|
Those two articles are mindless crap from zealoted supporters of the settlements Very typical. Making baseless claims I don't even know who Rikki Hollander is, and seeing I thought we were talking about international law and not journalism, how respected or not she is as a journalist is about as relevent to this discussion as what her favourite colour is...
You are the one who brought up the issue rather than deal with the topic. Rather than getting into an argument based on who you think is an expert and how many books they’ve written, let’s agree that international jurists are experts, and that experts often disagree. Just because you agree with some doesn’t make them more of an expert than those you disagree with... You are correct, its not about agree or not that makes one an expert or a superior one. That said all experts dont carry the same weight, its their accomplisments, their experience and thier peers that matter. Also, you say this now and then go on to question whether somone is an expert or not later in the post. I’ll break my post up into addressing the various arguments you are putting up via links, though I do notice one of those websites you linked to is nothing more than some religious bunch, so I’m not sure where their ‘expertise’ on international law comes from. I assume you are talking about http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal1.shtml http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal2.shtml By Eugene W. Rostow Copyright 1991 The New Republic Inc. The New Republic, October 21, 1991 By Eugene W. Rostow Copyright 1990 The New Republic Inc. The New Republic, April 23, 1990 So The New Republic and Rostow is some religous bunch and Rostow, a drafter of 242 and Dean of Yale Law, is no expert. Is that your expert opinion. Why not address the substance instead of using deceptive baseless claims And I’ll also note before I start that you didn’t address anything I’d posted about the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention. Rather than using a bunch of links to mainly biased pro-Israel sites *as* yr argument, wouldn't it make more sense to *support* yr arguments with links to more balanced and impartial sites?
It was addressed and the links went into detail. There was a wide variety of sources but you fail to address them. Many of the sources The New Republic Inc. National Committee on American Foreign Policy, Inc. Journal of Palestine Studies MacNeil/Lehrer Report, March 30, 1978: Daily Star (Beirut), June 12, 1974. Qtd. in Myths and Facts, Leonard J. Davis, pg. 48: Department of State Proceedings of the 64th annual meeting of the American Society of International Law, 1970, pgs 894-96: The New York Times, “Don’t strong-arm Israel,” Feb. 19, 1991: Institute for National Strategic Studies, “The Future of Palestine,” November 1993: American Foreign Policy Interests, 1988: Hearings on the Middle East before the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 92nd Congress, 1st Session 187 (1971), qtd. in the American Journal of International Law, “The illegality of the Arab attack on Israel of October 6, 1973,” Eugene Rostow: and many more. Territory can be acquired in wars of self-defence Unfortunately you haven’t pointed me to what Stephen Schwebel said in its entirety, and I suspect you’ve posted selective snippets from some garbage source like ‘honest’ reporting or CAMERA. While he’s correct in saying that there’s a distinction between a war of self-defense and one of aggression (the latter is a crime under customary international law), what he doesn’t say is that any state is entitled to acquire territory because that state considers it a war of self-defence. International law is clear when it comes to the acquisition of territory during war. It doesn’t matter whether it’s self-defence or aggression – no state is entitled to acquire territory in war. Which is why the preamble of Resolution 242 clearly states in the preamble: ‘ Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’ http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un242.htm Resolution 242 is a piece of international law that’s drawn from customary international law. If international law allowed for the acquisition of territory by wars of self-defence, it would have been stated in the preamble. Previous sovereignty over territory affects the applicability of international conventions No, it doesn’t. Nowhere in the Fourth Geneva Convention does it say that previous soveignty over occupied territories voids international humanitarian law. The Convention deals strictly with the treatment of civilians in the occupied territory (the Palestinians) by the occupier (Israel). Whether the territory is occupied isn’t something that can be seriously questioned, as the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled on more than a few occasions that Israel is engaging in a belligerent occupation of the West Bank (and previously Gaza). On June 30, 2004, the Israeli High Court delivered its decision in HCJ 2056/04 Beit Sourik v. Israel, ordering the State of Israel and its military commanders to modify the route of the wall/barrier that is being constructed in the Occupied West Bank. In its 52-page landmark decision, the High Court recognized that according to the laws of belligerent occupation, the Occupant may confiscate private property and use public property to build the wall for military purposes. However, the Court ruled that the Occupant may not build the wall based on political grounds, or to annex territories or fix a border. http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh140.htm I cited the article its obvious you cant dispute Scwebel. Anyway here is more of it for you "The facts of the June 1967 'Six Day War' demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR's use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of UNEF.
"It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated.
"The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest."
"(a) a state acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense;
"(b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense;
"(c) Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.
"as between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt."
"... namely, that no legal right shall spring from a wrong, and the Charter principle that the Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State."
Here is what Caradon said about ‘ Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’
Journal of Palestine Studies, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring - Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:
Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?
A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.
Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” The can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.
Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.
I have much more on this
But the biggest flaw in Schwebel’s argument is one that should be hitting everyone in the face. If he’s arguing that there wasn’t international recognition of Jordan’s occupation of the West Bank (that bit’s correct), then he can’t turn around and argue that Israel has a legitimate right to the occupied territories, and the reason for that’s because the same international community that didn’t recognise the Jordanian claim of sovereignty doesn’t recognise the legality of any Israeli claims of sovereignty over the occupied territories.
I didnt know you were such an expert that your opinion should be held above all the others like Schwebel and Rostow. In anycase my previous info with Schwebel and Caradons statements show you are completely wrong. The many articles and statements by the drafters I have posted show how wrong you are too
Eugene Rostow is a definitive expert and a drafter of Resolution 242...oh and by the way would you like to see his resume coz he got a high paying job at Yale so that means he's like a definitive expert!
Again we see your statement that we should agree that International Jurists and such are all experts and we should not question there expertise was only meant for others not to question your experts but its ok for you to do so.
Gee being Dean of Yale Law,a drafter of 242 as well as his many other accomplishments is obviously absolutly worthless because he doesnt agree with Violet.
I posted his Wiki bio which you obviously convieniantly ignored as well as his articles from The New Republic. It seems only you dont consider him an expert
Eugene V. (Victor Debs) Rostow (August 25, 1913 – November 25, 2002), influential legal scholar and public servant, was Dean of Yale Law School, and served as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs under President Lyndon B. Johnson.
After graduation, Rostow worked at the New York law firm of Cravath, deGersdorff, Swaine and Wood specializing in bankruptcy, corporations, and antitrust. In 1938 he returned to Yale Law School as a faculty member (becoming a full professor in 1944), and became a member of the Yale Economics Department as well.
During World War II Rostow served in the Lend-Lease Administration as an assistant general counsel, in the State Department as liaison to the Lend-Lease Administration, and as an assistant to then–Assistant Secretary of State Dean Acheson. He was an early and vocal critic of Japanese American internment and the Supreme Court decisions which supported it; in 1945 he wrote an influential paper in the Yale Law Journal which helped fuel the movement for restitution. In that paper he wrote, “We believe that the German people bear a common political responsibility for outrages secretly committed by the Gestapo and the SS. What are we to think of our own part in a program which violates every democratic social value, yet has been approved by the Congress, the President and the Supreme Court?”
In 1955 Rostow became dean of Yale Law School, a post he held until 1965. From 1966 to 1969 he served as Under Secretary for Political Affairs in Lyndon B. Johnson's government, the third-highest ranking official in the State Department. During this time he helped draft UN Security Council Resolution 242, one of the most important Security Council resolutions relevant to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
After leaving government service Rostow returned to Yale Law School, teaching courses in constitutional, international, and antitrust law. Concerned about Soviet military expansionism, in the mid-1970s he was an active member of the Coalition for a Democratic Majority and helped found and lead the Committee on the Present Danger. In 1981 President Ronald Reagan appointed him director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, making Rostow the highest-ranking Democrat in the Reagan administration.
In 1984 Rostow became Sterling Professor of Law and Public Affairs Emeritus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Rostow
I'm not at all sure where you got the idea he was a definitive expert, and as he wasn't the US representative (Arthur Goldberg was), turning his help in drafting the resolution into the same level of input that Lord Caradon, who initiated the draft and presented it to the Security Council, is really stretching things bigtime. What was Rostow's level of help? Because he was a flagbearer of the Israel Must Get It All!!! brigade, and if as you claim he drafted the resolution, I suspect he would have used white-out or whatever they used in those days to get rid of the preamble (see the beginning of my post) that very clearly shoots his argument down in flames...
Gee All your claims have been shown to be baseless crap and now you go into the ridiculous. I mean trying to claim he wasnt the US Rep because Goldberg was as any sort of argument proving your point shows your lack of argument. He was the third ranking official in the State Dept and outranked Goldberg for gods sake. The rest of your claims are equally moronic.
In any case here is more
see above and
From 1966 to 1969 he served as Under Secretary for Political Affairs in Lyndon B. Johnson's government, the third-highest ranking official in the State Department. During this time he helped draft UN Security Council Resolution 242, one of the most important Security Council resolutions relevant to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Rostow
By Eugene W. Rostow
Copyright 1991 The New Republic Inc.
The New Republic, October 21, 1991
Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces "from territories" it occupied during the Six-Day War--not from "the" territories nor from "all" the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.
Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from "all" the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the "fragile" and "vulnerable" Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called "secure and recognized" boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.
Resolution 242 built on the text of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, which provided (except in th case of Lebanon) that the Armistice Demarcation Lines separating the military forces were "not to be construed in any sense" as political or territorial boundaries, and that "no provision" of the Armistice Agreements "Shall in any way prejudice the right, claims, and positions" of the parties "in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine problem." In making peace with Egypt in 1979, Israel withdrew from the entire Sinai, which had never been part of the British Mandate.
http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal1.shtml
• Telegram from the Department of State to the U.S. Interests Section of the Spanish Embassy in the United Arab Republic summarizing Rostow’s conversation with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin:
Rostow said ... resolution required agreement on "secure and recognized" boundaries, which, as practical matter, and as matter of interpreting resolution, had to precede withdrawals. Two principles were basic to Article I of resolution. Paragraph from which Dobrynin quoted was linked to others, and he did not see how anyone could seriously argue, in light of history of resolution in Security Council, withdrawal to borders of June 4th was contemplated. These words had been pressed on Council by Indians and others, and had not been accepted.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xx/2665.htm
I have much more from him
A selected quote from Goldberg that comes from a biased pro-Israeli site means that combined with talking about his career accomplishments, we shouldn't question that selected quote in the context of the Council debates
Both Goldberg and Lord Caradon made statements in the council debate on the draft, and both stated that the Resolution must be taken in its entirety and didn't belong to one side or the other. The intention was to produce a balanced and carefully worded Resolution, which they managed to do.
It wasnt a selected quote it was many of them as well as articles by him like from National Committee on American Foreign Policy
http://www.mefacts.com/cache/html/arab-countries/10159.htm
You continue to just make baseless claims
Right. At this point I've clicked on the rest of yr links and they're leading to CAMERA links. Is there a chance you could stop using really biased sources which are clearly omitting statements they don't like and taking others out of context? Have you read any of the records of the meetings, or are you just relying on what you read at CAMERA?
I used much more than CAMERA links which you still cant refute. You have presented nothing of validity
Also, do you have a list of the drafters of the Resolution? And don't you think maybe the fifteen members of the Security Council and their opinions count? I've got a lot of information about the debate around the Resolution, but it'd involve typing it out as it's from a book and I'm not all that sure if yr interested in much other than plonking multiple links to CAMERA and trotting off people's resumes...
I quoted and linked articles by the drafters Lord Caradon, Eugene Rostow, Arthur Goldberg and Baron George-Brown stating what they meant. The security council adopted 242.
You have presented nothing to refute what the drafters of 242 stated and intended and act like your opinions are more valid than those of the drafters and other experts. You make baseless and bogus claims, ignore information presented and twist what is said rather than debate in an honest manner. Maybe if
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
