Justus For All

If you feel that way about international law, what did you think of the Bush administration citing Saddam Hussein’s violation of it as a part of the case for war?

I felt that a lot of people like to believe in fairy tales, and using international law was a way to get them to agree to support the effort. Some of this was aimed at domestic audiences, but most of it was for foreign consumption.

This of course caused a disconnect between ‘reasons’ and pretext, and has backfired by the lack of WMD stockpiles undermining the case for war. WMD was, in my opinion, greatly overemphasised as a reason to begin with because it was the only reason that ‘international law’ would support.

I always held that removing Saddam was important for geo-strategic and human rights reasonse and WMD was at most a symptom, rather than the source of the problem.

Dave, I didn’t get to reat the article, but as you may have guessed I agree with you wholeheartedly. Israel is not and never has been in violation of international law. The very diplomats and propagandists who brand us as cold-blood killers have their hands soaked in blood.

Eitan.

It should be no surprise that I disagree.

As a nation that has ratified the Geneva Conventions there must at least be a moral obligation to observe those international agreements.

It is equally of no surprise that most of Israel’s support in the face of that ratification comes from another nation, also signatory to the Geneva Conventions, that (in recent times at least) seems to have consigned the idea of international law, treaty, and agreement to the dustbin of history in favour of self interest and expediency.

Probligo,

Did you read the linked post and comments? Do you have any answers to the questions that are raised on this issue or do you simply choose to believe that Israel is in violation as an act of faith?

Israel could of course be doing things that are morally wrong and not illegal. Morality and legality are not synonymous. But if the question of international law is important, and opponants of Isreal seem to feel that it is, then it is the letter, not the spirit, that matters.

Dave, yes I did read it. I did read the comments.

Then, rather than go to great length, I chose (mea culpa) to reply in brief to the question – “Is Israel in breach of International Law?”

The answer – a stentorian and resounding “YES”

I said that Israel must at least have “a moral obligation to observe those international agreements” (viz the Geneva Conventions). OK, I was too polite – mea culpa again. Israel should be, should have been, challenged many times over for their continual and continuing breaches of the Geneva Conventions on occupation of enemy territory, the displacement of inhabitants, and the introduction of Israeli citizens to settle occupied land. OK, ( again mea culpa) I did not write all of that down. It is not a matter of “faith” as you put it. There has been sufficient debate and statement on that part of the argument.

Anyone who posts on the topic of the Geneva Conventions should have made themselves aware of how the fairy tales are worded before they spout off, rather than relying upon the accuracy of other bloggers to get it right for them, or upon the commenters to prove them wrong. There should have been some thought given to the relationship between actions and the meaning of the Conventions to observe their application. There has been, and will continue to be, all manner of semantics and verbal sleight of hand on this topic.

I believe it to be quite simple and straight forward. The Biblical justifications, the history, all of the baggage and verbiage that lies in the background, matter not.

The MSOI is a construct of modern international law and agreement, of modern politics and most importantly of MAN, not God. If God had wanted MSOI then he would not (in my most humble opinion) have relied upon Chuchill, Stalin and Roosevelt to create it for him. I am quite sure that in his omnipotence and omniscience he would have found a much better way, a far more just way of achieving the same objective.

I left with the thought that Israel’s contempt for International Law and Conventions is not unique. Unfair? Not sorry. True? Yes.

As for the Chapter 6/ Chapter 7 debate it is quite correct to say that Chapter 6 Resolutions are of little to no effect. The truth of that matter, not revealed by the debate at Volokh, nor by UN record, is the number of draft resolutions on Israel and the Middle East proposed for the UNSC under Chapter 7. None of those drafts that are critical of Israel and its occupation of Palestinian areas have been recorded by the UN. Threats by nations holding veto power that there would be countervailing resolutions against the proposers, economic reprisals against the proposers, the introduction of the draft would be vetoed, or the introduction of the Resolution to UNSC has in fact been vetoed has ensured that they never, ever, have reached the floor of the UNSC for debate. For that reason, they “do not exist”.

The reason is, as you know, that the only Resolutions with effect are those passed under Chapter 7 of the Charter. It is not in the interests of Israel and its supporters to have the UNSC pass resolutions under Chapter 7 that are critical of Israel and its actions.

The debate about Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 ranks alongside the debate over appointment of SCOTUS Justices in its futility. There are parts of the system that make it work well for some, and badly for others. It happens that in this instance the “system” of the UN Charter and the structure of the UN itself creates the impasse and inability to act that will ensure Israel is never brought to account for those breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

But that really is a lot more than I intended, and should have needed, to say in reply to the simple question.

It seems that we agree that Israel is not in violation of any binding UNSC resolutions as to international law then. Which leaves the sole reason to claim Israel is in violation with international law being the Geneva Convention. The VC post claims:

the Convention by its own terms applies only “between two or more of the High Contracting Parties.” Israel is a High Contracting Party, but there appears to be no other High Contracting Party which can claim that Israel’s West Bank policies violate the Party’s Geneva Convention Rights.

This seems like a strong arguement to me, and one that you have made no efforts to rebut. I don’t claim to be an expert on the Geneva Convention, but I have read it a few times.

I am not sure how God’s will concerning Israel is relevant at all. Presumably, God could will Israel to exist and Israel could still be violating man made laws.

You seem to have moved the debate from whether Isreal is in violation of international law, to whether international law itself is just. I am quite sure that a very strong case can be made that it is not, not only in Israel’s case but in many other cases. This is part of why I regard international law as a fairy tale, it is not based in any way upon justice, but merely rests upon power and is a convenient excuse for the weilding of power sometimes, and conveniently ignored in others.

I will also not in passing, that the reports we have of the conduct of the Judeo-Christian god do not seem to match up with your conception of him. While it is claimed that he his omnipotent and omniscienent, he has tended to use flawed humans to impliment his will. See the story of Moses for example.

“It seems that we agree that Israel is not in violation of any binding UNSC resolutions as to international law then.”

Dave, the truth is that ONE nation holding veto power has consistently and continuously prevented any Chapter 7 Resolutions being considered, before they might even be put to debate.

That, I submit, is no different to a SCOTUS Justice (appointed by W ?) having the power to unilaterally prevent any pro-abortion suits being considered, not even allowed in Court…

Translate that into agreement if you want – it is by default rather than fact.

The rest of the argument – hopeless, truly hopeless.

It strikes me that if there were not one loophole to allow Israel to escape accusations of ethnic cleansing then the pedants and legal prestidigitators would pretty soon make one out of nothing.

Ethnic cleansing?

Tell me how the West Bank differs from SREBRENİTZA.

I put the bit in about God etc simply because, in the eyes of most Americans I have debated the topic with, Biblical history seems to be the over-reaching authority for anything and everything that Israel might do or has done. Pre-emptive strike you might say – also wasted ammo but who counts?

Probligo,

One nation (actually 5 nations) holding veto power is, in effect, how international law is decided. It certainly may be an unfair way, but that is how the system works. Israel may benefit from that system sometimes, but that doesn’t alter whether or not it is in compliance with international law. It does of course buttress my case for international law being a fairy tale and not a reality.

I am not sure what the U.S. Supreme Court has to do with any of this.

I certainly do not consider Israel guilty of ethnic cleansing. While some Israelis would support such a thing, the government of Israel never has. That is a very serious accussation, and I don’t think you can find any evidence to support it.

This is not to say that Israel has never done anything wrong, but it does not have, and I don’t see any evidence that it ever has had, a policy of getting rid of the Palestinians, either from Israel proper or the occupied territories.

Of course many Arab nations embarked on a quite effect ethnic cleansing campaign after the founding of Israel.

Dave, I know and understand what you say about veto and international law. You avoid the point that I make – that only one holder of that power has consistently and continuously prevented any and all attempts to even debate a Chapter 7 resolution against Israel.

That can be construed as misuse of the power of veto. It can be construed (as I think you would want) to be legitimate and justified support of a friendly nation. The fact is that Israel has consistently, not “sometimes”, been the beneficiary of that veto. If I remember the source correctly the other point that comes out at the same time is that the US (the nation I refer to) has used its power of veto on only (I recollect) two other occasions. There is a source for the detail; a NGO monitor organisation that tracks and taps this info, it could be “Foreign Affairs” or one of those. Quite too “lefty” to be acceptable for you… So I haven’t gone dig it all out again for the simple reason that the usual response is “america bashing again…” and assassination of the accuracy and independance of the source.

The reference to SCOTUS was an attempt (in my quite misguided belief that you might understand the point) to draw a parallel between the treatment of international law relating to the application of UN Resolutions to Israel and what could happen if just one judge was able to control all access to SCOTUS.

As to the actions of Israel within Palestine, I could probably find any number of instances of what has been done. Your acceptance (more likely rejection) of the reliability of those sources is the problem. There are any number of labels and epithets that you could apply. I would not be able to counter for the simple reason that you would consider any of that evidence as “tainted” in one way or another.

Can I simply refer you to Lawrence of Cyberia where I know you will find well documented and sourced descriptions of what does “really happen”.

While not directly applicable to the Geneva Conventions debate, this fairly recent example will give an idea of the standard of his reporting.

Take a leisurely read back through the archive on his site. There is some which I have found quite sickening in its explicit and uncensored presentation.

Dave, sorry about the messy links. I will try harder here.

Try this one report for size, the Guardian 10/18/05

At the northern edge of Jerusalem, on the main road to the Palestinian city of Ramallah, three towering concrete walls are converging around a rapidly built maze of cages, turnstiles and bomb-proof rooms.
When construction at Qalandiya is completed in the coming weeks, the remaining gaps in the 8m (26ft)-high walls will close and those still permitted to travel between the two cities will be channelled through a warren of identity and security checks reminiscent of an international frontier.

The Israeli military built the crossing without fanfare over recent months, along with other similar posts along the length of the vast new “security barrier” that is enveloping Jerusalem, while the world’s attention was focussed on the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon’s removal of Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip.

But these de facto border posts are just one element in a web of construction evidently intended to redraw Israel’s borders deep inside the Palestinian territories and secure all of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and to do it fast so as to put the whole issue beyond negotiation. As foreign leaders, including Tony Blair, praised Mr Sharon for his “courage” in pulling out of Gaza last month, Israel was accelerating construction of the West Bank barrier, expropriating more land in the West Bank than it was surrendering in Gaza, and building thousands of new homes in Jewish settlements.

“It’s a trade off: the Gaza Strip for the settlement blocks; the Gaza Strip for Palestinian land; the Gaza Strip for unilaterally imposing borders,” said Dror Etkes, director of the Israeli organisation Settlement Watch. “They don’t know how long they’ve got. That’s why they’re building like maniacs.”

At the core of the strategy is the 420-mile West Bank barrier which many Israeli politicians regard as marking out a future border. Its route carves out large areas for expansion of the main Jewish settlements of Ariel, Maale Adumim and Gush Etzion, and expropriates swaths of Palestinian land by separating it from its owners.

In parallel, new building on Jewish settlements during the first quarter of this year rose by 83% on the same period in 2004. About 4,000 homes are under construction in Israel’s West Bank colonies, with thousands more homes approved in the Ariel and Maale Adumim blocks that penetrate deep into the occupied territories. The total number of settlers has risen again this year with an estimated 14,000 moving to the West Bank, compared with 8,500 forced to leave Gaza.

Israel is also continuing to expand the amount of territory it intends to retain. In July alone, it seized more land in the West Bank than it surrendered in Gaza: it withdrew from about 19 square miles of territory while sealing off 23 sq miles of the West Bank around Maale Adumim.

Israel’s strategy is to “strengthen the control over areas which will constitute an inseparable part of the state of Israel”, the prime minister said after the Gaza pullout.

Last month, he told a meeting of his Likud party allies that it was important to expand the settlements without drawing the world’s attention. “There’s no need to talk. We need to build, and we’re building without talking,” he said. A few days later, one of the prime minister’s senior advisors, Eyal Arad, publicly advocated “a strategy of unilaterally determining the permanent borders of the state of Israel”.

But then, what does the Guardian know, these “are just the lies that I read in the media”.

Probligo,

Is that evidence of ‘ethnic cleansing’ in your mind? I see it as an attempt by Israel to unilateraly draw the line on the eventual borders of Israel and Palestine, something that I don’t think anyone doubts is occuring.

Is Palestine getting the best deal they could out of the situation? Probably not. Had they choosen to continue negotiating rather than starting the second intifada I think that they would have gotten a better deal.

Nearly every border in the world was established by a similar manner, in concept if not in details, to what Israel is doing. Israel is unique it that it is a late comer, and in most of the world, (Africa is the primary exception) that processs has long been finished, but I don’t see Israel being particularly barbaric in it’s application here.

Probligo, I missed your earlier comment as it was awaiting moderation to ensure it wasn’t spam.

There are of course numerous reasons that the U.S. has used it’s veto power to defend Israel. One can argue whether any or all of these vetoes were justified. However, I am not sure what you mean my calling this a ‘misuse’ of the power of veto. It is a use of the veto power, and it is something you don’t agree with, but the entire purpose of the veto is to prevent the U.N. from deciding something a major power does not agree with, as if it did so, it would probably destroy the U.N.

I am still not clear as to your point on trying to connect SCOTUS to the UNSC. If it is the general point that the UN is about power, not justice, then I certainly agree with you. The United Nations is ill suited to be a just World Government for a whole variety of reasons. In some ways, veto power for nations adds to that, in other ways it lessens it. For the UN to be a just world government, major reforms in how it functions would have to be made.

All of this is irrelevant to the question of whether Israel has violated international law though. The best it can be is a case for why international law shouldn’t be considered particularly important, because it is fundamentally not based upon justice, but rather based upon power.

As the the Lawrence of Cyberia site, I have read it on occassion and am in general familiar with its content. I don’t dispute the factuality of many of the events recounted there. It is, of course, one sided. I also think it makes claims as to motives that are not substantiated. In any conflict many unfortunate events will occur. Innocents will die. That is undoubtable. In any conflict, some members of a generally honarable force will behave in a dishonorable and dispicable fashion, that is also undoubtable.

One reason I strongly support the border fence, is that I see it as a way to end this conflict. Israel will have it’s area, and the Palestinians will have their area. I find it hard to worry too much about the Palestinians not getting their fair share, since any seems better than none, which is what Palestinians had sovreignty over before Israel existed.

Here is a good analysis of Palestinian and Israeli non-combatant deaths (hat tip: Environmental Republican) that I think you should look at. The evidence there makes it hard to argue that Israel is purposefully targeting non-combatants and hard to argue that Palestinian terrorist groups are not. I am quite sure that all of the innocents killed by Israelis have tragic stories, and many have probably been highlighted by Lawrence of Cyberia, but the numbers presented there are hard to refute. Your analysis would be appreciated.

It would also be interested to know what you think Israel should do. Like many, you seem very happy to point out all that Israel is doing wrong, but don’t offer any positive guidance. If you were king of the world, what would you do with the Israel-Palestine situation?

“If I were king of the world…” Ah!! What a grand dream that is.

First, I would recognise that I can not change history. The present I/P conflict is an artefact of recent history, not old. Even as King of the World I can not undo what has been done.

Second, I would tell the US to get its arse and its fingers out of Israel. Withdraw all aid, all weapons, all technological assistance. Well, I can do that, I am King of the World.

Third, Israel’s nuclear arsenal and weaponry technology goes, in toto, along with all assistance from South Africa and whereever else.

Then we start on the serious stuff…

All Israeli settlements on land occupied in the 1967 war are to be removed. All land confiscated by the Israel government is to be returned to the original owners in the first instance, to their descendants in the second, or to be held in trust for Palestinian displaced persons by the Palestinian Authority.

The Palestinian Authority is to recognise the right of Israel to exist as a full partner in the governance of the region of Israel Palestine.

The Palestine Authority is to make any and all armed violence resulting in deaths by private and non-state militia, and individuals, an offence carrying the death penalty. That law is to include as capital offences the organisation, training and equiping of militias and individuals. Universal rights of extradition of offenders external to Israel Palestine are granted.

The Palestine Authority to establish effective police and defence forces charged with the responsibility, authority and powers to protect both Israeli and Palestinian alike.

The Israel Government is to recognise the right of the Palestine Authority to exist as a full partner in the governance of the region of Israel Palestine.

The Israel Government is to make any and all armed violence resulting in deaths by private and non-state militia, and individuals, an offence carrying the death penalty. That law is to include as capital offences the organisation, training and equiping of militias and individuals. Universal rights of extradition of offenders external to Israel Palestine are granted.

The Israel Government is to establish effective police and defence forces charged with the responsibility, authority and powers to protect both Israeli and Palestinian alike.

What I can not do as King of the World (and this is one of the points where I believe the US has gone totally wrong in Iraq) is to change the attitudes and culture of people – group and individual – overnight. There is some serious head-banging required among people at all levels in both Israel and Palestine. As Ireland / Northern Ireland has shown, it can take two or three generations for the hostilities that have been created to work through and out of the society. Even then, success can not be guaranteed.

Yeah, Dave, I know that I am probably being over-simplistic, naive and idealistic. That is no worse than what is happening now in I/P or Iraq for that matter.

The thrust of what I outline, the intent, is to try and get connections where divisions exist at present. That, as I see it, is the core of the I/P problem at present. BOTH SIDES are equally culpable of intentionally creating and widening the divisions between Israeli and Palestinian. The reasons for those divisions are not simple, but the main foundations would include the desire for personal power, the desire for personal enrichment, and inter-cultural hatreds.

Oh, and Ariel Sharon, Moshe Dayan, Arafat and ? (the founding leader of Hamas) all stand trial for crimes against humanity… or at least go on report to whichever Higher Authority they answer to.

Other notes -

“I am still not clear as to your point on trying to connect SCOTUS to the UNSC.”

No, I did not think you would. Try it this way…

Let us say that the next Chief Justice appointed to SCOTUS is given the power and authority to determine who can bring cases to SCOTUS, and what actions SCOTUS is to hear. The power of that Chief Justice and all decisions made are outside of any challenge.

Would that be a fair system of justice?

That is how I see the US action in preventing UNSC consideration of proposed resolution on Israel Palestine under Chapter 7.

But then I don’t expect that you will understand that way around either…

“Is Palestine getting the best deal they could out of the situation? Probably not. Had they choosen to continue negotiating rather than starting the second intifada I think that they would have gotten a better deal”

Another point where we will differ. It is my understanding that the Camp David Accord (as one example, the Oslo Accord another) was accompanied by extensive Israeli actions to expel Palestinians and confiscate land. There was the “three month” undertaking given Carter at Camp David. Israel did stop building new settlements – for three months. It was later admitted by the Carter Administration that that was all the undertaking, the promise, was for…

“Nearly every border in the world was established by a similar manner, in concept if not in details, to what Israel is doing. Israel is unique it that it is a late comer, and in most of the world, (Africa is the primary exception) that processs has long been finished, but I don’t see Israel being particularly barbaric in it’s application here. “

That is quite a difficult generalisation to counter. Does that make the statement, or the reality behind it, “right”? I would hope that in the 20th Century we as a species had progressed (evolved?) somewhat from the attitudes and paternalism of the 17th and 18th centuries. The fact that the 21st Century sees a nation as “advanced” as the US is making the same mistakes that Portugal, Spain, France, Netherlands and Britain made in the 1600s through 1800s is condemnation enough.

I do not agree with the opening of your statement.

Most of the borders that you see on the maps today in Middle East, and Africa, and South America were fundamentally established by the colonial powers, not by the emergent nations. That, as much as anything else is one of the problems of the Middle East more generally.

“We’ll just divide the area up like this… Pass the Ruler Winston. Now, if we put Khalid in charge here, Salaeem is happy to be in charge here because his second and favourite wife is from Damascus… Who is the cousin living in Yemen?…”

And this is where the question, the original question, becomes important.

Is Israel in violation of International Law in its “conquest and colonisation” of Palestinian land? As I said in my very first comment, “It is equally of no surprise that most of Israel’s support in the face of that ratification comes from another nation, also signatory to the Geneva Conventions, that (in recent times at least) seems to have consigned the idea of international law, treaty, and agreement to the dustbin of history in favour of self interest and expediency. ”

The pedantry and factual prestidigitations we have been through here have merely repeated what happens in the real life of those who “control” events in I/P. There is very little happens in the Levant that could be called “right”.

To support one side alone as being “right” in that situation creates injustice.

To remove all prospect of justice from the other “side”‘s rights is the cause of revolt and strife…

Dave, sorry that this has been so long. You do ask the questions, and I enjoy the challenge. I don’t expect that you could agree with the different viewpoint, but any time you want to be Vice King of the World I would be happy to share the bench. A cold beer and calm reasoned debate would be compulsory…

Now, that other question –

“Tell me how the West Bank differs from SREBRENİTZA”

You mention U.S. aid to Israel, but fail to mention Arab aid to terrorist groups, not to mention aid to Palestine in other areas and from other ways. If aiding one side in the conflict is wrong, I imagine aiding another side in the conflict is wrong.

As for Israel’s nuclear weaponry, I imagine you want all nuclear weaponry to go, and if you were king of the world I imagine you would do that. However, nuclear weapons don’t seem a signifigant Israel-Palestine issue and seem a bit off topic. We didn’t talk about what sort of force you would use to achieve your demands, given that you are king of the world you should have plenty to muster if need be. Would you bomb suspected Israeli weapon sites? Invade? Impose sanctions? Is the answer to what you would do with Israel different than Iran, or India? If so, why?

What makes the 1967 boundaries particularly good? Why not the 1948? Or the current region of greater Israel? Or the entire original British Mandate? What makes one set of lines better than another? And why not just use the wall Israel is building?

I am not clear what you mean when you say ‘a full partener in governance of the region of Israel-Palestine’ are you proposing a federal system with one nation or two seperate nations? If they are seperate nations, as other bits of what you right seem to suggest why do they need to be ‘partners’? If it is a federal system with one nation state, there is a lot of nuts and bolts on how this will work that you have left out.

From what I can tell, you would make owning a firearm a capital offense. I disagree with that extremely.

I do not understand the idea of Israel defending Palestinians and Palestine defending Israelis. Certainly I agree that each of them should prevent their sovreign territory from being used to attack the other, but are you demanding that Israel, for example, act to prevent one Palestinian from killing another in Palestine? If so, how would this work?

As to you comment about boundaries being established by colonial powers, that is true. It is also true in Europe and everywhere else. Human migration and extrenal threats have molded boundaries for millenia. The European colonial powers of the last half of the last millienium were not particularly unique in this regard. I disagree that the colonial boundaries are the primary problem of the middle east, or even a big one.

As for your question of how the West Bank differs from Srebrenitza I can imagine few ways in which they are the same. To start with, the letters in their names are different. The parts of the world they are in are different. The histories and nationalities are different. The interests of neighboring countries are different. Perhaps if you rephrase your question I can give you a better answer.

All in all Dave, about the level of “debate” that I should have expected.

Heigh ho!

Yeah, I know, I missed a lot. I will try and re-write the Treaty of Versaille next time.

On the “guns” thing. Why do people own guns if it is not (ultimately) for killing? Who they are killing, and the “justification” for killing is immaterial.

Note that I did not rule out killing with one’s bare hands. If you want to go eyeball to eyeball to the death with another man, have at it I say as long as he is your equal. If you go around strangling women and children you answer to me. I can be inventive.

Have just one law. Have just one law that is applied equally to everyone. Have just one law that is applied without exception. (So that it is clear, “one law” here is not a count of the “rules”. It is a term that I am using for the entire system of justice. Just thought the pedantry might be neccessary).

Oh yes, a few other things I left out.

Every citizen carries (implanted at birth) a continual response chip, tracked 24/7 by satellite and ground systems. Freedom from tracking is earned, it is not a right.

Sometimes the best punishment can be keeping a person alive, rather than killing them. Hence sentences such as 35 years for murder, listening to the screams of your victims compulsory for 10 minutes every day, any time of day or night.

But then, detail like that is of no interest huh!

Like so much of the detail of the truth in Israel or Iraq can be ignored. Perhaps William J Buckley could keep his nightmares quiet no longer.