the Egyptian Airforce pilots for their poor performance against the IAF and after the Russians got shot down too the Egyptian aircrews celebrated

 

[Hotpoint]

So.. we saw the knife at our direction..
Although it didn't hit yet, we decided to retaliate anyway DA!

Like I said earlier I think Israel did the right thing in 1967 I'm just trying to make sure people know it was a pre-emptive strike not a purely defensive war as certain people on the forums seem to think.

 

[G-Man]

It did not violate the actual ceasefire which is what you implied by saying the war resumed as soon as Egypt militarised the area. And it wasn't "Israeli land" as the Sinai was never Israeli territory just occupied, as opposed to ceded, or even annexed, land.

I'm fairly sure that sending military forces into a territory controlled by another country - even if it's not part of it, just an area controlled by its military - is the same as a declaration of war.

No but they were the borders of the Israeli state.

Then we're in agreement, as I was talking about a Palestinian state.

 

[Hotpoint]

I'm fairly sure that sending military forces into a territory controlled by another country - even if it's not part of it, just an area controlled by its military - is the same as a declaration of war.

The Sinai wasn't under Israeli control it was Egyptian Territory that was being used as a buffer zone patrolled by the UNEF.

Moving troops into your own territory is not an act of war against a former foreign occupier. The reason they were doing it was to put pressure against Israel and so Nasser could demonstrate to the Arab world how tough he was, so it wasn't an Act of War in itself but it was a reasonably valid reason for Israel to launch a pre-emptive offensive operation

Then we're in agreement, as I was talking about a Palestinian state.

The issue is whether Israel has a legal right to expand its borders into territory that was not mandated to it by the UN, and which it took by force, and, to bring the discussion back on-topic, whether it has a right to construct defensive fortifications outside its internationally recognised frontiers.

Legally Tel Aviv has no right to build the wall where it is being constructed, the viewpoints, or legal judgements of the Israeli government or Judiciary don't really matter because they have no legal legitimacy beyond their borders and the area is not actually within the Israeli state. Eventually the borders may be moved, and are unlikely to end up where they were before 1967, but until the situation is finalised none of the occupied territories are yet legally part of Israel.

Moral/ethical/practical arguments are another issue. The fact is that the ICJ ruling was correct in law.

 

[G-Man]

The Sinai wasn't under Israeli control it was Egyptian Territory that was being used as a buffer zone patrolled by the UNEF.

Moving troops into your own territory is not an act of war against a former foreign occupier. The reason they were doing it was to put pressure against Israel and so Nasser could demonstrate to the Arab world how tough he was, so it wasn't an Act of War in itself but it was a reasonably valid reason for Israel to launch a pre-emptive offensive operation

Sinai wasn't Israeli territory, but it was under Israel's control after the 56' Sinai war. Israeli control ended with the agreement saying that Egypt can't bring its forces back in. Once Egypt did so, it had broken the deal - both sides of it.

Legally Tel Aviv

Why Tel Aviv?

has no right to build the wall where it is being constructed, the viewpoints, or legal judgements of the Israeli government or Judiciary don't really matter because they have no legal legitimacy beyond their borders and the area is not actually within the Israeli state. Eventually the borders may be moved, and are unlikely to end up where they were before 1967, but until the situation is finalised none of the occupied territories are yet legally part of Israel.

1. These are NOT occupied territories, but disputed territories.
2. A country does have the right to construct defensive structures, even on occupied territory.

Moral/ethical/practical arguments are another issue. The fact is that the ICJ ruling was correct in law.

The ICJ wouldn't recognize a law if it hit them in the face.

 

[Hotpoint]

Sinai wasn't Israeli territory, but it was under Israel's control after the 56' Sinai war. Israeli control ended with the agreement saying that Egypt can't bring its forces back in. Once Egypt did so, it had broken the deal - both sides of it.

Breaking an agreement with another state is not an Act of War. The hostilities were ended under the 1956 ceasefire.

Why Tel Aviv?

No real reason merely the same as I would say London, Washington or Moscow to refer to the governments of the UK, USA or Russia. Pretty standard practice eg. "Moscow stated today that...."

1. These are NOT occupied territories, but disputed territories.
2. A country does have the right to construct defensive structures, even on occupied territory.

1. They were occupied by Israel in 1967 being seized from another state (Jordan). As such they are legally "occupied territories" under international law. That the final ownership is disputed does not make them any less "occupied" by Israel at the moment.

2. Untrue. Please cite the international agreement that says so. A state has the right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter but this would only permit border fortifications.

The ICJ wouldn't recognize a law if it hit them in the face.

Just because you don't like the ruling does not mean it was legally invalid G-Man. Under international law the ICJ ruling was clearly correct regardless of whether you believe it to be biased.

 

[Azadre]

http://www.iaf.co.il/Templates/Flig...=322&docfolderID=841&docID=7210&docType=EVENT

I already said I was kidding about that and Israel had the most sophisticated army in the world.

 

[NateDawgNY]

Originally posted by Hotpoint
They were occupied by Israel in 1967 being seized from another state (Jordan). As such they are legally "occupied territories" under international law. That the final ownership is disputed does not make them any less "occupied" by Israel at the moment.

And Jordan surrendered it's claim to the "West Bank" in a peace treaty with Israel. Which makes it legally Israeli territory.

Originally posted by Hotpoint
Just because you don't like the ruling does not mean it was legally invalid G-Man. Under international law the ICJ ruling was clearly correct regardless of whether you believe it to be biased.

The ICJ's ruling is irrelevant, as it was politically motivated. Many countries argued that it didn't even have jurisdiction in this case.
Lastly, Israel is not allowed to have a representative within the ICJ, while hard-line dicatatorships are.
Why should it accept a ruling from such a biased source?

 

[Hotpoint]

And Jordan surrendered it's claim to the "West Bank" in a peace treaty with Israel. Which makes it legally Israeli territory.

Jordan gave up its claim on the West Bank in 1988 but did not cede the territory to Israel so I'm afraid you're wrong there.

Even the generally pro-Israeli United States holds it to be the case that the West Bank is not part of Israel.

The ICJ's ruling is irrelevant, as it was politically motivated. Many countries argued that it didn't even have jurisdiction in this case.
Lastly, Israel is not allowed to have a representative within the ICJ, while hard-line dicatatorships are.
Why should it accept a ruling from such a biased source?

If you or anyone else can argue in law why the ICJ ruling was wrong rather than merely saying it was biased please do so.

By the way although it is true to say that many states thought the ICJ had no jurisdiction they aren't arguing the judgement was wrong in law. Merely that it shouldn't have been for the Court to issue the ruling.

 

[G-Man]

Breaking an agreement with another state is not an Act of War. The hostilities were ended under the 1956 ceasefire.

It depends on what kind of agreement it is.

No real reason merely the same as I would say London, Washington or Moscow to refer to the governments of the UK, USA or Russia. Pretty standard practice eg. "Moscow stated today that...."

True, but I've never heard anyone using this about a city which isn't the capital or the place in which the goverment offices are located.

1. They were occupied by Israel in 1967 being seized from another state (Jordan). As such they are legally "occupied territories" under international law. That the final ownership is disputed does not make them any less "occupied" by Israel at the moment.

No, but the fact that the owner gave it up does say that. It's not Israeli territory, though Israel does have a claim to it, but it's also not an occupied territory.

2. Untrue. Please cite the international agreement that says so. A state has the right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter but this would only permit border fortifications.

Why?

Just because you don't like the ruling does not mean it was legally invalid G-Man. Under international law the ICJ ruling was clearly correct regardless of whether you believe it to be biased.

The ICJ is a political body. Its members are selected by politicians, and most of them come from countries where justice is not a factor in major trials. Under international law, a country has the right to build defensive structures, including on occupied land. The ICJ decided, for purely political reasons, that the UN charter refers only to defence against other countries and their formal armies, while the charter itself never says or hints any such thing.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10108141^7583,00.html

 

[Hotpoint]

It depends on what kind of agreement it is.

That's debatable because I'm sure you can find a historical, or even hypothetical case where it might be but in in this particular situation it wasn't an Act of War merely a provocative move.

True, but I've never heard anyone using this about a city which isn't the capital or the place in which the goverment offices are located.

Tel Aviv was the capital in 1948 and as far as the international community is concerned it still is. The move of the capital to Jerusalem in 1949 is not recognised which is why the Embassies to Israel stayed in Tel Aviv.

I said Tel Aviv because as far as my Government (and others) is concerned it is the Israeli Capital.

No, but the fact that the owner gave it up does say that. It's not Israeli territory, though Israel does have a claim to it, but it's also not an occupied territory.

There are Israeli troops controlling land which does not belong to their nation and fighting insurgents beyond the recognised borders of Israel that is why the area is referred to as "Occupied".

Why?

Because if you build on land that does not belong to you you are at best stealing and at worst commiting an act of aggression.

Is it legal to build without permission on your next-door neighbours garden?

The ICJ is a political body. Its members are selected by politicians, and most of them come from countries where justice is not a factor in major trials. Under international law, a country has the right to build defensive structures, including on occupied land. The ICJ decided, for purely political reasons, that the UN charter refers only to defence against other countries and their formal armies, while the charter itself never says or hints any such thing.

The United Nations Charter is aimed at governing the relations between states not within states.

UN Charter - Article 1 (Full text here UN Charter)

The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1 To maintain international peace and security...
2 To develop friendly relations among nations...
3 To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems...

Given that the UN states in Article 1 of the Charter that it is an international body with international aims Article 51 cannot therefore be seen as justifying defence except against another state.

By the way Article 51 in its totality says:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Please note I have flagged up in bold the fact it expresses itself in International terms.

BTW I read the article you posted up and after reading the actual text of the ICJ ruling it is not hugely convincing.

 

[G-Man]

Tel Aviv was the capital in 1948 and as far as the international community is concerned it still is. The move of the capital to Jerusalem in 1949 is not recognised which is why the Embassies to Israel stayed in Tel Aviv.

I said Tel Aviv because as far as my Government (and others) is concerned it is the Israeli Capital.

And I suppose you refer to Taiwan as "rebel territory"

There are Israeli troops controlling land which does not belong to their nation and fighting insurgents beyond the recognised borders of Israel that is why the area is referred to as "Occupied".

I fail to see why.

Because if you build on land that does not belong to you you are at best stealing and at worst commiting an act of aggression.

Unless it is for defensive purposes.

Is it legal to build without permission on your next-door neighbours garden?

It is if it'll save your life.

The United Nations Charter is aimed at governing the relations between states not within states.

UN Charter - Article 1 (Full text here UN Charter)

The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1 To maintain international peace and security...
2 To develop friendly relations among nations...
3 To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems...

Given that the UN states in Article 1 of the Charter that it is an international body with international aims Article 51 cannot therefore be seen as justifying defence except against another state.

By the way Article 51 in its totality says:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Please note I have flagged up in bold the fact it expresses itself in International terms.

BTW I read the article you posted up and after reading the actual text of the ICJ ruling it is not hugely convincing.

I haven't found a single word showing that the UN charter doesn't refer to terror and guerilla attacks. Furthermore, given that the Palestinian terror organizations all recieve foreign support, they do represent other countries.

 

[Hotpoint]

And I suppose you refer to Taiwan as "rebel territory"

I'm not aware that Her Majesties Government is yet referring to Taiwan in this manner but if you can show me they are I will do so henceforth

I fail to see why.

I can't see why you don't.

Unless it is for defensive purposes.

But it is not for the purposes of defending the state of Israel. If it were you could put it on the green line. It is placed to protect people who don't actually live in Israel that's the point.

It is if it'll save your life.

There's a difference between legal and justified although I personally don't even think the wall is the latter because the people from Israel who have settled in the area since 1967 shouldn't be there anyway.

I haven't found a single word showing that the UN charter doesn't refer to terror and guerilla attacks. Furthermore, given that the Palestinian terror organizations all recieve foreign support, they do represent other countries.

The point is that the wall is not placed to defend Israel from threats outside its borders as might be justified by Article 51 it is placed to protect one group of people who live outside Israel from another group who live outside Israel by people who don't own the land they're building the wall on anyway.

 

[G-Man]

I'm not aware that Her Majesties Government is yet referring to Taiwan in this manner but if you can show me they are I will do so henceforth

http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front...029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1019041599961

The People's Republic of China claims sovereignty over Taiwan and regards Taiwan as a province of China. The United Kingdom acknowledges the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of China and recognises the Chinese Government as the sole legal government of China. The United Kingdom does not recognise Taiwan as a state and does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

I can't see why you don't.

I don't because I don't see why.

But it is not for the purposes of defending the state of Israel. If it were you could put it on the green line. It is placed to protect people who don't actually live in Israel that's the point.

It is for the purpose of defending Israeli citizens and Israeli communities, which are an integral part of the state of Israel.

There's a difference between legal and justified although I personally don't even think the wall is the latter because the people from Israel who have settled in the area since 1967 shouldn't be there anyway.

Israel has as much of a legal claim to the land as do the Palestinians. And I don't see why they shouldn't be there.

The point is that the wall is not placed to defend Israel from threats outside its borders as might be justified by Article 51 it is placed to protect one group of people who live outside Israel from another group who live outside Israel by people who don't own the land they're building the wall on anyway.

It is aimed at protecting Israelis from terrorists. I don't see why you think that article 51 doesn't refer to this case.

 

[Hotpoint]

The United Kingdom acknowledges the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of China and recognises the Chinese Government as the sole legal government of China. The United Kingdom does not recognise Taiwan as a state and does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

We don't recognise Taiwan but we don't call it "Rebel Territory" we just call it Taiwan, or Nationalist China... or maybe Formosa if we're being retro

I don't because I don't see why.

For the record how would you define "occupied"? It's an area of land held by troops from outside and against the wishes of the majority of the population?

It is for the purpose of defending Israeli citizens and Israeli communities, which are an integral part of the state of Israel.

But they don't live in the state of Israel. Nobody recognises the area as being part of Israel. If I went to live in France I couldn't expect the UK Government to build a wall around my house to defend me from the local population and man it with the British Army.

Israel has as much of a legal claim to the land as do the Palestinians. And I don't see why they shouldn't be there.

Forgetting the Palestinians what is Israel's legal claim to the area? Just because the man next door (Jordan) decides to give up half his garden it doesn't mean it belongs to me.

The ownership of the area is not yet sorted out. However until it is no part of it is legally Israeli land.

It is aimed at protecting Israelis from terrorists. I don't see why you think that article 51 doesn't refer to this case.

It's not aimed at protecting Israel. Israel only starts at the green line.

 

[Azadre]

http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front...029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1019041599961

The People's Republic of China claims sovereignty over Taiwan and regards Taiwan as a province of China. The United Kingdom acknowledges the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of China and recognises the Chinese Government as the sole legal government of China. The United Kingdom does not recognise Taiwan as a state and does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

The People's Republic of China is the sole legal government of China. Just as the People's Republic of Iran is the sole legal government of Iran and not the Shah from exile.

I don't because I don't see why.

Tel Aviv is the international capital. That is why. East Jerusalem is not legally Israel, I believe*, and Tel Aviv was the original capitial and stays so to this day.

It is for the purpose of defending Israeli citizens and Israeli communities, which are an integral part of the state of Israel.

Israel's boundaries do not include settlements. Israel has no right grant citizenship to the inhabitants or to protect these cities just as Poland, for reference, would not have any right to protect Christians in the little piece of Russia bordering it.

Israel has as much of a legal claim to the land as do the Palestinians. And I don't see why they shouldn't be there.

They have no legal claim as their grandfather's did no tend to the land they are grabbing. Just as WWII Germany, sorry but its a great example, didn't have the legal claim to Czech. Palestinians have lived there, key word lived, for centuries and are now being expelled forcefully from their homes for the expanison of Israel, a nation they see to be illiegitimate.

It is aimed at protecting Israelis from terrorists. I don't see why you think that article 51 doesn't refer to this case.

Not sure what is being discussed here, but I am sure you're making a good point G-Man