Unilateral actions, per se, are not proscribed by Oslo

13 Comments / 13 Comments

1. SK Said:

   The annexation was declared null and void by UNSC Resolutions 252, 267, 271, 298, 465, 476 [15] and UNSC res 478[16]

   HMMM??? San Remo treaty, LON mandate and UN charter 80 “encourage the close settlement of Jews west of the JOrdan River. Resolutions made which conflict with those treaties are inferior legally to those treaties. Furthermore, the treaty with Jordan established boundaries between Israel and JOrdan at the Jordan River. The UNGA resolution of partiin was not legally binding and in contradiction to UN charter. The only nations to contest the west bank were Israel and Jordan and Jordan has withdrew its claim. There never was a state of Palestine, so who makes a claim(hamas, fatah, plo,PA?) which has more legal basis than the jewish peoples right of settlement? There is no legal state of palestine only a non binding UNGA resolution. UN declares a lot of rubbish that is not going to amount to a hill of beans. That pathetic organizations human rights commission makeup should be enough to render all UN declarations without credibility. The notion that the UN is an institution reflecting moral or legal authority is ludicrous. A mafia round table which authorizes a “hit” is a democratic process.

2. During the 1967 Six Day War, Israel captured the East Jerusalem, then a part of the West Bank, from Jordan. On June 27, 1967, Israel extended its law and jurisdiction to East Jerusalem and some of the surrounding area, incorporating about 70 square kilometers of territory into the Jerusalem Municipality. Although at the time Israel informed the United Nations that its measures constituted administrative and municipal integration rather than annexation, later rulings by the Israeli Supreme Court indicated that East Jerusalem had become part of Israel. In 1980, Israel passed the Jerusalem Law as part of its Basic Law, which declared Jerusalem the “complete and united” capital of Israel. In other words, Israel purported to annex East Jerusalem.[12][13][14] The annexation was declared null and void by UNSC Resolutions 252, 267, 271, 298, 465, 476 [15] and UNSC res 478[16]
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation#East_Jerusalem

3. @ AJ – Raalte:
   Of course I know that. What’s a decade here and there.
   thanks

4. @ Ted

   The Oslo Accords are from 1993, not 1983.

5. @ Andrew:
   Quite right. So much for international “agreements”.

6. Bernard Ross Said:

   @ Ted Belman: can both sides continue to violate without it being terminated? If so, what is the effect of a violation other than allowing the other party to declare abrogation and termination? What about enforcement?

   Some legal scholars say there is no such thing as international law. Because there is a theory that for a law to be valid there must be a body to enforce the law. There is no enforcement of International law.

7. @ Ted Belman: can both sides continue to violate without it being terminated? If so, what is the effect of a violation other than allowing the other party to declare abrogation and termination? What about enforcement?

8. Interesting legal lesson going on here. Thanks

9. @ Bernard Ross:
   You must declare it abrogated. Otherwise even if you also committed a fundamental breach you could take the position as Abbas does, that the agreement has not been abrogated, only violated.

10. Ted Belman Said:

    @ Bernard Ross: Wrong. A fundamental breach doesn’t end the agreement,

    I cannot imagine what ends an agreement more than a fundamental or material breach.
    Ted Belman Said:

    but it does gives rise to the right of the other party to do so

    In which case then it is ended if Israel chooses to end it or Oslo is dead dependent on Israels choice.
    Ted Belman Said:

    So far Israel has declined.

    Depends on how E1 is construed, no? Is an agreement terminated solely by declaration or can the action of the party demonstrate termination? If action without declaration can end an agreement, then if both parties abrogate/ignore agreement clauses, when is the agreement considered terminated? Can a party(Israel) act, without declaration, to demonstrate both abrogation or continuance at the same time(vagueness and flexibility)leaving to the other party,a judge or to a later date, to declare in either direction. EG Israel’s E1 is considered a violation depending on who judges. I have heard no comment, from those who voted for statehood, regarding whether it violates Oslo(noncommittal avoidance?).

11. @ Bernard Ross:
    Wrong. A fundamental breach doesn’t end the agreement, but it does gives rise to the right of the other party to do so. So far Israel has declined.

12. If there is a material breach of an agreement it is usually null and void in its entirety unless the contrary is agreed.

    The Oslo Accords signed in 1983 provided “Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.”

    . In the end, there is no point in the US invoking a defunct agreement, and that is what Israel should tell the US. As it stands, de facto, there is no agreement, only parts continue to be observed which are in the interest of both parties. Perhaps the point is that everyone is trying to please the public by putting on a dog and pony show. Making busy, justifying their salaries.

13. I’d like to know why only a seemingly few select people/writers have this firm grasp of reality. Isn’t it possible to slip this hypocrisy into a question from a relatively more fair-minded journalist at a press conference to either Obama himself or his press secretary, Jay Carney. I would love to see how they handle this obvious political dissonance. And what about Dan Shapiro. What would/does he say?