Talk:Israel and the United Nations

Which is biased, this article or the UN?

If the UN was neutral, this article is indeed biased. But if the UN was truly biased against Israel -- as countless sources claim -- then the article is fair, right? How could one differentiate between the two possibilities? One example: let's compare the 2002 attack on Jenin and the 2007 attack on Nahr al-Bared. These two military operations are very comparable but the UN's reaction is not. Why? Could a neutral article answer this question, knowing that the answer will inevitably expose a blatant anti-Israel bias at the UN? How should this answer be worded to be fair, balanced and neutral? Emmanuelm (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it was the brilliant hasbara campaign conducted by the drunken D9 operator? "I made them a stadium in the middle of the camp" On the other hand, the government of Lebanon and its armed forces are the duly constituted authorities in Lebanon. They were attacked by the Fatah al-Islam militia, who took up positions in the Nahr al-Bared camp. The Fatah al-Islam militia are uninvited guests in the country, and in the camp.[1] The IDF is not the duly constituted authority in the Palestinian territories, it is a belligerent occupant. The Palestinians are not uninvited guests in Palestine.

The big difference then, is that Article 2(7) of the UN Charter says "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter". Israel claims that Palestine is not part of its sovereign territory or jurisdiction. See CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2,[2] or E/1990/6/Add.32,[3]

FYI Israel voluntarily waived the right to assert its domestic jurisdiction in connection with its acceptance of the UN minority rights protection plan during the 51st session of the Ad Hoc membership committee hearings. See The Palestine Question, Henry Cattan, page 86-87 and the verbatim UN record, [4] harlan (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what Emmanuelm is saying is that the Lebanese government faced a similar threat Israel dealt with in Jenin, and al-fatah used the same strategies the Palestinians in the West Bank used, and the results were nearly the same - but the media and UN reaction were night and day. Fatah al-Islam is a Palestinian Islamist movement funded by a foreign benefactor - Hamas and Islamic Palestinian groups in the West Bank are also funded by foreign benefactors and are "uninvited guests." Under the laws of "belligerent" occupation the IDF has every right to go after terrorist threats. A little side note: In Lebanon, the Palestinians have no representation in parliament and do not qualify for citizen in any Arab state, nor can they enter the Lebanese state for social services - whereas the Palestinians the West Bank have their own elected officials and up until 2009 had the same health benefits as Israeli citizens. I find your indifference to Lebanon's ruthless policies towards their Palestinian minority quite amusing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The UN Charter is a multilateral treaty that serves as the constitution of the organization. The UN organization is only permitted to intervene in matters falling within the domestic jurisdiction of the member states with their consent. For example, the UN didn't react to the US Government siege of the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco, Texas or a host of other situations that are matters falling within the domestic jurisdiction of member states that effect an essential interest.

Israel cannot claim that attacking Jenin was the only way it could safeguard its essential domestic interests. It is not "necessary" for Israel to occupy, annex, or colonize territory outside its sovereign jurisdiction. The Palestinians are not guests or visitors in the West Bank. So, Israel, acting as a co-belligerent, has contributed to the "situation of necessity". See Article 25 of the UN Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. [5] harlan (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, I was just clarifying Emmanuel's POV. I am not a lawyer and do not understand the UNGA (non-binding) resolution on international wrongful acts. It seems Israel is in a catch-22. Israel is the military occupier in the West Bank, yet does not have the same rights as an occupier and cannot deal with elements that threaten the stability of the occupation. From my perspective than UNGA has always been biased against Israel from the very beginning - with the founding of the UNRW to the indifference of the Arab presence in the WB/Gaza (notice no resolutions on their military operations against Palestinian uprisings). The UN is not a democratic organization. It is not the Supreme Court. The UNGA is basically a mob of states - whoever has the most friends wins. Thus Morroco's response to terrorist groups in Western Sahara, Saudi Arabia's response to terrorist groups in Yemen, etc...are immune from attack. The compromised integrity of the UN and its lack of neutrality, as well as its inability to live up to its own charter (as confessed by former UN secretary generals) makes it difficult to put so much weight in extremely biased resolutions put form and written by Israel's declared enemies in the UNGA. At this point the discussion as become a soap-box, you clearly have your own POV and are trying to put it into the article. That's fine. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan12345, I didn't need you to clarify Emmanuelm's question, I had already answered it. The UN Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts are not a non-binding UNGA Resolution. They are a codification of existing customary international laws produced by the International Law Commission. Binding international law does not become a recommendation when it is annexed to a General Assembly resolution or mentioned in an advisory opinion. See for example the application of Article 25 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts at paragraph 143 of the ICJ Advisory Opinion in the Wall Case.[6] Unless Emmanuelm is basing his question-begging analogy on a third-party verifiable published source it is completely irrelevant to this article. harlan (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, you didn't respond to Emmanuel's post accurately (nor mine) and instead went on a legal semantic tanget. Emmanuel's point was that Lebanon did the exact same thing Israel did and yet the UN said squat and the media said squat. The UN's criticism of Israel in Jenin had nothing to do with UN24 and everything to do with allegations of war crimes and "disproportionate use of force." The ICJ stance on the West Bank barrier was an advisory opinion. As well all know the international courts are merely an extension of European imperialism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan12345, Lebanon obviously did not invade and occupy Palestinian territory or attack the Palestinians in their own homeland. Please stop trying to sell me the nonsensical idea that they did the exact same thing Israel did, and climb down off your soapbox. Neither you nor Emmanuel are discussing material from reliable published sources that can be used to improve the article. You appear to be citing nothing more than your own personal opinions. This isn't supposed to be a forum for general discussions, so I'd suggest you drop it. harlan (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat Harlan. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, thank you for clarifying for us Israel's legal obligations to Palestinian refugees and her untenable legal position when dealing with terrorist attacks from Palestinian territories.

You are certainly more knowledgeable than us on the rights of refugees. Please explain to us the legal obligations of Lebanon regarding its Palestinian refugees. Can the army of a host country bomb a refugee camp? What circumstances would the UN accept as justification for forcefully evacuating, then destroying 80% of a camp for 28,000 defenseless refugees? Can you find a published legal opinion on Nahr al-Bared's destruction? What is your opinion on the following : “For those who believe in human rights, what UNRWA is doing is a crime against humanity,” shouted an irate Arkan Bader, a representative of the PFLP faction in Nahr al-Bared. [7]. You might find this detailed article interesting, and also this scholarly article.

Your insight would be invaluable in answering my original question, "How should this answer be worded to be fair, balanced and neutral?"

Folks, this sort of discussion violates the rules about the use of talk pages. Zero^talk 04:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Emmanuelm, I've already pointed out that the UN has no jurisdiction or legal mandate to intervene in matters that fall within the domestic jurisdiction of its member states. I supplied you with links above to reports in which Israel said that it could not be held internationally responsible for human rights in the occupied territories, because they were not part of its sovereign territory and jurisdiction. Israel also claimed that the IV Geneva Convention does not apply and blocked UN efforts to investigate the attack on Jenin. The Israeli administration in the territories did not request funding or assist in rebuilding the camp. [8] I supplied you with a link to the remarks of a D9 operator which indicate that neither he, nor his superiors ensured that he was distinguishing between military and civilian objectives during the attack on the camp. You can certainly mention all of those facts regarding the dispute between the UN and Israel in the article.

Here is the verbatim record of the September 2007 Security Council session in which the government of Lebanon asked for $382 million to assist Palestinian and Lebanese communities affected by the fighting in Nahr al-Bared. The Under-Secretary General paid tribute to the LAF soldiers and stressed the importance of the Lebanese Government exercising its full sovereignty and control over all Lebanese territory, and for securing a victory for all of Lebanon against a clear threat to its sovereignty and stability from the terrorist organization. [9] The Lebanese government subsequently investigated allegations of Army abuses at Nahr al-Bared. [10]

The page you are citing above is produced by a project of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. It says the UN appeal for $445 million to rebuild Nahr al-Bared went unfunded. My opinion is that UN relief agencies cannot be held criminally responsible for the actions of the Lebanese Army or Fatah al-Islam, and that Arkan Bader's claim that UNRWA is somehow violating human rights is an example of preposterous hyperbole. That material does not appear to be relevant to this particular article. I'll let you do your own original research on analogies between the two attacks and figure out how to phrase your hypothetical question, so long as you do it somewhere else. harlan (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, let me attempt to summarize what you are saying in plain English, for the rest of us. Lebanon was not blamed for destroying Nahr al-Bared because the camp is within its borders, but Israel was blamed for destroying Jenin because the camp was outside of its "borders". Right?

But, in the case of Israel, the situation far from simple. The 1949 cease-fire line (always called the "pre-1967 border" by journalists) separates Israel, a sovereign state, from the Palestinian territories, a land that has always been occupied, never sovereign. This unique situation allows the enemies of Israel the freedom to interpret international laws to suit their needs. And the master tool for international law is the UN, hence this discussion.

The argument of countless observers is that, while staying within its limits of influence, the UN spares developing countries of criticisms and focuses all its legal might on a single small country, year after year, relentlessly. It might be legal, but is it fair? If not, how can one describe unfairness in Wikipedia while being fair?

Finally, do not flag, edit! Explain why it is fair for the UNGA to focus 75% of its country-specific resolutions on one small country. For example, you might want to create a new chapter explaining relevant international law issues. Please be concise; these topics belong elsewhere, in particular International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict and Status of territories captured by Israel. And, as always, please use plain English. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Emmanuelm, I've already cited sources which explain that Palestine represents a unique legal situation for the United Nations. The organization has only adopted decisions to created a few states, and the other states have not attempted to turn the bulk of their national minorities into permanently displaced, dispossessed, and stateless refugees.

The Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series presents the official documentary historical record of major U.S. foreign policy decisions and significant diplomatic activity. It contains a Memorandum of Conversation, between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the State Department Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and Mr. Abdel Monem Rifai, Counselor, Jordan Legation in Washington, June 5, 1950 which documents the US recognition of the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan and Jordanian sovereignty over the new territory. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V (1950), Page 921 [11]

The right of self-determination is an accepted jus cogens norm of international law. Half the seats of the lower house of the Jordanian Parliament were allocated to lawmakers that represented the West Bank. Discussions about the "sovereignty" of indigenous populations are moot. Entire books have been devoted to deconstructing the colonial era doctrine of "sovereignty", e.g. [12] Ralph Wilde, explained that "the racialized concept of a “standard of civilization” was deployed to determine that certain peoples in the world were “uncivilized”, lacking organized societies, a position reflected and constituted in the notion that their “sovereignty” was either completely lacking, or at least of an inferior character when compared to that of “civilized” peoples." See page 10 of 58 [13]

Ernest A. Gross, a senior U.S. State Department legal adviser, authored a memorandum for the United States government titled Recognition of New States and Governments in Palestine, dated 11 May 1948. He expressed the view that the Arab and Jewish communities, including Transjordan, would be legally entitled on May 15, 1948 (the date of expiry of the British Mandate) to proclaim states and organize governments in the areas of Palestine occupied by their respective communities. Gross said "the law of nations recognizes an inherent right of people lacking the agencies and institutions of social and political control to organize a state and operate a government." The memo is contained in the Foreign Relations of the United States 1948, volume 5, part 2, page 964 and is cited by Stefan Talmon, in "Recognition of Governments in International Law" (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), page 36. harlan (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, you certainly know a lot. But, while you explain why Palestine is a unique case, you do not explain why it deserves 75% of all country-specific UNGA resolutions. I say the UN is unfair, you call me unfair, we go in circles. Please explain why the UN is right to blame always Israel, only Israel, and to spend that much energy doing so. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Emmanuelm, according to Adam Keller, Israel is singled out because it, and it alone, is in obvious default of a fundamental obligation, an obligation which was the condition for Israel coming into being in the first place. See "Is Israel singled out – and why?" [14] I've already explained that the material from Mallison, Crawford, O'Connell, Li-ann Thio, et al address Israel's failure to fulfill its initial legal obligation to enact fundamental laws and constitutional protections of equal rights for its religious and minority communities. See for example Yvonne Schmidt, "Foundations of Civil and Political Rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories", GRIN Verlag, 2008, ISBN: 3638944506, page 98 [15]

The UNGA has minority rights treaty obligations that resulted from its role in terminating the Palestine mandate and the situations created by the government of Israel. The General Assembly has a direct responsibility for insuring the human rights of the inhabitants of Palestine. There is no corresponding UNGA treaty obligation with regard to the other member states. In any event, the majority of UNGA resolutions are not country-specific and Israel has never been on the receiving-end of punitive sanctions like those imposed on South Africa, Rhodesia, or Iraq. harlan (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, thank you for the references. I only read the online article by Adam Keller. It is moderately well written but, stunningly, Keller appears to ignore the existence of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. He writes "The Jewish State in Palestine was created in 1948 and greatly overstepped the boundaries set for it by the United Nations, while the Arab State in Palestine is yet to come." "In 1949 Israel was accepted as a member of the UN without being asked to give up the territory which was not assigned to it in the partition plan, and the Palestinian refugees were regarded mainly as a humanitarian problem to be given a humanitarian solution. The Israeli position – that what the Palestinians lost in 1948 was forfeited due to their intransigence – was generally accepted on the international arena (and is in fact still so accepted)."

"Greatly overstepped"? "Palestinian intransigence"? Nonsense! It was the Arab League, not Israel, that formally declared war to nascent Israel (ref in article) with the clearly stated goal of destroying it, that militarily invaded all they could, i.e. the Arab partition, and occupied it. It is therefore the Arab League, not Israel, that deprived the Palestinian Arabs of a country and turned them into refugees. Keller repeatedly talks about Israel's "debt" to the international community. But what about the Arab League's debt? Why was there no UNGA resolution condemning Jordan and Egypt for their treatment of Palestinians refugees during the 19 years they occupied the Palestinian territories?

I have noticed that, like Keller, the UN's supporters tend to ignore the 1948 war. In my amateurish opinion, I think this war essentially nullified the resolutions signed prior to, or during, it. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The war did not nullify the Palestinian right to self--determination or a state of their own. Your amateurish opinion is an unpublished thesis, not a WP:RS. Crawford, Mallison, De Waart, et al have noted that GA Res. A/RES/43/177 of 15 December 1988 recalled resolution 181(II) and noted 'the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council in line with General Assembly resolution 181(II) and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people'. GA Res. A/RES/48/158D, 20 December 1993. para. 5(c) stipulated that the permanent status negotiations should guarantee 'arrangements for peace and security of all States in the region, including those named in resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947, within secure and internationally recognized boundaries'. The General Assembly listed resolution 181(II) as a "relevant resolution" in its 2004 request for an advisory opinion. The Court noted that it was the source of the General Assembly's permanent responsibility for the question of Palestine. See for example Paul J. I . M. De Waart, International Court of Justice Firmly Walled in the Law of Power in the Israeli–Palestinian Peace Process, Leiden Journal of International Law, 18 (2005), pp. 467–487, doi:10.1017/S0922156505002839 harlan (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, I repeat my challenge: can you find a single UNGA resolution criticizing one or more Arab state for violating the "inalienable rights of the Palestinian people" between 1949 and 1967? If yes, insert it promptly into the article. If no, admit here and now that the UN is anti-Israel. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Emmanualm, this article's scope does not include any states, except Palestine and Israel. If you want to conduct an irrelevant off-topic fishing expedition be my guest, but I'm not going to do the leg work for you. harlan (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What Harlan is trying to explain, in layman terms, is that the UN has, by various resolutions, ensured that it itself will only be able to scrutiny, criticise and condemn Israel. It has carefully ensured this stance by selectively passing resolutions that only apply to the very special case of Palestinian territories, Palestinian refugees and Palestinian borders. Of course, bound by its own resolutions, the UN can now only act in a way that "seems" biased - it simply "has no mandate" to act otherwise or act similarly on other cases, be it Darfur or Chechnya. As an example, and in order not to be labelled "NPOV" and "original research", Palestinian refugees are the only refugee group whose status is inherited.
The attempt to cover the bias is sometimes ridiculously transparent, as for example in the numerous cases of Human Rights committee. Imagine if US Congress tried to pass a law allowing "presidents of formerly oppressed ethnic background elected prior to 2010" to serve their second term without reelection. Such law would sound unbiased, until one understands it could only possibly apply to one person. 109.65.29.115 (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately your example is based on a common myth. In fact there is little difference between the UNRWA and UNHCR treatment of families of refugees even though there are technical details which are different. "Item 184: If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, his dependants are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity... Item 185: As to which family members may benefit from the principle of family unity, the minimum requirement is the inclusion of the spouse and minor children. In practice, other dependants, such as aged parents of refugees, are normally considered if they are living in the same household..." (UNHCR Handbook, HCR/IP/4/Eng/REV.1) Zero^talk 04:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

However, it's still true that only UNRWA creates a hereditary caste system where "refugee" status can be transmitted down multiple generations, and that there are millions of UNRWA "refugees" who would not be considered refugees under the UNHCR definition. Too bad for groups like the Pakistani Biharis -- they're not enemies of Jews, so they don't get any special UN help... AnonMoos (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The I/P and AnonMoos do not mention the rather obvious parallel to the Zionists who employed the notion of a "Galut" in which Roman conquest of the Holy Land had supposedly created a hereditary caste system that had been transmitted down a tremendous number of generations to millions of Jews. They said the plight of the homeless Jewish people had been recognized in the Balfour Declaration, which was endorsed by the League of Nations and the US, and made part of the law of the United Nations under the terms of Article 80 of the Charter. They insisted that the UN immediately set aside a port and sufficient area of the hinterland of Palestine to deal with the needs of Jewish refugees in Europe.

The Security Council already has acted upon requests that it refer the situation in Dafur to the International Criminal Court. The ICC has issued arrest warrants for Ahmed Haroun from Darfur, Ali Kushayb also from Darfur, and Omar Al Bashir from Sudan. Needless to say, Israel has resisted similar suggestions regarding a referral of the situation in Palestine to the ICC.

It is a matter of public record that the Jewish Agency was already discussing the United Nations and planning to present the Jewish question to the international community during the Biltmore Conference.[16] The limitations on the functions and powers of the United Nations that I mentioned above were established during the post-WWII UN organizing conferences, and were well-known to the Zionist Executive. Those limitations have been invoked on several occasions by the State of Israel. Membership in the United Nations is hardly mandatory. Israel brought its problems to the UN for a solution, not vice versa. harlan (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Analogies to Sudan are morally humiliating. Sudan was very close to being admitted into the UNCHR during the on-going Arab League-sponsored conflict that led to the deaths of more than 2,000,000 humans. For nearly 2 decades the conflict in Sudan went unchallenged - the poverty, the 10 million+ refugees, the massacres - silence, silence, and silence. The non-alignment movement's super majority in the UN enabled the Arab states to essentially prevent any discussion on the conflict that might incriminate the allies of oil states. During this time, dozens of resolutions were passed against Israel, probably as a lightening rod to shield the crimes committed by the foreign benefactors of the PLO. The "situation in Palestine" is irrelevant in comparison, only someone delusional could draw parallels. Interestingly, the Palestinian leadership embraced the racist Arab leadership in Sudan. This isn't surprising, considering the Palestinian leadership's historic allies include Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, and Adolf Hitler.

What editors are saying Harlan is that the UN has an historic bias in favor of Islamic states and enemies of Israel. We can debate the resolutions passed against Israel all day and night, but you cannot debate the truth that the UN has devoted a disproportionate amount of time to the Arab Israeli conflict and the Palestinians, at the expense of nations and people experiencing far worse oppression and subjugation. This really isn't a controversial opinion and has been conceded by numerous UN officials, including Kofi Annan. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Harlan, your ranting tirade well displays your rampant raging hatreds and flagrant biases, but it has no real direct relevance to the actual issues under discussion here. Namely: 1) Why is it that the Pakistani Biharis get nothing, while the Palestinians get huge allocations of funds and United Nations attention, including the unique hereditary right to be considered "refugees" down to the fifth generation and beyond (something which is denied to every single displaced group in the world other than Palestinians)? If there's any valid reason for this discrepancy other than that the Pakistani Biharis are not the enemies of the Jews, then it certainly has not been brought to my attention... 2) Far more have died in a single year in Darfur than have died over the whole last 75 years of the Israeli-Arab struggle, yet the United Nations still treats the despicable Sudanese regime with tender kid gloves, usually carefully refraining from calling the Darfur situation a genocide, while the Arab League is falling all over itself in its anxious eagerness to slobber Omar El-Bashir with kisses -- and there has still been more condemnation of Israel from the UN over the past 6 years or so than condemnation of Sudan. Right when the Darfur genocide story was breaking in early May 2004, Sudan was specially rewarded for conducting its massacres by being elevated to membership in the Human Rights Commission -- which tells you just about what you need to know about the UN system in general! AnonMoos (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos, your post does not cite any reliable published sources. You are not suggesting any improvements to the article and you are asking other editors to perform original research.

I've already pointed out the parallels between the legal status of the Palestinian refugees and the Jewish people and the basis of the permanent responsibility of the UN until there is a just settlement of the Palestine Question. The Jewish Agency and the Provisional Government of Israel employed the Balfour Declaration, the LoN Mandate, and article 80 of the UN Charter as part of their claim that a legally-binding hereditary status existed which included Jewish refugees and displaced Jewish people everywhere after hundreds of generations. They said that it was part of the "Law of the United Nations" and claimed that the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the establishment of a Jewish State.[17] [18] [19]

India was a member of the LoN and a founding member of the UN in 1945. The British partition was not a UN undertaking and the resulting states did not obtain their independence through the assistance of the UN. The International Committee of the Red Cross established and does fund the camps for the Biharis. Pakistan has funded the resettlement of Bihari families from Bangladesh despite the fact that they are not stateless and are not required to live in refugee camps, e.g. [20]

Omar El-Bashir has no apparent connection to the topic of this article. There are obvious parallels to the case of Omar El-Bashir and the cases of the many Israeli officials who have been charged with war crimes. Despite the fact that several judges have found sufficient evidence to issue arrest warrants and have the responsible individuals stand trial, governments have cooperated in assisting them to avoid answering the charges in court.[21] [22] [23] [24] Israeli officials have been tipped-off and the governments involved have either rewritten or pledged to rewrite their laws on universal criminal jurisdiction after public outbursts from the government of Israel. [25] [26] Unlike the state of Israel, the state of Sudan has not been the subject of any cases brought before the international court. harlan (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"There are obvious parallels between the case of Omar Al Bashir and Israeli officials." LOL. A) Israeli officials have not been charged with war crimes by any serious international body. Token European judges bought by pro-Arab pressure groups is hardly the same as an international tribunal charging an individual with genocide. b) "Universal jurisdiction" is an affront to international law and merely an extension of European imperialism. Last I checked no European politician has been accused of war crimes for overseeing conflicts in Kenya, Algeria, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Falklands, etc..etc. Business as usual...Harlan soaping away. Parallels to Sudan...lol what a joker! You are a funny one Harlan. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, universal jurisdiction is not an affront to the state of Israel. It has used its own 1950 Nazi and Nazi Collaborators Law to prosecute individuals for crimes committed in other countries before the State of Israel came into existence, e.g. Adolph Eichmann & John Demjanjuk.

Palestine submitted a written statement in the ICJ Wall case that said the direct or indirect transfer to occupied territory of the occupier's civilian population, or the transfer of part of the population from occupied territory - constitutes a war crime (page 170, 215-216 [27]) and cited Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention; Additional Protocol 1, Art. 85 (4)(a) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, Art. 8(2)(a)(iv), (b)(viii). The Court found that Israel had transferred portions of its population into the occupied territory in breach of international law and in contravention of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention (para 120 and 134). The Court noted that many of the state parties argued that, under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel is under an obligation to search for and bring before its courts persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, grave breaches of international humanitarian law (para 144-145 [28]). harlan (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, trying to analogize the Jewish people as they have existed for 2,500 years or more (depending on the exact definition chosen) to the United Nations politically-motivated definition of Palestinian refugees over the last 60 years, really doesn't correspond to anything in the real world except your apparent religious-based antipathies. The Jews long ago adopted definitions of inclusion and exclusion (so that tribal affiliation descends through the father while Jewish identity descends through the mother etc.) in order to further their survival in an uncertain and often antagonistic world. In contrast, the distinction made between the Palestinians and all other refugee or displaced groups was a purely politically-motivated UN hack job, which has allowed the Palestinians to suck at the teat of United Nations benefits indefinitely in perpetuity for the last 60 years and counting, while many other groups get nothing. You still haven't explained why it is that Palestinians get a special indefinite hereditary "refugee" status which is denied to every other group in the world (so that large number of Palestinian so-called "refugees" would not in fact be refugees under the standard UNHCR definition of refugee), or why the Palestinians get everything from the UN, while the Pakistani Biharis get nothing. P.S. You know nothing about the history of the subcontinent if you think that the Pakistani Bihari problem was created in 1947... AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Accusing Harlan of Antisemitism for a good faith explanation of the article's subject is out of line. He's been very patient with finding documents that answer your questions and that's probably not been for his benefit. Look at the linked documents. They answer your question. Sol Goldstone (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The UN gave refugees status to Jews from Muslim countries?

This article claims that the 800,000 Jews that fled Muslim countries after 1948 were given refugee status in 1950 by the UN. Can someone find more details? Emmanuelm (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I read the source given by the writer, In Ishmael's House by Martin Gilbert. In chapt 16, he writes that By the end of May 1950, at least ten thousand Iraqi Jews had crossed the border into Iran. These Jews -- no longer citizens of Iraq -- were taken to a refugee camp near Teheran administered by the American-Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (...). From Teheran, the refugees were flown to Israel. Therefore, Robert Fulford is wrong. And I am right to write in my personal page that the UN has never given refugee status to any Jew anywhere. Please prove me wrong. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If we count the territory of Arab Palestine you are incorrect. The FRUS reports that during the Lausanne Conference the Israeli delegation reply to the Palestine Conciliation Commission (PCC) stressed that any repatriation in Israel would take place subject to financial assistance furnished by the international community and that such assistance would be extended to resettlement of Jewish refugees from the Arab controlled areas Palestine. The Israeli delegation did not raise the subject of refugees from any of the four Arab states that participated in the conference. [29] According to B. Scott Custer Jr., chief of the international law division of UNRWA, in 1950 17,000 internally displaced Jews coming from original mandate Palestine who resided in Israel were provided support from UNRWA. In July 1952, Israel assumed responsibility for 19,000 “refugees,” which included 3,000 Jews, and UNRWA ceased its operations inside Israel. [30]

In 1959 Foreign Minister Golda Meir protested the involvement of the PCC and said the solution of the refugee question should be completely separate from the over-all Israel-Arab settlement. Meir said Israel would support a resolution that would limit the PCC's involvement. She said that Israel could not go back to “49” and mentioned simply offsetting Arab property claims against the loss of Jewish properties in the Arab states. She did not mention Jewish refugees, individual compensation, or the possibility of repatriating Jewish refugees to their Arab states of origin. [31] harlan (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolutions in comparison with other conflicts :Graph synthesis?

Where did these come from? The text following one of them "1 : compiled from the corresponding Wikipedia articles. When a range was given, the median was used. 2 : compiled from www.un.org, 52nd to 61st Regular Sessions. Number of UNGA resolutions with the name of country or region in the title. For the Israeli-Palestinian-Lebanese conflicts, number of resolutions with one of the following words in the title: Palest*, Israel*, Middle East, Lebanon, Jerusalem, Disengagement, 1967, Golan, UNRWA, occupied Arab territories, Bethlehem. Each resolution counted once." looks like an admission of synthesis. And why are there 3 of them? Sol Goldstone (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Sol, I created these tables in 2007; several editors added more data later. The allegation that these tables constitute WP:OR was discussed at length in 2008. Briefly, yes, one could argue that this table is OR since this data is not taken from a published source. On the other hand, no, to call OR the statement of self-evident facts is a distortion of the original intent of this WP policy. In the words of Jimbo Wales, articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, (...) or ideas that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

In 2008, the debate strangely ended when I pointed out that the numbers in the table and graphs were less damning for the UN than the number published by Anne Bayefsky's eyeontheun.org, the only published source for this data. If you want to replace my table with data from Bayefsky, go right ahead. But if you simply delete this data, I will revert, arguing that to erase one argument in a debate amounts to defending a POV. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Emmanuelm. You've obviously put some work into the "A comparison of major conflicts" chart. I don't think calling it OR is a distortion, it looks pretty textbook per the policy page, "If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research." The chart implies that the UN's criteria for issuing resolutions is somehow based on the number of deaths (and maybe it should, but that's another topic); most of the resolutions against Israel are for territorial or human rights violations. Even if Bayefsky's numbers are less favorable to a certain perspective it would be in line with policy to use and cite them. Although if the numbers are also wrong is she a reliable source? Sol Goldstone (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The text quotes Bayefsky's numbers when comparing number of resolutions about Israel vs. other states. She is quoted because she is the only source, which makes her, by definition, a reliable source since no one is arguing with her. But she does not publish data about resolutions vs. severity of conflicts (here reflected by deaths, for lack of a better metric). Therefore, as far as I know, there is no published substitute for the "Comparison with other conflicts" table. Now, at Wikipedia, the final test of all policies is reader challenge. Do you question the numbers in the table? If no, why raise the issue? Emmanuelm (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sol partially, the deaths have no relevance to UN resolutions. I created a comprehensive chart 1 year ago but it was removed from the original article. The UN enumerates resolutions according to conflict or agenda (i.e, the "Palestine Question"), but I'm not sure if it qualifies as OR to physically count the resolutions and add the data to a graph. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan partially agreed with me?! Huzzah! :P

Emmanuelm, so Bayefsky doesn't even use the death metric? And the other graphs and charts, are they also original? I'm not sure if presenting data is synthesis if you haven't really changed anything but the presentation although there is lots of wiggle room in presentation. I'll look into it. Sol Goldstone (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Pursuant to WP:OR and with the graph's creator's agreement that it is such, the "A comparison of major conflicts" chart is pretty clearly not kosher. Devoting a large section predicated on a number of misleading insinuations (that the UN issues resolutions solely based on casualty rates and not on international law/UN charter violations) is also a large NPOV problem. I'm still not sure about the other graphs, they might contribute to WP:COAT but that's worth discussing. Sol Goldstone (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

New rewrite as text

To address the criticisms of OR and SYNTH, I replaced the origina table with a new text. All quoted numbers are sourced. I trust that this new version of the data will satisfy Sol and everyone else. Please discuss here before deleting. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is still OR and SYNTH. That you synthesize with text instead of tables does not magically make it not SYNTH. nableezy - 15:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, you deleted my 21 lines of text 3 minutes after I posted it. Did you even read it? In the original post, I wrote "refer to discussion in talk page"; you did not discuss before deleting. I reverted your deletion, adding in capitals "please see discussion before deleting"; you deleted nevertheless, 2 min later. I am reverting your deletion a second time. If you delete it again without adequate, civil and factual discussion here, you break the WP:3RR, thus turning this into an edit war.

Now, specifically what fact in my text do you call OR or SYNTH? Emmanuelm (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

When somebody reverts your addition you should not re-revert it, you should seek consensus on the talk page. Edit-warring is not some thing that everybody else does and you are just doing the right thing. The problems with the text are the same as the problems with the charts. No reliable secondary source is making the comparisons that you are making in the article. nableezy - 15:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll hold off on the revert to give time for discussion. Contrasting data to imply a conclusion in a manner not done by a reliable source is prima facie synthesis. I hate to oppose something you've put time and effort into but I don't see how this passes muster. Sol Goldstone (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

So, let me clarify. At 15:14, Nableezy accuses this text of being OR, but at 15:36, the problem is RS. That's two entirely different accusations. Let's address them separately :

The text is OR and SYNTH: No. The text states facts, not opinions. All numbers are sourced. If you feel that my facts are cherry-picked to support an opinion, you may add more data to correct this bias. But to delete a plain statement of fact because it appears to support a conclusion you do not like amounts to a POV.

EyeOnTheUN.org is not a reliable source: EyeOnTheUN is the only source for this data. Therefore, since no other source contradicts it, it is a reliable source. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I won't muddy the water by trying to tackle the reliability of the source but let's take one bit from the new section "The UNHCR counted 969,300 refugees by end 2009.[46] For the four states involved, the UNGA produced 4 resolutions (2% of total) , the UNHRC 3 resolutions (5%), the UNSC 32 resolutions (15%).[47]" And now the WP:SYNTHESIS example: "The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security and since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world."

So we've got information from two separate sources that is being compared in an original manner with various implied conclusions for the reader. Sol Goldstone (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

OK Sol, you win this time about --and only about-- the SYNTH. I will rewrite at another time. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Historical overview;The early years

The section about conditional recognition present opinion of Mallison alone,nowhere in the source it is mentioned this is opinion of other legal scholars. If his statement that Israel refused to comply with Religious and Minority Rights obligations is presented, how is it makes sense not to include the fact that Israeli representative to the UN said that Israel accepted them,as noted by the UN resolution 273. It also does not make sense to present Prof. James Crawford arguments, and then delete the fact that the Mandate has expired, or that UK recognized Israel. It cannot be deleted as Synth, since no conclusions or even new opinions added in the latest edit. Is is undisputed documented facts,not conclusion from the sources presented,that Mandate has expired,that UK recognized Israel,or that Abba Eban said that the rights stipulated in section C. Declaration, chapters 1 and 2 of UN resolution 181(II) had been constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel as required by the resolution. So there is no "A and B, therefore C" element of the WP:SYNTHESIS policy.If the addition contradicts other opinions presented, it only advances NPOV, and cant be deleted because of the contradiction. Igorb2008 (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think I'd read the edit entirely the wrong way. Sol Goldstone (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Igorb2008 is obviously suffering from amnesia. We had already discussed the views of several other authors that had called attention to Israel's failure to fulfill its initial legal obligation to enact fundamental laws and constitutional protections of equal rights for its religious and minority communities. See for example Yvonne Schmidt, "Foundations of Civil and Political Rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories", GRIN Verlag, 2008, ISBN: 3638944506, page 98.[32] Henry Cattan and D.P. O'Connell were also specifically cited. The thread is still available in the talk page archives.

Provision of minority rights guarantees through treaties and declarations were a standard requirement for the termination of a League of Nations Mandate regime. See Luther Harris Evans, The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758 [33]

The LoN Mandates did not "expire". Crawford explained that UN resolution 181 had at least one legal consequence, because the ICJ had affirmed that a Mandatory could not terminate a mandate without the consent of the General Assembly. He noted that the State of Israel was not established in accordance with the conditions laid down in the UN resolution. There is no argument about that. Article 28 of the Mandate provided for the assumption of public debts by the successor upon termination of the Mandate. Israel refused to accept the provisions of resolution 181(II) regarding state succession to public debts during a conference in 1949 and claimed it was established by its own acts and was in no sense a legal successor to the former government. See also "The Law of State Succession", Volume V of the Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, 1956, D.P. O'Connell author, Hersh Lauterpacht editor, pages 10-11, and 178

I said that Henry Cattan had written that Israel's application for membership was delayed because some delegations asked for evidence that Israel had supplied the required declaration. During the 48th session of the Ad Hoc Political Committee, the representative of Cuba pointedly asked if Israel had supplied the required declaration? He noted that the rights were under United Nations guarantee. See pages 2-3 of the .pdf [34]

During the 51st session of the UN membership hearings Mr. Eban answered affirmatively that the rights stipulated in section C. Declaration, chapters 1 and 2 of UN resolution 181(II) had been constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel as required by the resolution. He even claimed that only Israel had supplied the required declaration. See The Palestine Question, Henry Cattan, page 86-87 and the verbatim UN record [35] The instruments that Mr Eban cited during that and the other hearings were the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (which had been signed and published in the official gazette), and various cables and letters of confirmation addressed to the Secretary General.

Notwithstanding Mr. Eban's declaration and explanation, the first President of the Israeli Supreme Court Justice M. Smoira said "The Declaration expresses the vision and credo of the people; but it is not a constitutional law making a practical ruling on the upholding or nullification of various ordinances and statutes."[36] The Knesset web site says "Some were inclined to view the Proclamation of Independence, and especially its declaratory section, as a constitution, but the Supreme Court stated, in a series of decisions, that the proclamation does not have constitutional validity, and that it is not a supreme law which may be used to invalidate laws and regulations that contradict it." [37]

The General Assembly resolution had said "The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them." [38]

General Assembly Resolution 273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, 11 May 1949 contains a footnote (5) regarding "the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel". The footnote cites the minutes of the 45th-48th, 50th, and 51st meetings of the Ad Hoc Political Committee contained in documents A/AC.24/SR.45-48, 50 and 51 that I linked to above. [39]

D.P. O'Connell noted that Resolution 181(II) contained a declaration to be made by the successor States regulating the problems which would arise from the change of sovereignty. He says the declaration was never made and refers to Israel's statements with regard to the application of those provisions in 1949 and 1950. At that time, Israel appears to have denounced or denied that the provisions of resolution 181(II) regarding succession to treaties and minority rights were binding. The government of Israel based its decision on a remarkable claim that, despite Israel's offer to make the Declaration required in Part 1 B and D of the partition plan, "she was not asked to do so, and, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 273 (III) of 11 May 1949, was admitted as a Member of the United Nations without the said Declaration having been made." See page 21, paragraphs 21-23 [40] and "The Law of State Succession", Volume V of the Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, 1956, D.P. O'Connell author, Hersh Lauterpacht editor, pages 10-11, and 178 harlan (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, the United Nations itself was not bound by the provisions of League of Nations mandate documents, and could rejigger the situations of the mandates how it chose -- and the decisions by the General Assembly to pass the November 29th 1947 partition plan, and then to admit Israel to UN membership two years later, are sufficient indications that it chose to do so. Furthermore, why should Israel accept obligations connected with the mandate, when the British had conspicuously refused to hand over sovereignty or territory to any party during their 1948 "law of the jungle" withdrawal, thus creating an abrupt and significant discontinuity of government all across the former mandate?? Abba Eban said that Israel voluntarily chose to abide by the non-binding minority rights protections contained in the November 29th 1947 partition plan (non-binding, since the plan never came into force). Funny thing how you make a big production of accusing Israel of not living up to such commitments when you don't seem to have the slightest tiniest problem with Jordan passing bigoted racist laws banning Jews from being citizens of Jordan or owning land in Jordan, or destroying most of the synagogues in Jerusalem. As for the rest, your personal innovative legal theories about the extreme current-day legal continuity of the League of Nations mandate are Original Synthesis (or worse)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos as usual you are in battle mode and ignoring the published sources I've discussed with you a dozen times before. They make a big thing about Israel's failure to live up to its obligation.

Right at the moment the only person dishing out Original Synthesis (or worse)... is you. The UN is not free to "rejigger" customary international law. Try reading the published sources on the Minority Treaties that I've cited, and quit subjecting everyone to your unpublished personal opinions.

Minority treaties were already a fixture of customary international law according to the Allied Powers that conducted the Paris Peace Conference. All of the new states were required to make guarantees and declarations. see Sovereignty, Stephen D. Krasner, Princeton University Press, 1999, ISBN 069100711X, page 92-93 [41]; THE JEWS AND MINORITY RIGHTS, (1898-1919), OSCAR I. JANOWSKY, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1933, page 342; and Defending the Rights of Others, Carole Fink, page 37.[42]

Li-ann Thio, noted that many international law norms and customary practices developed in the inter-war years by the League of Nations are still in use today. She specifically addressed the procedures for managing intrastate and inter-ethnic issues through (1) International supervision; (2) regional integration (aka economic union);(3) minority protection; (4) plebiscites; and (5) partitions. She cited the Palestine and Bosnian Partition Plans and 1990s European practice as examples of conditioning recognition of statehood on human rights, democracy, and minority protection guarantees. See the discussion on pages 97-98 and footnote 353 in Managing Babel: The International Legal Protection of Minorities in the Twentieth Century, Li-ann Thio, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, ISBN 9004141987 [43]

In any event the rights were placed under a UN guarantee and the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. The 1950 Secretariat Study of Minority undertakings, E/CN.4/367, devoted an entire chapter to the Minority Protection Plan contained in the Plan for the Future Government of Palestine. The Chairman-Rapporteur of the UN Working Group on Minorities subsequently advised that no competent UN organ had made any decision which would extinguish the obligations under the minority rights instruments concluded after World War II. He added that it was doubtful whether that could even be done by the United Nations. See the discussion in Justifications of Minority Protection in International Law, Athanasia Spiliopoulou Akermark, pages 119-122.[44]

The majority opinion in the ICJ Wall said "The responsibility of the United Nations in this matter also has its origin in the Mandate and the Partition Resolution concerning Palestine (see paragraphs 70 and 71 below). This responsibility has been described by the General Assembly as "a permanent responsibility towards the question of Palestine until the question is resolved in all its aspects in a satisfactory manner in accordance with international legitimacy" (General Assembly resolution 57/107 of 3 December 2002)" The Court included the international guarantees and safeguarding clauses in the Treaty of Berlin, the Mandate, and the Partition Plan in its analysis (para 129). harlan (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, I would be the first to admit that you seem to have an extensive knowledge of the history of the developments of minority rights provisions in various treaties in the 1920s and 1930s. However, unfortunately for you, this only has a somewhat tangential and indirect relationship to the innovative personal legal theories that you've been advocating -- and when the conclusion of your profound historical legal studies seems to be that somehow such minority-rights provisions can never protect Jews, that tends to collapse your whole house of cards. P.S. you know exactly how to get me out of "battle mode" -- when you get yourself out of historical revisionism mode, starting with your most blatant example flagrant denialism, by finally fully and unequivocally admitting that In their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Jewish leadership of the British Palestine mandate offered to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (UNGA 181), while in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Arab leadership of the British Palestine mandate, supported by official public statements of the then-independent Arab states, refused to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (something which of course is solidly established and well-accepted among the mainstream consensus of reputable academic scholars in the field). Of course, you won't -- which is why despite your undeniable intelligence and knowledge, your editing efforts on the whole create more problems for Wikipedia than they solve... AnonMoos (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Your perfunctory boilerplate about "public statements" does not require much of a response. Wikipedia does not write articles limited to the remarks made in primary sources. In any event, the Jewish leadership publicly claimed the subsections of the plan were not integral and that the establishment of a Jewish state did not require each of the other parts of the plan to be carried out. So their "acceptance" was empty rhetoric according to many reliable sources.

Rabbi Silver told the Security Council that there was no requirement to establish the Arab State. See Jewish reaction to the trusteeship plan [45]

Standard college textbooks say the Zionist leadership did not accept the provisions of the partition plan regarding treaties, public debts, borders, economic union, plebiscites, minority rights, or the internationalization of Jerusalem. Many of them say the Zionist leadership made deliberately misleading public statements. Zionist military historian David Tal wrote that the leadership never accepted the internationalization of Jerusalem and that "the Jews initial "acceptance" of the Partition resolution was not mere rhetoric; the strategic planning of the war against the Palestinians was based upon it." See David Tal, War in Palestine, 1948: strategy and diplomacy, Routledge, 2004, ISBN 071465275X, page 471. Shlomo Ben Ami makes the identical claim based upon declassified archival material. I think it is high time we restore the material you deleted that represents those published views and move this discussion to I/P Collaboration. harlan (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Article too long and poor quality

As far as I can see, the article is likely to remain a magnet for attempts to push one or the other POV, while it continues to try to repeat the whole of the post WW2 history of the region. The "claims of", "claims of" section heads, repeated ad nauseam, aren't conducive to neutral writing either. The referencing needs much attention too. I wonder whether the article is actually needed? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the UN has played an extremely prominent and extremely controversial role in events continuously from 1947 to the present moment, so the article can't be simply deleted; and if merged, then merged to what? It's convenient to have a central place to focus on the U.N., instead of merely making brief allusions to the U.N. in various separate general history articles. And the "claims" wording is a convenient way of signalling that there are extremely conflicting opinions, so that many would describe the U.N. as a welcoming haven for the worst form of bigoted hatemongering anti-Semitism, while many others would flatly deny it just as strongly. AnonMoos (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. It's tough to do justice to the UN's role in the area while keeping the article to a readable length. Could we spin off some of the smaller subsections ("Claims that the Special Rapporteur on the Right to food is anti-Israel" etc.) into sub-articles or even merge them carefully? There's a lot of chaff in the article we could re-work to be shorter which is another approach. Sol Goldstone (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's helpful. I think that we need to rewrite the subheadings taking out all or most of the "claims that", so that "Claims that the special rapporteur on the right to food is anti-Israel" would become "Special rapporteur on the right to food". Many of these subsections could be merged. The controversies should be described and then readers will be able to decide for themselves how deep the controversies are, rather than us having to signal their depth or importance. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Go forth and conquer! I think we have some people watching the article so any disputed changes will have a sounding board. Sol Goldstone (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute! This article covers a very controversial subject. It has been in its general form since 2007. It is a hard read because it is a battlefield. If you want to edit it, do it one small step at a time; major edits will be reverted unless discussed first. Please read the recommendations in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Editors reminded.

About the article being too long, deletions will be perceived as a POV and challenged; length is the price to pay for the NPOV style. About dividing the article into several separate articles, it has been tried before. You may want to read the discussion in June 2009 about the creation of Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations by a very determined editor. It has since been deleted. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Talking about major reverts sounds perfectly reasonable! Let me get your thoughts on a few things:

"Claims that the 2009 Durban Review conference was antisemitic": Isn't this more about Ahmadinejad spewing his regular anti-Israel rhetoric? It's disgusting, but it's not the UN fault, is it?

"Claims that the UN is antisemitic": Same deal. Are racist statements made by non-UN officials the organization's fault?

"Claims that the 2001 Durban conference was antisemitic" Again, racist rhetoric by attendees is deplorable but not really the UN's fault.

"Claims that Israel does not recognize the authority of the United Nations": Making fun of the UN isn't quite the same thing as not formally recognizing it's authority. Israel hasn't withdrawn from the UN and allows some UN actions so I'm not sure if this section makes sense.

"Claims that the Commission on the Status of Women is anti-Israel": All synthesis except for perhaps the 4th source which seems to be a dead link or something.

We could resource, rephrase or rework these sections but they have some issues. I'll look through the rest later. Sol Goldstone (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest cutting the article size down as a way of ensuring NPOV and stability over the long term, not as a way of increasing it. Some articles that have been battlegrounds eventually end up as quite high quality, just because lots of people are watching them. Perhaps this one can be taken into that category. I'll work within BRD (bold, revert, discuss) and will expect every single sentence to be well sourced. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sol Goldstone -- On your first point, why did they choose to let Ahmadinajad speak at what was known long beforehand to be a highly-sensitive occasion (considering that the first Durban conference was considered by many people to be more of an event for the promulgation and promotion of racism than an "anti-racism"[sic] conference, and came close collapsing in complete disarray)?? They might as well have invited Jean-Marie Le Pen to give the keynote, if they wanted to obscure and befuddle the issues and give the U.N. yet another public-relations black eye... AnonMoos (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sol, your questions are all over the place: I cannot possibly answer them all. Please focus on one chapter; edit the text (one edit at a time please) and, at the same time, create a discussion topic here with the chapter title.

Judith, I think you are wrong. A short text will, inevitably, represent the interpretation of the writer, not the original thoughts of the sources, and will therefore be a POV. To resist criticisms, a controversial article like this one must look like a quote farm, regardless of what the WP style police thinks. Again, articles about the Israeli-Arab conflict are, before all else, a battlefield. The fact that we, over the past three years, have kept the conflict at low level is no small feat; do not throw bombs. Emmanuelm (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Basically, I don't think those sections make sense or belong here. Awful remarks by UN attendees aren't the UN's fault. The last two sections mentioned are either poorly sourced or non sequiturs. The article might end up looking like a quote farm but it will hopefully be a well-sourced and topical one. Sol Goldstone (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The terrorism section also has issues: the Security Council set down a definition of terrorism back in '04. The first sentence needs a source. "The text of GA resolutions does not distinguish terrorism from military operations" doesn't even make sense: the article goes on with a quote condemning war crimes and excludes the section refuting it "including military attacks, destruction and acts of terror;". The implied meaning of "All available means" is that terrorism is A-OK by the UN. That's not what this means. There's got to be better material. If anyone has objections to the proposed deletions or wants to reform them, have at it but I'd like to get working on it soon. Some sections aren't exactly rewritable as they don't contain any usable information. Sol Goldstone (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been a week or so and I'd like to proceed with removing the Durban conference sections and the "Claims that Israel does not recognize the authority of the United Nations" section for the reasons above. Sol (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The first Durban conference was a swamp and cesspool of unrestrained bigotry and blatant hatemongering, while for some very peculiar reason the organizers of the Durban Review conference chose to let Ahmadinajad spew forth, despite the fact that it was a train wreck which could have been foreseen long in advance... AnonMoos (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Short of not inviting Iran to participate, what can they really do? It might have been a stupid set-up or poor planning but I don't think they exercise much control over what the representatives do or say. If they do and are actively encouraging hate speech then let's find a source and put that in. If not, using member's behavior to target the UN is unfair. (Ahmadinajad just cleared another UN meeting of delegates by accusing America of causing 9/11, a one man diplomatic demolition squad). Sol (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

League of Nations

Not relevant. Story should start at the foundation of the UN and foundation of (the modern) state of Israel. Fair enough, the statement is not long, but this article can't afford any extra and over. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which statement you are talking about. But the League of Nations Mandates are relevant to the UN and are covered by Articles 77, 79, and 80 of the UN Charter. The ICJ is the primary judicial organ of the UN. It said the responsibility of the United Nations and its subject matter jurisdiction in the Wall case had its origin in the LoN Mandate and the Partition Resolution concerning Palestine. That responsibility has been described by the General Assembly as "a permanent responsibility towards the question of Palestine until the question is resolved in al1 its aspects in a satisfactory manner in accordance with international legitimacy" See para 49 [46]

The article is supposed to be about Israel, Palestine, and the UN. It doesn't even pretend to present the UN or Palestinian POV. I'd suggest it be renamed to clearly indicate that its topic and content are strictly a Zionist or Israeli POV. See Articles whose subject is a POV harlan (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, thank you for your knowledge, but your personal opinions are not helpful.

Judith, this short paragraph explains that UNSCOP and UNGA resolution 181 were not the UN's idea. They followed the decision, inherited from the League of Nations, to create a Jewish state in Palestine. In other words, the UN was created with a pre-determined duty to create a Jewish state. You may rephrase the text to clarify this, but the 1922 LoN decision belongs in this article.

As an aside, I want everyone to note that, at least this once, I agree with Harlan. I feel funny inside. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The League of Nations never adopted a decision to establish a Jewish State in Palestine. In fact, Ben Gurion wrote that in 1937 the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations had informed the leadership of the Jewish Agency that the Palestine Mandate could not be implemented according to the Agency's wishes. See Letters to Paula and the Children, David Ben-Gurion, translated by Aubry Hodes, University of Pittsburg Press, 1971, page 135.

Here is how Israeli historians and public records say that it happened. Benny Morris said that both Chaim Weizmann and David Ben Gurion saw partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine. See "Righteous victims: a history of the Zionist-Arab conflict, 1881-1999", by Benny Morris, Knopf, 1999, ISBN: 0679421203, page 138

Yossi Katz outlined the details of a partition plan that was developed by the Jewish Agency Executive in 1937. See the whole book "Partner to Partition: The Jewish Agency's Partition Plan in the Mandate Era", Yossi Katz, Routledge, 1998, ISBN-10: 0714644013 Katz says the partition plan that the Jewish Agency developed in 1937 was not pursued by political action alone. The Agency directed its land purchases and settlement activity to securing the borders it had set out in the plan (page 163). Uri Ben-Eliezer describes settlements that were established in lightning operations with the assistance of the Palmach in areas that would be outside the Jewish zone in the event of partition. See Uri Ben-Eliezer, The making of Israeli militarism, Indiana University Press, 1998, ISBN 0253333873 page 144

Former Israeli Foreign Minister and Oxford-trained historian Schlomo Ben Ami writes that 1937 was the same year that the "Field Battalions" under Yitzhak Sadeh wrote the "Avner Plan", which anticipated and laid the groundwork for what would become in 1948, Plan D. It envisioned going far beyond any boundaries contained in the existing partition proposals and planned the conquest of the Galilee, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. See Scars of war, wounds of peace: the Israeli-Arab tragedy, By Shlomo Ben-Ami, Oxford University Press, USA, 2006, ISBN: 019518158, page 17 Morris cited a letter that Ben Gurion wrote in 1937 which said that he was in favor of partition because he didn't envision a partial Jewish state as the end of the process. He said that "What we want is not that the country be united and whole, but that the united and whole country be Jewish." He explained that a first-class Jewish army would permit the Zionists to settle in the rest of the country with or without the consent of the Arabs. See Letters to Paula and the Children, David Ben-Gurion, translated by Aubry Hodes, University of Pittsburg Press, 1971, page 153.

In 1943 the US Minister in Egypt cabled the State Department "I have noted in discussions with Zionist spokesmen visiting Cairo recently a marked hardening in their attitude (possibly owing in part to increased confidence resulting from alleged large-scale clandestine arming by Jews in Palestine) which in several cases has taken the form of frankly admitting that it is idle to continue to talk of "negotiations" with Arabs, in balance obvious that any solution satisfactory to Zionists would have to be "imposed" on Arabs by threat or use of force and this latter the only realistic line of action to adopt." Foreign relations of the United States diplomatic papers, 1943. The Near East and Africa, Page 755

The Jewish Agency refused to even accept the Grady Morrison Plan as the basis for discussion. A spokesman for the Jewish agency, Eliahu Epstein, told the US State Department that the Agency could not attend the 1946 London conference if the Grady-Morrison proposal was on the agenda. He stated that the Agency was unwilling to be placed in a position where it might have to compromise between the Grady-Morrison proposals on the one hand and its own partition plan on the other. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1946, The Near East and Africa Volume VII, page 692-693

Moshe Shertok and Zalman Liftshitz, who led the development of the earlier plan, presented the Zionist demands to the UNSCOP subcommittee. Katz said it is not hard to detect the Zionists fingerprints on the UNSCOP plan. See Postscrpt or Prelude? in "Partner to Partition: The Jewish Agency's Partition Plan in the Mandate Era", Yossi Katz, Routledge, 1998, ISBN-10: 0714644013, pages 177-194

Military historian David Tal wrote that "the Jews initial acceptance of the Partition resolution was not mere rhetoric; the strategic planning of the war against the Palestinians was based upon it." See David Tal, War in Palestine, 1948: strategy and diplomacy, Routledge, 2004, ISBN 071465275X, page 471. Ben Ami wrote that after the UNSCOP was formed in May of 1947, Ben Gurion explained that his acceptance of the principle of partition was an attempt to gain time until the Jews were strong enough to fight the Arab majority." He pledged to Mapai's Central Committee that the borders of Jewish independence as defined by the UN Plan were by no means final and Yigal Allon said ...'the borders of partition cannot be for us the final borders ... the partition plan is a compromise plan that is unjust to the Jews. ... We are entitled to decide our borders according to our defence needs.' Ben Ami says "The paradox of the winter of 1947 was that the Jews, who accepted Resolution 181 - the Jewish public acclaimed its endorsement by the UN with genuine outbursts of jubilation - were ready and well deployed to face a war should this be the outcome" See page 34 Scars of War harlan (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What I mean by poor sourcing

Section on the 1940s. This is one section that could be spun off, actually, because, as the article says, there is an important story to be told about the UN and the formation of Israel, but from 1950 to 1967 there was a hiatus in activity. If people want it kept in, we will need to ensure that this important period in international history is related with reference to the best relevant texts. At the moment, this is far from being the case. Sources 4 to 21 in the article supposedly reference this section. Of these, sources in notes 4, 5, 10, 13, 14, 16, 20 and 21 seem to be primary sources. Sources 6, 7, 8, 18, and 19 don't seem to be appropriate or are unreliable - none of them are articles or books by historians anyway. In 9 the Janowsky book was published 1933 so not likely to be useful for events of the 1940s. In 12 the Cattan book may be OK although the author is described as a jurist rather than a historian; the publisher and date of publication should be added. In 15 Goodwin-Gill and Talman is probably good, but the second part of the reference seems to be garbled. 17 is probably fine. I'm minded to delete whole chunks of this section, for the time being, anyway.Itsmejudith (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm noticing a trend: sub-sections will include primary source material that might relate to the sub-section's title but doesn't include any secondary sources that actually relate it to the sub-sections title. For example "5.4 Claims that the Commission on the Status of Women is anti-Israel" doesn't actually reference anyone saying that it's anti-Israeli, it's implied that the concentration on Israel must be anti-Israeli. That might well be true but we need someone saying it. Sol Goldstone (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is a work in progress. I used lots of primary sources because they were a lot easier to find in the web (namely, www.un.org) than history books. The plan was that, someday, someone will supplement the text. So yes Judith, find & quote more secondary sources. But I will resist the removal of primary sources; in my opinion, a quote from the original text is the proper starting point to a discussion on a UN decision. I also cringe at your apparent veneration of historians and disdain of jurists. Regardless of the background, any published author is a reliable secondary source; neutrality is achieved by the juxtaposition of contrary opinions (WP:ASF) in proportion to their prominence (WP:WEIGHT).

By the way, you should know that refs # 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15 were put there by Harlan. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Policy on primary sources is to use them as a supplement and to derive the main factual information from the most reliable secondary sources. If we're telling history we should be using the work of historians. In law articles jurists are better sources (scientists for science articles etc.). "Any published author" is definitely not reliable, please refer to policy. What do you think are the best secondary histories of the period? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What prominence should we give to legal opinions?

Cut & pasted from above:

If we're telling history we should be using the work of historians. In law articles jurists are better sources (scientists for science articles etc.). (...) Itsmejudith (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is entirely about the U.N.. The U.N. is, before all else, a legal body, albeit a unique form of legal body. It's decisions are worded like laws; most of the delegates are trained lawyers; it is the world authority on human rights, war crimes and international law. Therefore, the most reliable secondary sources of comments about U.N. decisions are, in my opinion, jurists, not historians.

I will credit Harlan for recently injecting a good dose of legal comments in the article. His text was biased but, interestingly, was quickly complemented by an anonymous editor with contrarian opinions on Sept 9th. As usual, this attempt at restoring balance was immediately followed by an edit squirmish between Nableezy, Igor and Sol. It now seems to have calmed down and I think the article is now a bit more complete and a bit more neutral.

I thought of creating a "Legal opinions on U.N. decisions" section but I quickly changed my mind because they cover most of the subtopics in the article and would constitute a physical separation between the decision and its criticism, not recommended in the NPOV style. Emmanuelm (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not going to make a big deal out of this. It's just that it seems logical for the sections structured chronologically to be sourced principally to historical texts. Of course jurists are uniquely qualified to comment on international law. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Does anyone have any views on the suitability of the following, just for the 1940s section:

• William Roger Louis, The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism

• Joseph Heller, The birth of Israel, 1945-1949: Ben-Gurion and his critics, University Press of Florida, 2000

• Zvi Ganin, Truman, American Jewry, and Israel, 1945-1948, Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1979

And Benny Morris.

Any other suggestions?

Itsmejudith (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Definition of terrorism

Copy & pasted from above for a clearer discussion:

(...) The terrorism section also has issues: the Security Council set down a definition of terrorism back in '04. The first sentence needs a source. "The text of GA resolutions does not distinguish terrorism from military operations" doesn't even make sense: the article goes on with a quote condemning war crimes and excludes the section refuting it "including military attacks, destruction and acts of terror;". The implied meaning of "All available means" is that terrorism is A-OK by the UN. That's not what this means. There's got to be better material. (...) Sol Goldstone (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sol, there are plenty of sources in Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, several more recent than 2004, including one from 2006 by Sami Zeidan mentioning Palestinian fighters as a source of difficulty. Show us how you want to edit this section. Unfortunately, to my chagrin the link to the UNDOC text quoted in the article is dead. I'll see if I can find it again.

Avery Plaw's 2008 opinion about the "by all available means" decision should be quoted in the article; please do, right next to the 2002 opinions by the Canadian and German delegates arguing exactly the opposite. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

They aren't here is the problem. That current section of the text is largely unsupported. And the Canadian and German delegates aren't saying that "by all means available" is equivalent to condoning terrorism: they are saying this particular resolution is unbalanced, fails to condemn the PA for its crimes and could be seen as promoting violence. The phrase in question is never mentioned. Sol Goldstone (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sol, did you read the source of the quote of the Canadian and German delegates? It was from the discussions of UNCHR E/CN.4/2002/L.16. The German says "it was unable to support it because the text contained language that might be interpreted as an endorsement of violence." The UK delegates said "the text contained language which might be interpreted as endorsing violence and condoning terrorism." And it goes on like this over 6 pages. If this source, which contains expert opinions about a U.N. resolution, does not satisfy you, no source ever will. Please be more realistic. Emmanuelm (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent clarification in the article. I think Ms Glover of the UK's quote is more supportive here "Although her delegation agreed with many of the concerns expressed in the draft resolution, the text contained language which might be interpreted as endorsing violence and condoning terrorism. The text was not a balanced one; it contained language inappropriate to the Commission and did not refer to the responsibilities of the Palestinian Authority, express clear regret for the civilian casualties on both sides or condemn terrorism." (page 4) What about substituting it for the Canadian or German one? Sol Goldstone (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

We have a problem. I feel stupid for not realizing this earlier but this looks like it's a draft resolution from ECOSOC. Did anything come of it? Sol Goldstone (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sol, on p.5 of the source, it says "20. The draft resolution was adopted by 40 votes to 5, with 7 abstentions." The expression "by all available means" was used in resolutions since 1982. From a quick Googling, it seems like this 2002 resolution is the last containing it. I take your suggestion and quote the UK text instead of the German text. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Doh! This is what I get for looking over too many documents and forgetting which is which. Good work! Sol (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

About the authorship of a 2002 PLO report

This 2002 report is used as a source in "Claims that the UN is pro-Israel". I removed (for the second time) the names of Weller & Metzger from the text about this reference. John Z, who reintroduced them, presents them as the author of the study but on the cover page, it says "A report of the Negotiations Affairs Department, Palestine Liberation Organization". One has to look in the acknowledgments to find "The Department is grateful to Marc Weller of the Centre of International Studies in the University of Cambridge for having contributed the substantive sections of the study, and to Dr Barbara Metzger for having assembled the tables." By definition, authors are not mentioned in the Acknowledgments. I conclude that Weller & Metzger contributed data but cannot be considered authors. Who says they are comfortable with the interpretation of their data by the PLO? I edited the article text to reflect this. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, Finkelstein in his Images and Reality refers to Weller as the author [47], and what else could "contributed the substantive sections of the study" mean? Would "prepared by Marc Weller" be OK?John Z (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

John, you are clearly attempting to add a veneer of credibility to a policy paper by the PLO. It is authored by the PLO, nothing else. I could easily argue that the PLO is not a reliable source and delete the source entirely but I think all sources on the Israeli-Arab conflicts are biased and belong in the article, as long as their authorship is clearly and unambiguously identified. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of "Claims that the 2001 Durban conference was antisemitic"

I reverted Sol Goldstone's deletion of this whole section without discussion. Please discuss here before re-deleting. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

O_o I did discuss it above. With a week between challenging the relevance of both sections and then a final notice of intent. Unless you have something to discuss I can't see why we'd re-extended a discussion that didn't generate much interest or address why the UN should be held accountable for its members' actions. Sol (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)