In this thread FinnAgain asserts the “Green Line” between Israel and the Occupied Territories is not an international border but an “armistice line.” I’m not clear on the distinction as here applied. Certainly Israeli has never formally annexed or claimed sovereignty (as distinct from control) over the OT’s, except for East Jerusalem (and the Golan Heights, but that region is generally not included in the phrase “OT’s”). And every country that recognizes Israel at all recognizes it as existing only within the Green-Line boundaries – some also recognizing EJ as Israeli territory, some not, I believe. But FinnAgain seems to be saying Israel has no established borders at all on that front – that its borders are something to be determined by negotiation at some time in the future according to UNSC Resolution 242. In terms of international law, what’s the Straight Dope here?
As you mention, the exceptions, ie, the parts of Palestine that are now officially the State of Israel, not under military government, are the Golan and East Jerusalem. Settlements are also under Israeli civil law, not military rule.
ISTM that the Green Line is the minimum territory that Palestine shoud have, in the eyes of almost everyone but Israel.
It seems to me that until a line is agreed upon by both nations on either side of it, it can’t be considered a border. Between 1949 and 1967 Jordan sat on the other side of the Green Line, and did not agree to call it a border (and neither did Israel). After 1967 there has been no internationally recognized sovereign state existing on the Line; therefore, it isn’t a border.
Onde a border has been accepted by the two nations involved, it can be enforced by international law; until then, it doesn’t exist, and cannot be created out of thin air by fiat.
Indeed it can be – not by fiat, but by recognition. That’s how it goes in the international community.
No, borders are set by treaty. Recognition is nice, but it’s isn’t ink on paper. Every border in the world was decided on by the nations on either side ay some point in history; the nature of those nations might change, but the border remains. For instance, Israel’s southern border with Egypt was set as part of a 19th-century agreement between Britain and the Ottoman Empire, while its border with Lebanon was set as part of the Sykes-Picot agreement between the British and the French. None of those nations still exist in the Middle East, but the borders they created endured, and will continue to endure until a new treaty is signed.
In other words, borders are created by legal documents. You say that the Green Line is an international border? Show me that document. Tell me when, where and by whom it was signed.
You want international law? International law is *contract * law.
The border between Israel and the OT is a physical thing – walls in places, fences in others. That’s the border, at least for now, and it’s not on the Green Line.
True, but does the West Bank Barrier (which does follow the Green Line except where it snakes eastward to encompass Israeli settlements) have any legal significance?