Armenia - Azerbaijan

[sumskilz]

Israel being invaded in 1967 is no excuse for Israel to illegally annex and occupy land beyond its borders. The West accepts that because it is beneficent for the West.

There was no international border between Israel and the West Bank in 1967. This was explicitly agreed upon at the Arab’s insistence in the text of the 1949 armistice agreement. There was only a temporary line between Israel and the territory that the Jordanians had occupied in 1948. The Jordanians violated the armistice agreement beginning with the shelling of west Jerusalem. The Israelis would have preferred not to have to fight on a third front, and requested that the Jordanians stay out of the conflict, but the Jordanians joined the fight anyway and were subsequently crushed and expelled.

Many countries have recognized the so-called green line as an international border (or the basis of future negotiations) for their own purposes, but neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have ever considered it to be a border. I don’t believe there is any precedent in international law that allows external parties to unilaterally impose a border without the consent of either of the parties in a conflict. Therefore, talk of legality is mostly sophistry, and an attempt to interpret a situation according to pre-existing international law that never anticipated said situation. The Jordanians had no legal claim to any territory that Israel occupied in 1967, nor had the Palestinians made any claim to it at that time. In fact, the Palestinians had explicitly disavowed any claim to the West Bank in writing, and did not declare independence until 1988.

By the logic that Israeli settlements built on territory captured in 1967 are illegal, many Israeli cities within the internationally recognized borders of Israel should likewise be considered illegal, because in both cases they are built upon former Ottoman public lands within the British Mandate of Palestine which were taken by force. This in fact the position that countries that do not recognize Israel take. The West’s (for lack of a better term) position is essentially that territory taken by force in 1948 and 1949 is legitimately Israeli whereas territory taken by force in 1967 is not, even if it had been the personal property of Jews who were ethnically cleansed from the areas occupied by invading Arab powers. There isn’t really anything morally or legally consistent about that.

That aside, the Israeli occupation (but not annexation) of the West Bank is unambiguously legal. It was agreed upon by both sides under the terms of the Oslo Agreement. The Israeli occupation (but not annexation) of the Golan Heights is unambiguously legal because Israel and Syria remain at war. It was also captured in a defensive war.

[Cyclops]

There was no international border between Israel and the West Bank in 1967. This was explicitly agreed upon at the Arab’s insistence in the text of the 1949 armistice agreement. There was only a temporary line between Israel and the territory that the Jordanians had occupied in 1948. The Jordanians violated the armistice agreement beginning with the shelling of west Jerusalem. The Israelis would have preferred not to have to fight on a third front, and requested that the Jordanians stay out of the conflict, but the Jordanians joined the fight anyway and were subsequently crushed and expelled.

Many countries have recognized the so-called green line as an international border (or the basis of future negotiations) for their own purposes, but neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have ever considered it to be a border. I don’t believe there is any precedent in international law that allows external parties to unilaterally impose a border without the consent of either of the parties in a conflict. Therefore, talk of legality is mostly sophistry, and an attempt to interpret a situation according to pre-existing international law that never anticipated said situation. The Jordanians had no legal claim to any territory that Israel occupied in 1967, nor had the Palestinians made any claim to it at that time. In fact, the Palestinians had explicitly disavowed any claim to the West Bank in writing, and did not declare independence until 1988.

By the logic that Israeli settlements built on territory captured in 1967 are illegal, many Israeli cities within the internationally recognized borders of Israel should likewise be considered illegal, because in both cases they are built upon former Ottoman public lands within the British Mandate of Palestine which were taken by force. This in fact the position that countries that do not recognize Israel take. The West’s (for lack of a better term) position is essentially that territory taken by force in 1948 and 1949 is legitimately Israeli whereas territory taken by force in 1967 is not, even if it had been the personal property of Jews who were ethnically cleansed from the areas occupied by invading Arab powers. There isn’t really anything morally or legally consistent about that.

That aside, the Israeli occupation (but not annexation) of the West Bank is unambiguously legal. It was agreed upon by both sides under the terms of the Oslo Agreement. The Israeli occupation (but not annexation) of the Golan Heights is unambiguously legal because Israel and Syria remain at war. It was also captured in a defensive war.

I thought Israel agreed with (ie had imposed by) the UN to certain limits in 1948 and maybe confirmed them later? I have a vague idea the Israeli position is the "illegal settlements" outside that are not explicitly legal, perhaps even illegal but Israel will protect its citizens?

[PointOfViewGun]

Hey everyone, is the Karabakh conflict that boring?

[alhoon]

Hey everyone, is the Karabakh conflict that boring?

Apparently. Which is the reason that in the next bloodshed there people like me will be wondering how that was allowed to happen.

[PointOfViewGun]

Apparently. Which is the reason that in the next bloodshed there people like me will be wondering how that was allowed to happen.

Or is it a case of sudden desire to dive into context of it all when a favorable narrative for our favored groups can not be established so easily?

[Vanoi]

There was no international border between Israel and the West Bank in 1967. This was explicitly agreed upon at the Arab’s insistence in the text of the 1949 armistice agreement. There was only a temporary line between Israel and the territory that the Jordanians had occupied in 1948. The Jordanians violated the armistice agreement beginning with the shelling of west Jerusalem. The Israelis would have preferred not to have to fight on a third front, and requested that the Jordanians stay out of the conflict, but the Jordanians joined the fight anyway and were subsequently crushed and expelled.

Many countries have recognized the so-called green line as an international border (or the basis of future negotiations) for their own purposes, but neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have ever considered it to be a border. I don’t believe there is any precedent in international law that allows external parties to unilaterally impose a border without the consent of either of the parties in a conflict. Therefore, talk of legality is mostly sophistry, and an attempt to interpret a situation according to pre-existing international law that never anticipated said situation. The Jordanians had no legal claim to any territory that Israel occupied in 1967, nor had the Palestinians made any claim to it at that time. In fact, the Palestinians had explicitly disavowed any claim to the West Bank in writing, and did not declare independence until 1988.

By the logic that Israeli settlements built on territory captured in 1967 are illegal, many Israeli cities within the internationally recognized borders of Israel should likewise be considered illegal, because in both cases they are built upon former Ottoman public lands within the British Mandate of Palestine which were taken by force. This in fact the position that countries that do not recognize Israel take. The West’s (for lack of a better term) position is essentially that territory taken by force in 1948 and 1949 is legitimately Israeli whereas territory taken by force in 1967 is not, even if it had been the personal property of Jews who were ethnically cleansed from the areas occupied by invading Arab powers. There isn’t really anything morally or legally consistent about that.

That aside, the Israeli occupation (but not annexation) of the West Bank is unambiguously legal. It was agreed upon by both sides under the terms of the Oslo Agreement. The Israeli occupation (but not annexation) of the Golan Heights is unambiguously legal because Israel and Syria remain at war. It was also captured in a defensive war.

You're leaving out the Fourth Geneva Conventions. The occupation of West Bank and the Golan Heights is legal even without the Oslo .However the transfer of population (either your own or the occupied persons) into or outside the territory is illegal.

As for the comparison of 1948 to 1967, well it's complicated. Israel was acting defensively in 1948. The Fourth Geneva Conventions didn't exist in 1948. Maybe the UN just felt bad. I don't think in this situation the West being morally or legally consistent is a good thing. The moral ambiguity of the West is why the Israelis are in the position they are now and not sanctioned to death.

[sumskilz]

I thought Israel agreed with (ie had imposed by) the UN to certain limits in 1948 and maybe confirmed them later? I have a vague idea the Israeli position is the "illegal settlements" outside that are not explicitly legal, perhaps even illegal but Israel will protect its citizens?

Israel has never in any way recognized the green line as an international border. They’ve just been reluctant to officially annex any of the West Bank beyond Jerusalem. The Israeli high court hasn’t taken a position on the Fourth Geneva Convention. When the court orders particular settlements to be dismantled, it’s because those settlements were built on private Palestinian land. The Israeli government has generally argued that settlements in the West Bank don’t violate Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention because no state had legal sovereignty over the territory when Israel captured it in 1967, and because citizens are settling there of their own volition. While a very small minority of international legal scholars have agreed with this, the consensus view is that settlements in the West Bank do violate Article 49(6), at least when the Israeli government authorizes, facilitates, and/or subsidizes them, on the grounds that Israel is a belligerent occupier regardless of whether any state had previously held legal sovereignty over the territory. In other words, you don’t have to able to answer the question of whose territory is being occupied in order to assert that a state is occupying it. Which seems weird even if you agree with it on pragmatic and/or moral grounds, and further showcases how international law just didn’t anticipate this particular situation.

In any case, Azerbaijan has also accused Armenia of violating Article 49(6), but I don’t know if anyone cares. Regardless, I don’t think the hypocrisy argument against “the West” really holds either way with regard to settlements, since few consider Israeli settlements to be legal. Some countries and/or administrations just haven’t cared and/or haven’t taken a position, which I guess you could argue is tacit support.

I think there is a lot of sympathy for the Armenians, but the issue is complicated by the fact that Nagorno-Karabakh is recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Armenia invaded Azerbaijan to protect ethnic Armenians. Whether you buy it or not, this is essentially the same justification that Turkey gave for invading Cyprus and Russia gave for invading Ukraine. Just based on a legality argument, I guess it would be consistent to support Azerbaijan, Cyprus, and Ukraine (or Armenia, Turkey, and Russia), but I don’t think it’s necessarily hypocrisy not to be consistent regarding those three conflicts, because there is the justification versus whether or not you believe it.

[PointOfViewGun]

I think there is a lot of sympathy for the Armenians, but the issue is complicated by the fact that Nagorno-Karabakh is recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Armenia invaded Azerbaijan to protect ethnic Armenians. Whether you buy it or not, this is essentially the same justification that Turkey gave for invading Cyprus and Russia gave for invading Ukraine. Just based on a legality argument, I guess it would be consistent to support Azerbaijan, Cyprus, and Ukraine (or Armenia, Turkey, and Russia), but I don’t think it’s necessarily hypocrisy not to be consistent regarding those three conflicts, because there is the justification versus whether or not you believe it.

The case of Cyprus is indeed analogous just not the way you portray it as. It's more analogous if Armenia invaded more of Azerbaijan and the got international recognition for it. In the case of Cyprus it was first the Greek contingent and officers from Greece that invaded the island to establish a favorable governance and union with Greece. Makarios himself called those Greek forces invaders before any Turkish soldier from Turkey set foot on the island. Moreover, in this case, Turkey actually had legal right to intervene while Armenia had none.

[alhoon]

Or is it a case of sudden desire to dive into context of it all when a favorable narrative for our favored groups can not be established so easily?

Eh? Care to explain?

[Nebaki]

Apparently. Which is the reason that in the next bloodshed there people like me will be wondering how that was allowed to happen.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Moreover, in this case, Turkey actually had legal right to intervene while Armenia had none.

It had the right to intervene to do what, specifically?

[Nebaki]

It had the right to intervene to do what, specifically?

Constitution of the Republic of Armenia:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.president.am/en/constitution-2015/

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Constitution of the Republic of Armenia:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.president.am/en/constitution-2015/

I was asking about the Turkish intervention in Cyprus. Not sure what the Armenian constitution has to do with that. Also, is there a specific part you want to highlight? or do you just expect me to read the entire constitution of Armenia and then try to guess what your point is?

[paleologos]

It had the right to intervene to do what, specifically?

According to the original unamended 1960 constitution of Cyprus the guarantors of constitutional legitimacy and stability in Cyprus were not the people of Cyprus.
Instead the "troika" of Great Britain (as it was known back then), the "Kingdom of Greece" and the Republic of Turkey were the designated "guarantors", ergo they were all allowed a military presence in the island.
Not a very democratic constitution, if you ask me.

1. The government of Cyprus attempted to amend the constitution with the paradox being that attempting to make the constitution more democratic was unconstitutional.
2. This led the Turkish minority to feel threatened (naturally when the government is violating it's own constitution) and react in the direction of separatism - originally only de facto, not de Juris.
3. Reacting to that, certain "super patriotic" (stupid ultra nationalists, naturally authoritarian, if you ask me) from the Greek Cypriot side, calling themselves EOKA B began a campaign of terrorism against the Turkish Cypriot minority.
4. The legitimate government of Cyprus was unable for both technical and political reasons to suppress and bring to justice the former champions of Cypriot independence and heroes of the anti colonial struggle against the British and at the same time probably also not rather willing.
5. Abdicating the monopoly of legitimate violence, however indirectly, is the first step to precipitating the failure of the state, a constitutional suicide in my opinion.
6. The Turkish Cypriots became openly separatist and even I as a Greek with Cypriot roots cannot in good conscience blame them for that.
7. The government of Greece by then was dictatorial and attempted to use the Greek military presence in Cyprus to install a puppet government in the island.
8. The Turkish military presence was not originally adequate to counter that but they were enough to act as a bridgehead and reinforcements soon arrived from mainland Turkey.
9. The constitution of Cyprus gave Turkey the right to intervene in order to restore the 1960 constitutional legitimacy.
10. Intervene they did but not to the effect of their formal mandate.

For the Greek Cypriots that was an invasion.
For the Turkish Cypriots it was a liberation from fear.
For the government of Turkey it was a "Peace Keeping Operation" (code named Attila, because Attila the Hun was such a pacifist).
For the government of Great Britain it was convenient in the context of their perennial "divide and rule" policy.
And for the Greek junta government it was a moment of nudity as they proved totally impotent in a real crisis situation which resulted in their demise and rise of the 1974 Republic of Greece.

And that is the story of Cyprus from 1960 to 1974.


Now back to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.
Can anyone tell me if there is any good reasons from before the first Nagorno-Karabach conflict for the Azerbaijanis to have such seething hatred for the Armenians?

[nhytgbvfeco2]

According to the original unamended 1960 constitution of Cyprus the guarantors of constitutional legitimacy and stability in Cyprus were not the people of Cyprus.
Instead the "troika" of Great Britain (as it was known back then), the "Kingdom of Greece" and the Republic of Turkey were the designated "guarantors", ergo they were all allowed a military presence in the island.
Not a very democratic constitution, if you ask me.

Not the point I was going for POVG knows what I was going for, hence the lack of answer.
Specifically:

Article IV
In the event of a breach of the provisions of the present Treaty, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom undertake to consult together with respect to the representations or measures necessary to ensure observance of those provisions.

In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty.

Turkey had the right to invade to restore the status quo. Turkey did not invade to restore the status quo. As such, Turkey had no right to invade.

[paleologos]

1. The constitution of Cyprus gave Turkey the right to intervene in order to restore the 1960 constitutional legitimacy.
2. Intervene they did but not to the effect of their formal mandate.

Did I type it the wrong way?

Not the point I was going for POVG knows what I was going for, hence the lack of answer.
Specifically:

Turkey had the right to invade to restore the status quo. Turkey did not invade to restore the status quo. As such, Turkey had no right to invade.


[/FONT][/COLOR]

Turkey had the right to "intervene" with the very specific mandate to restore the status quo ante the Troubles of 1963, even if intervention meant invasion.
It's what they did after the invasion that resulted in the violation of their mandate.
Greece had the same right but my country first violated our mandate, with the "defense" of my people being that at the time (1974) the government of Greece was a military junta, (the flimsy defense "it wasn't us").
Great Britain also had the right to "intervene" but they did not perceive it as a mandate.
Some guarantors.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

My point is that the Turkish invasion was never planned with the intent of restoring the status quo. Instead, Turkey attempted to force a federation.

[paleologos]

My point is that the Turkish invasion was never planned with the intent of restoring the status quo. Instead, Turkey attempted to force a federation.

I know.
I cannot blame them.
I cannot link any references right now but the original sentiment of Jews in Mandatory Palestine was "no joint state with the Arabs, we will take something even a small as a tablecloth as long as it is ours alone".
Nobody likes being a minority in a land if they are to call it "homeland".

Which explains the separatism of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh and the vicious cycle of Azerbaijani suspicion, then repression, then Armenian fear of persecution validated by the repression, then separatism that validates Azerbaijani suspicion.

But the lead up to such hatred?

[PointOfViewGun]

My point is that the Turkish invasion was never planned with the intent of restoring the status quo. Instead, Turkey attempted to force a federation.

You are confusing Greek invasion of Cyprus with that of Turkey's. If Turkey did not have the intention of restoring the status quo it would not first ask Britain to intervene.

Written evidence submitted by Michael Stephen

The 1976 UK House of Commons Select Committee on Cyprus found[156] that Turkey had proposed joint Anglo-Turkish action under the Treaty of Guarantee, and this was confirmed by Prime Minister Ecevit on 14th August 1974[157] However the Labour Government in Britain refused to take any effective action, even though they had troops and aircraft in the Sovereign Bases in Cyprus. They argued that Britain was under no duty to take military action, but Article 2 of the Treaty provided that Britain would guarantee the state of affairs established by the basic articles of the 1960 Constitution, which it manifestly failed to do. The Select Committee concluded that "Britain had a legal right to intervene, she had a moral obligation to intervene. She did not intervene for reasons which the Government refuses to give."

Some people argue that having defeated the Sampson coup, and Makarios having returned to the Presidential Palace, Turkey should have withdrawn and left the Turkish Cypriots again at the mercy of Makarios, the man who had been responsible for the earlier massacres. That proposition has only to be stated for its absurdity to be appreciated. It must be remembered that UN troops had been in Cyprus since March 1964 and had failed to protect the Turkish Cypriots. The Turkish Cypriots were later to see what happened to the Moslem people of Srebrenica under international protection.

Some people talk as if after the Turkish intervention Makarios and those around him simply yielded their positions and allowed new elections.

For the government of Turkey it was a "Peace Keeping Operation" (code named Attila, because Attila the Hun was such a pacifist).

The Atilla Operation name, not Attila, was actually coined by the Greeks, not Turks. It's likely the name of the commander they stole the operation's plans from.