Talk:State of Israel

Is the first sentence correct? My understanding is that the UN in 1947 passed a (probably not legally binding) resolution saying there should be two states with boundaries as it laid down, but it proceeded no further, and its representatives were ignored by the British authorities when they turned up to take over at the expiry of the mandate. The Jewish leaders proclaimed the state of Israel unilaterally the day before, and Palestinian leaders proclaimed their own state some time later. I'm not sure whether either proclamation specified borders. Peter Jackson 15:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I'm delighted to have your participation. If the Middle East can't trigger CZ activity and debate, nothing can (studiously ignoring homeopathy).

As far as the borders, UN General Assembly Resolution 181 [1] is extremely detailed. It is fair to say, however, that the execution plan did not proceed smoothly; I have not researched how the British authorities did or did not work with it beyond Lapierre and Collins' history, Oh Jerusalem!, my paperback copy of which fell apart and is no longer on the shelf.

Would you like to create or extend a more detailed section on the early days, reflecting the UN action and the reaction to it? Also, could you elaborate on "probably not legally binding", recognizing that it was in relatively uncharted ground in international law. The argument seems to be that the 1922 British Mandate of Palestine (I'm adding the date to distinguish it from the Allied Powers agreement of 1918, which I have yet to find) was issued by the League of Nations, and the UN was the successor to the League Howard C. Berkowitz 15:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As you're of course aware, legal language needs to be very precise. In some sense, no doubt, the UN is successor to the League, but I've looked carefully through the debates in the closing period of the League, and nowhere does it pass a resolution transferring authority over the mandates to the UN. Hence the old South Africa's refusal to recognize UN authority over South West Africa. Britain and other mandatories voluntarily recognized UN authority.

Most UN decisions on important matters need Security Council authorization to be legally binding, which I think didn't happen here. In addition, as I said, the relevant resolution was only, at the time, a proposal or recommendation, and they never got round to finalizing a decision, as it was overtaken by events on the ground.

Whether I come back to do any authorial work on CZ largely depends on whether any effective procedure is adopted for resolving content disputes. I see you (forum charter thread, posting 136, I think) are suggesting something similar to what I suggested earlier. If something of the sort is adopted, so that all disputes can be resolved (unlike Wikipedia), whether or not there is a specialist editor available, then I'm likely to come back and do a fair amount of work here. Whether that would include this I can't say. Peter Jackson 17:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

One can argue, of course, that the First Law of International Relations is "might makes right". The Second Law is "When in doubt, see Law #1". Seriously, there is a concept of "customary international law" as that generally recognized. The International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg) was challengeable both as ex post facto and being victors' justice, as its convening authority was the four-power Allied Control Commission. There is actually a better basis for the International Military Tribunal (Tokyo), as there is language agreeing to it in the Japanese surrender.

I started international law, where some of these issues certainly could be elaborated. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of truth in that point. In practice, governments tend to interpret intrnational law to suit themselves. So does the UN, e.g. in its overthrow of the government of Haiti, contrary to commonsense reading of the Charter. The ICJ are mostly political nominees and a lot of their decisions no doubt reflect corresponding biases. As to war crimes, my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that military commanders are automatically criminally responsible for the acts of their subordinates, regardless of whether they ordered them knew about them or took reasonable steps to prevent them. Thus all commanders on all sides in all wars are legally war criminals, and who is prosecuted is decided by those with the power, particularly the winners.

To return to the actual topic, the text of the 1947 resolution is at [2]. Note the wording:

"... Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Mambers of the United Nations ...

Requests that

The security Council take ..."

"Recommends" and "Requests". I don't think this will sustain a statement that this resolution partitioned Palestine. Peter Jackson 11:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)