Jordan demands return of Dead Sea Scrolls 'seized' by Israel

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Jordan has asked the United Nations to force Israel to hand over a significant portion of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a collection of some 900 ancient religious texts unearthed in the 1940s and 1950s, Army Radio reported on Wednesday.

The Jordanian government has also asked the Canadian government to impound the 2,000-year-old documents, currently on display at a museum in Toronto, according to reports in the Canadian press.

Jordan cited international law to request that Canada take possession of the documents until the dispute is resolved.

Jordan has accused Israel of seizing the scrolls from a museum in east Jerusalem during the 1967 Six-Day War."

more

[theoldman]

1. Isn't it a little late after 42 years?

[sui generis]

2. yeah so all that art and gold taken from the Jews

in WWII should not be returned either.

Sarcasm aside, I'm sure they've been demanding its return from the first day, and every day since.

[Igel]

14. The difference?

The art and gold were taken from Jews, and should be returned to the Jews they were taken from or to their heirs.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were in a center and belonged to the government as much as to anybody. They were taken from one government by another. Interestingly, the same argument could be made that the land in E. Jerusalem that was claimed by the Jordanian government by virtue of occupying and annexing the West Bank should be returned to Jordan. That, however, is a stickier argument to present--not because it's any different, but because nobody wants it made.

I'm fairly sure DSS were found in other than Jordanian territory.

The kinds of claims made seem to be of only a few kinds. The first "they're found in my yard, they're mine"--hence the modern government of Egypt claims anything ever found in Egypt. The second is "it's made in my yard so it's mine"--so some countries have tried to claim things sold abroad but which originated on their territory. The third is "it's made by people like me so it belongs to everybody like me." That's used when territory's changed hands.

This is novel. "While it wasn't found in our yard, it wasn't made in our yard, and it wasn't made by people like us, still we had it once when we illegally occupied the yard it was found and made in and so we want it back." Those Jordanians certainly have chutzpah.

[grassfed]

19. not made by people like the Jordanians?

they're the same people

[aranthus]

21. No they aren't.

Obviously, they are all humans, but that was not the point. The Jordanians are not Jews, nor are they descended from the Hebrews. They are Arab Muslims for the most part. The scrolls were written by the ancestors of Israeli Jews, not Arab Muslims. They were not made in Jordanian territory, nor found in Jordanian territory.

[grassfed]

25. the people of the region

were swept up by wave after wave of new faiths... but they are the same people. DNA markers confirm that the Palestinians were subsequently Canaanite, Jewish, Christian and Muslim.

[aranthus]

3. They probably should have thought of this before they attacked the Israelis

Then again, who would be a better steward for the document? Who has a better historical claim to them? Which economy would Canada rather have good relations with, Israel or Jordan? But keep citing international law, and complaining to the UN. Good luck with that.

[azurnoir]

4. Hopeully Canada does the right thing here

and holds on to the scrolls until the dispute is resolved

[aranthus]

5. I do not believe that the Canadians are such fools as to do as you hope.

Jordan's demand has nothing to do with justice, and I doubt that the Canadians will insert themselves into this situation just to satisfy Jordanian pettiness. What's in it for them? Nothing.

[azurnoir]

6. what has Canada got to lose?

unless you are claiming Israel will somehow "take revenge" besides if Canada returns the scrolls they are still inserting themselves into the situation, Canada would be acting as a neutral 3rd party in this situation and if Israel's has a legitimate right to the scrolls and I am not saying Israel does not then that will be sorted out in court

[aranthus]

7. First, they look foolish.

Second, they antagonize the Israelis for no good reason, and Israel has a lot more clout n the world than Jordan. Third, Jordan has no legitimate claim to the scrolls and everyone with sense knows it. Fourth, it makes it look as if they are pandering to Jordanian spite, and that does their standing in the world no good at all. Fifth, they would be supporting the illusion that there is an international law and court system that is at all just or even concerned with justice, and that could always come back to bite them. Canada doesn't have possession of the scrolls; they just happen to be in Canada. Why should the Canadians put themselves out to support the Jordanians, when that country has absolutely no legitimate claim to the scrolls?

[azurnoir]

8. Look foolish everyone knows no justice illusions

did you get lost on your way to another site?

[aranthus]

9. Meaning what? n/t

[azurnoir]

10. Meaning that the notions espoused in post #7

are far more commonly found on more rightwing or GOP supported sites and are quite unusual on DU.

[aranthus]

13. Are you suggesting that being rightwing is synonymous

with being reasonable and clear thinking, and that being leftwing is synonymous with being naive, foolish and disconnected from reality?

Seriously, in civil law-at least in California-you can't get any kind of prejudgment seizure order unless you can show a reasonable probability of success on the merits. Why do you think Jordan has any kind of legitimate claim to the scrolls? And if you don't, then why should Canada disrupt Israel's possession of the scrolls just to make the Jordanians happy? Do you really believe that Israel could get a fair hearing in an international court (I think the idea is absurd), or that the world court is about anything other than politics? If so, why?

[azurnoir]

16. well one man's ceiling is another man's floor

and you seem to think that international law is unreasonable, would you then feel that the Nuremberg trials or the prosecution Slobodan Milosevic or Charles Taylor were also unreasonable?

Jordan made the claim it was up to Canada to decide and they decided to play it safe and not get involved. I never said that one country or another had a legitimate claim did I in fact I said the opposite I said the world court should decide

[aranthus]

17. That's a cop out.

I'm trying to understand why you write what you do. Is it that you actually believe it, want to mess with the Israelis, or just mess with whoever.

War crimes trials are for things like murder, rape, theft. Acts that are crimes under intra national law. Here, we're talking about competing claims between countries, which is very different.

But, as I said above, the issue is why you believe that there should be some international legal action. What you have written doesn't make sense in the real world. Canada is not the police. Why should they do anything to help Jordan? Why would it have been the right thing to interfere with Israel's possession of the scroll's just because Jordan made a claim? Does Jordan have a legitimate claim to the scrolls? Why? If they don't, what right do they have to disrupt Israel's possession? What is the legal process you would like to see? Does it actually exist? How does it work? Is it fair and unbiased? Why?

I realize this is a lot of questions, but I really am trying to understand your position. I would appreciated your answers.

[azurnoir]

18. well of course its alot of quetions that is hardly a surprise

however I have already explained my position on this two different countries claim ownership of the same object(s)which were captured in war by one of the countries that claiming ownership which would make it a legal dispute, your position would seem to indicate that you believe Israel owns these objects because they captured them does that belief extend to all that is captured in war, by any country?

As to legal processes I would believe the ICJ would have jurisdiction in this case, do believe that the ICJ is biased against Israel? I do not, as to date the ICJ has shown little bias against any country

As to legitimate claim to the scrolls I believe the legitimate claim is in dispute

as to international law vs international law are you contending then that Germany's action during WW2 with regards to the crimes prosecuted at the Nuremberg trial were illegal under German law at the time these crimes were committed?

My position once again is that "ownership" pf the Scrolls is in dispute and that dispute should be settled in court, simple as that

[aranthus]

20. Hopefully, we can have a reasonable discussion of this.

azurnoir>two different countries claim ownership of the same object(s)which were captured in war by one of the countries that claiming ownership which would make it a legal dispute, your position would seem to indicate that you believe Israel owns these objects because they captured them does that belief extend to all that is captured in war, by any country?

I understand the basic position you are taking:Israel has possession of the scrolls; Jordan claims them; therefore, let someone else decide. However, that isn't enough in law, even for a lawsuit, let alone for a prejudgment attachment (which is what Jordan was asking for). Otherwise, a hostile country could disrupt a second country's right to possession merely by making a claim, no matter how false the claim might be. Civil law doesn't allow that. Do you think international law should? If so why? If not, then we need to look objectively at whether Jordan has a legitimate claim. Obviously, the Jordanians say that they do, but that shouldn't matter. Countries can and do say anything that they want to further their interests (so do litigants in civil courts, unfortunately). Assuming that there is something that approximates civil due process in the international world, Jordan shouldn't be allowed to use it unless it meets the standards of due process.

The first of these is standing to sue. That's a short way of describing whether Jordan has a rightful claim that the court needs to look at. If someone takes something from me, I have the right to go to court and get it back, but only if my possession of the thing was legitimate in the first place. If it wasn't, I don't have the right to go to court. So what is the basis of Jordan's claim? It is only that Jordan once occupied the territory where the museum housing some of the scrolls was located. How did Jordan come to occupy that territory? It launched an unprovoked attack on a neighbor state and conquered it. It committed a blatant act of aggression. That conquest was illegitimate and was not accepted by the rest of the world, except for one or two other countries (the main one being the UK, which was a co-conspirator in the aggression). Jordan is pressing the claim of an armed robber. That is no claim at all. So Jordan has no right to go to any court to make a claim about the scrolls. This is true even if you think that Israel's claim is no better than Jordan's. Court's aren't allowed to interfere with possession of property except in the name of a plaintiff who has a legitimate right to be in court. Jordan doesn't.

The second issue, is whether Jordan could win on it's claim even if it did have standing to sue. We've already seen that Jordan's claim is that of the thief. Israel's is much stronger. First, Israel's conquest of the scrolls is legitimate. The reason is that it occurred because Jordan once again in 1967 launched an unprovoked attack on Israel. Israel conquered the West Bank and the scrolls at issue in responding to Jordan's attack. That conquest is legitimate, so Israel's possession of the scrolls is legitimate. Israel should win that claim in a fair court. But there are other reasons why Israel has a better claim to the scrolls. First, creation of the scrolls. Given their substance and age, it seems clear that they were created by ancient Hebrews/Jews (certainly not by Arab Muslims, who didn't come to Palestine until long after the scrolls were written). The descendants of the creators of the scrolls are the Israeli Jews, not Hashemite Arab/Muslims. To suggest that a major heritage of the Jewish people should be turned over to Arab/Muslims who have no connection to their creation is laughable. Second, the scrolls were originally located in what would be Israeli territory. They were found in caves on the Northwest shore of the Dead Sea. That was in Palestine at the time, not Jordan. The area became Israel after Israel became independent. Third, the scrolls were initially found by Bedouins, not Jordanians. The Bedouins sold them to Westerners who returned them to Palestine. By any reasonable chain of possession, they belong to Israel. Jordan could not hope to win this claim in a fair court of law. Since it couldn't show a reasonable probability of success on the merits, it doesn't have the right to have Canada, or any other country, hold on to the scrolls while the claim is being adjudicated. There isn't anything to adjudicate.


azurnoir>As to legal processes I would believe the ICJ would have jurisdiction in this case, do believe that the ICJ is biased against Israel? I do not, as to date the ICJ has shown little bias against any country

The ICJ is part of the UN, which is anti-Israel, antisemitic, and hopelessly politicized. The suggestion that the ICJ would be a fair forum is just ludicrous.

azurnoir>As to legitimate claim to the scrolls I believe the legitimate claim is in dispute

Why is it reasonably in dispute? How is Jordan's claim at all legitimate? Just because they claim to have had possession at one time? How is that a legitimate claim, given that their possession was based on theft alone?

azurnoir>as to international law vs international law are you contending then that Germany's action during WW2 with regards to the crimes prosecuted at the Nuremberg trial were illegal under German law at the time these crimes were committed?

Was murder illegal in Germany during World War Two? Yes, it was. Was it illegal in all of the countries where the Germans murdered people? Yes, it was. However, your argument misses a major point. The Nuremberg trials were against individuals for acts that would normally be crimes. Whether murder of Jews was excepted in German law is irrelevant. Murder is a well recognized crime. More important, the entire German state was not put on trial. There were no judicial adjudication of German boundaries after the war. The victorious Allies simply divided Germany and took what they wanted. Nations that initiate wars of aggression and lose, also lose the right to complain about things like borders, ownership, and the like. The bottom line is that ownership claims between states are a political issue, and not a legal claim.

azurnoir>My position once again is that "ownership" pf the Scrolls is in dispute and that dispute should be settled in court, simple as that

So any dispute of Israel's claim, no matter how false, is good enough for you?

[azurnoir]

23. Reallyall of that is for courts to decide

your entire premise no matter how unusually verbose you are about it is that Israel claim it Israel keeps it and yo never answered my question about who has rights to properties taken in war, what is apparent is that for you this is all about Israel not a broader subject matter

[aranthus]

26. Another cop out.

Your position comes down to, "Jordan claims it, that's good enough to go to court." No it's not. Real court's of law (the ICJ isn't one, but you want to treat it as such) operate according to rules of procedure. That's what due process is. Those are objective rules that allow anyone to follow along and understand that justice is being done. So while the ICJ could rule that Jordan has both standing and a good claim, there has to be an objective reason for it to say that. If there was one, then you would be able to explain it as well.

And no, my position is more than just, "Israel claim it Israel keeps it." The argument was much more than that. If you don't understand that, then go back and re-read my post.

And yes, I did answer your question, though perhaps not so directly as to be clear to you. Here is what I said. "First, Israel's conquest of the scrolls is legitimate. The reason is that it occurred because Jordan once again in 1967 launched an unprovoked attack on Israel. Israel conquered the West Bank and the scrolls at issue in responding to Jordan's attack. That conquest is legitimate, so Israel's possession of the scrolls is legitimate. Israel should win that claim in a fair court." To make it clear. The conquest of territory in a war of aggression confers no rights to the conquerer, either to the territory or to things taken from that territory. Otherwise, the conquerer has a rightful claim to the territory and anything in it.

One other point. Jordan signed a peace agreement with Israel in which, among other things, it agreed that the border between Israel and Jordan was the Jordan River Valley, and that it would refrain from acts of hostility. It effectively waived any claim to the West Bank, and to anything on it, like the scrolls. So Jordan's claim to Canada and the UN is a breach of the peace agreement. Not that Israel should declare war, but Jordan can't make a claim for the scrolls when it has already given up that claim.

[azurnoir]

27. The ICJ is not a real court of law?

LOL I suggest you check the list of cases that have been heard in this fake court

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=2

this case is prime for this court and would quite possibly be precedent setting

[Violet_Crumble]

28. Looks like a very real court of law to me...

But, yeah. They're anti-semitic and obsessed with Israel, blah blah blah blah ;)

Anyway, I think when it comes to international disputes over religious artifacts, it's UNESCO that deals with that stuff, and there's many many disputes going on that are likely never to be resolved...

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/europe/France-Returns-Egyptian-Art-79262862.html

[aranthus]

30. Have you ever studied what a court is and how it works?

Or what other dispute resolution institutions are, and how they work? See my response to azurnoir. The ICJ acts as an arbitrator. In civil law, an arbitrator renders a decision which the winning side can then take to a court and get the court to issue a judgment based on the arbitrator's decision. Only a judgment is enforceable, and only a court can issue one. Arbitrators can't issue enforceable orders. By the way, UNESCO isn't acting as a court either. It's acting as a mediator, which is different. No one ordered France to return artifacts to Egypt. That was an agreement that the two countries worked out.

Finally, there really is no comparison between the cases of Egyptian artifacts or the Greek claim to the Elgin Marbles, and the Jordanian claim to the scrolls. If anything, Jordan is in the same position as France or England.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. I know how courts work and to claim the ICJ isn't a real court is ludicrous...

And international law is very different than civil law, btw...

I'd hope that Israel and Jordan would be mature enough to work out the dispute between themselves, though when it comes to maturity, there's very little to be found in either government.

[aranthus]

32. International law isn't law.

Of course it's different than civil law. That's my point. It's also different than criminal law. That's also my point. Civil and crimainl law are much more alike to each other than they are to international law. They operate within the same set of concepts, rules, and procedures. The ICJ doesn't operate that way. So it isn't a court of law.

As for "working it out", what is there to work out? Do you give creedence to Jordan's claim?

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Of course it's law...

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that international law isn't law. Do you realise that international law is underpinned by national law and it's national law that's supposed to be the enforcement mechanism?

From reading the OP, there's a dispute between Jordan and Israel that they need to stop being immature twats over and get worked out. I think I've already stated I don't know enough about it to know who's right or wrong. Why? Do you have a problem with that?

[aranthus]

36. As between states it is not law.

International law (treaties mostly) becomes law only if it is adopted by a state as law. In the US, if the Senate ratifies a treaty, it becomes law. Does that make it law in Canada if Canada doesn't sign the treaty? Of course not. It's only law in the US. And then, it applies to persons other than the government. But between states, it can't be law. By definition, a state is obligated only to itself (that's what sovereignty is). A state can't be legally obligated to another state, because it has the absolute right to abrogate any treaty which would so obligate it. Whereas you as an individual don't have the right to abrogate the laws of your country. You're bound by them whether you want to be or not. And you can't possibly match the power of the state to compel your obedience. Even weak states aren't going to be forced to comply with international law unless they become a threat to some state or states that have more power.

So as between Israel and Jordan, neither has legal obligations to the other. The international system just doesn't operate according to legal norms. By getting caught up in them, people lose sight of what's really going on. For instance. Jordan did not all of a sudden make this claim because it figured out that it had one under international law, or because it thought it had any chance that Canada would honor the claim. It was a political move. It would be interesting to see why they did it. Was it to satisfy some faction within the Jordanian government, to build street cred or some other reason? That is something worth investigating. The so called legal ramifications of the Jordanian claim are just window dressing on the political maneuvering.

[aranthus]

29. No. It isn't.

The ICJ can only hear cases only if both sides agree. It acts as an arbitrator, not a court. A court has to follow the laws and rules of judicial procedure, and the rules of evidence and judicial decision making. An arbitrator doesn't. Jordan's claim to the scrolls would never stand up in a real court of law. It could win in the ICJ because that body can render what ever decision it wants. Even then, its decisions are unenforceable. They are advisory only. If one side agrees to go to the ICJ and then doesn't like the decision, it can back out, and then the parties are still left to their own devices.

A bigger problem is that the international system isn't a legal system. It's a political system. The questions the ICJ answers are largely political disputes between states.

Real courts of law don't render advisory decisions that can't be enforced, and they don't answer political questions.

I'm curious. Do you have any legal experience? Have you taken any classes in law or the court system?

[azurnoir]

34. No they are not advisory only as my link shows

some are some are not but it is nice to know that you do not believe in international law where Israel is concerned

[aranthus]

35. Gosh what a surprise.

You can't respond intelligently, so instead you falsely impugn my motives. Typical. And yes, all decisions of the ICJ are advissory. It has no power to enforce them, and that makes them advissory.

[azurnoir]

37. No surprise on my part at least not in being insulted

but your own arguments were all about Israels rights and the courts UN ect being biased against Israel, so it is a logical conclusion to draw that for you this is about protecting Israel and BTW as Vi pointed out the body involved here would be UNESCO

[azurnoir]

38. But here is what you actually fear

the scrolls were discovered in what was at the time of their discovery part of Jordan and discovered by a Bedouin they just happened to be in Jerusalem at the time of the 6 day war, so perhaps Jordan does have a legitimate claim to them and seeing as how UNESCO has heard similar cases in the past it should and may well hear this one too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls

all of the rest is blather and incredibly biased opinion on your own part my opinion is a bit more universal as these cases have more far reaching impact than just what Israel claims

[aranthus]

42. Not hardly.

Let's look at the true facts.

1. The caves where the scrolls were discovered are located on the Northwest shore of the Dead Sea.
2. They were discovered in the period 1946-47 by a local Bedouin. The initial discovery was not made in Jordanian territory, nor was it made by a Jordanian.
3. Jordan did not have possession of the area where the scrolls were found until 1948.
4. Some scrolls were found after Jordan conquered the area. However, the only reason Jordan had the territory was that it launched an unprovoked war on Israel in 1948, in order to prevent a Palestinian state (which it achieved), and to destroy the Israeli state (which it failed to do). Jordan's conquest was totally illegitimate, the territory was never rightfully Jordan's, and it therefore gained no rights to the scrolls which were found there.
6. Even if Jordan had a legitimate claim to the West Bank, it waived that claim in the peace agreement with Israel.

UNESCO does not hear cases. It only acts as a mediator. That means that it is a third party that helps two sides negotiate an agreement to a dispute. There's nothing to negotiate here. Jordan has no legitimate claim, they have no chance of recovering the scrolls, and they need to stop whining about it before they piss off the Israelis.

Finally, if all the rest was "blather" and biased opinion you could easily show that to be true. Of course, you haven't.

[azurnoir]

44. answers

1. The caves where the scrolls were discovered are located on the Northwest shore of the Dead Sea.

no argument there however the NW shore of the Dead Sea is located on the West Bank

2. They were discovered in the period 1946-47 by a local Bedouin. The initial discovery was not made in Jordanian territory, nor was it made by a Jordanian.

The first scroll was discovered during the winter of 1946-1947, however the scrolls were discovered in a series of 11 caves all on the NW shore of the Dead Sea in the time period spanning 10 years but your right when the intial discovery was made the cave was not part of Jordan it was part of the British Palestine however it was not now or then a part of Israel nor was the initial discovery made by Israeli's

3. Jordan did not have possession of the area where the scrolls were found until 1948.

True enough however that area was never part of what was to or eventually became Israel

4. Some scrolls were found after Jordan conquered the area. However, the only reason Jordan had the territory was that it launched an unprovoked war on Israel in 1948, in order to prevent a Palestinian state (which it achieved), and to destroy the Israeli state (which it failed to do). Jordan's conquest was totally illegitimate, the territory was never rightfully Jordan's, and it therefore gained no rights to the scrolls which were found there.

If Jordans "conquest" was illegitimate then so arguably IMO is Israel's and once again the same rules would apply

6. Even if Jordan had a legitimate claim to the West Bank, it waived that claim in the peace agreement with Israel.

not quite

Article 29: Dispute resolution

Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of the treaty should be resolved by negotiations. Any such disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations should be resolved by conciliation or submitted to arbitration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Jordan_peace_treaty

[aranthus]

45. Not really.

1. The caves where the scrolls were discovered are located on the Northwest shore of the Dead Sea.

no argument there however the NW shore of the Dead Sea is located on the West Bank

Which is irrelevant to whether Jordan has a claim.

2. They were discovered in the period 1946-47 by a local Bedouin. The initial discovery was not made in Jordanian territory, nor was it made by a Jordanian.

The first scroll was discovered during the winter of 1946-1947, however the scrolls were discovered in a series of 11 caves all on the NW shore of the Dead Sea in the time period spanning 10 years but your right when the initial discovery was made the cave was not part of Jordan it was part of the British Palestine however it was not now or then a part of Israel nor was the initial discovery made by Israeli's

Again, whether the territory was ever "intended" to be part of Israel is irrelevant to whether the Jordanians have a claim. The point is that it wasn't legitimately part of Jordan.

3. Jordan did not have possession of the area where the scrolls were found until 1948.

True enough however that area was never part of what was to or eventually became Israel

Still irrelevant. See below.

4. Some scrolls were found after Jordan conquered the area. However, the only reason Jordan had the territory was that it launched an unprovoked war on Israel in 1948, in order to prevent a Palestinian state (which it achieved), and to destroy the Israeli state (which it failed to do). Jordan's conquest was totally illegitimate, the territory was never rightfully Jordan's, and it therefore gained no rights to the scrolls which were found there.

If Jordan's "conquest" was illegitimate then so arguably IMO is Israel's and once again the same rules would apply

That may be your opinion, but that doesn't mean that it's valid. Do you have some reason for the opinion, or is it just part of the "it's Israel's fault" vibe? Here's why you're wrong. Jordan's conquest resulted from an unprovoked act of aggression (see my earlier posts in this thread). It's the unprovoked act of aggression that makes the conquest illegitimate, not the mere fact of conquest. Israel's conquest of the territory occurred in response to yet another unprovoked Jordanian attack. Territory taken in a war started by the other side is fair game. That's also why it's irrelevant that the West Bank was included in the Arab Palestinian state by the Partition Resolution. When the Palestinian Arabs rejected the compromise and started the war to take all of Palestine for themselves, they put the entire territory up for grabs. They can't now go back and claim that the West Bank is theirs because of the Partition Resolution because they rejected the partition in the first place. In any event, even if the Palestinians have a claim, the Jordanians certainly don't.

6. Even if Jordan had a legitimate claim to the West Bank, it waived that claim in the peace agreement with Israel.

not quite

Article 29: Dispute resolution

Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of the treaty should be resolved by negotiations. Any such disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations should be resolved by conciliation or submitted to arbitration.

Except that the Jordanians don't have the right to raise claims the are flatly contradicted by the treaty and now say that it's a dispute that should be resolved according to the treaty. They can't have it both ways.

[azurnoir]

46. All of that is well and but also only your own opinion

you have made claim after claim and as of yet not posted one thing to back any of them up, are we simply to take your word for it?
on the other hand I have posted most recently an article from the actual treaty to which you make the ridiculous assertion

"Except that the Jordanians don't have the right to raise claims the are flatly contradicted by the treaty and now say that it's a dispute that should be resolved according to the treaty. They can't have it both ways."

can you give me an actual article from the treaty that states this? The treaty makes allowances for future disputes which you claim Jordan has no right to make

also I would suggest you look into just how the scrolls wound up in East Jerusalem in the first place because it would seem that an Israeli archeologist

The Dead Sea Scrolls went up for sale eventually, in an advertisement in the June 1, 1954 Wall Street Journal.

On July 1, the scrolls, after delicate negotiations and accompanied by three people including the Metropolitan, arrived at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. They were purchased by Prof. Mazar and the son of Prof. Sukenik, Yigael Yadin, for US$250,000 and brought back to East Jerusalem, where they were on display at the Palestine Archaeological Museum then, after the Six-Day War, to West Jerusalem at the Shrine of the Book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls

just a side bar but an interesting one

[aranthus]

47. I have backed up my opinon

with facts and logical argument. But let's go through it in detail. First, let's look at the facts on which I'm relying. I don't think I need to provide evidence for every fact with which you agree, so I'll just point those out.

1. The caves where the scrolls were found are located at the northwest corner of the Dead Sea. You agree with this.

2. The initial discovery of the scrolls was not made on Jordanian territory, nor was it made by a Jordanian. You agree with this as well.

3. Some of the scrolls were discoverd after Jordan conquered the territory. You agree with this as well.

4. Jordan conquered the West Bank in a war of aggression against Israel and Palestine. I don't know if you disagree with this, but it's such a well known and well documented fact, that I don't think the disagreement is reasonable. It's documented in several books including "War and Peace in the Middle East" by Avi Schlaim, p. 22, and "Elusive Victory" by Trevor DuPuy. Did the Jews attack Jordan before Jordan attacked Israel? No. Did Jordan attack Israel in the best interest of the Palestinians? No. If they had, then they would have given the West Bank for a Palestinian state instead of annexing it for themselves.

5. Israel conquered the West Bank after Jordan attacked Israel first. Again, this is a well documented fact. The Jordanian airforce bombed Israel around noon on June 5, 1967, before the Israelis attacked Jordan. Elusive Victory, p. 247. They also began to shell Israel and move their forces to attack Israeli Jerusalem. Id. at 256.

6. Jordan waived its claim to the West Bank. Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the Jordanian/Israel peace treaty reads: "The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein." Annex I(a) shows the boundary as the Jordan River Dead Sea Rift. Paragraph 3 of Article 3 says: "The parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them." So Jordan recognizes that as between Jordan and Israel, the West Bank is Israel. That's giving up Jordan's claim to the West Bank. The treaty provision that you have cited just sets forth the mechanism to decide dissputes. It doesn't say that any dispute is legitimate. Sure, Jordan can claim whatever it wants, but that doesn't mean that its claim is valid. According to the treaty Jordan has given up its claim to the West Bank, and therefore, the scrolls.

Based on the above, I don't think that Jordan has a claim to the scrolls. If it doesn't, then under a reasonable system of law, it has no right to seek the assistance of law in getting the scrolls back or interfering with Israel's possession of the scrolls. That opinion is based on over 23 years practicing law. for example, a California court can not issue a preliminary injunction unless it appears that the plaitniff ahs a reasonable probability of winning the case. Teachers Ins. v. Furlotti (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1487. Jordan was demanding that Canada grant it a preliminary injuction holding on to the scrolls. It didn't have the right to do that because it has no legitimate claim to them.

[azurnoir]

48. You've backed up your opinion with your opinion

and that is all

[aranthus]

49. Can you specify what you're talking about?

What opinion? Do you mean the one where I don't believe that Jordan has a claim based on naked conquest? Do you actually disagree with that opinion? If it's another opinoin of mine, please tell me which one. Thanks.

[azurnoir]

50. Naked conquest lol

how did the scrolls come to be on what was then Jordanian soil? As my link showed they were brought there by an Israeli, it was Israel who removed from that location after its conquest of East Jerusalem

eta I thought the page had edited out this fact as there have been more than 50 edits in the last couple of days however here is what is said

The Dead Sea Scrolls went up for sale eventually, in an advertisement in the June 1, 1954 Wall Street Journal.

On July 1, the scrolls, after delicate negotiations and accompanied by three people including the Metropolitan, arrived at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. They were purchased by Prof. Mazar and the son of Prof. Sukenik, Yigael Yadin, for US$250,000 and brought back to East Jerusalem, where they were on display at the Palestine Archaeological Museum then, after the Six-Day War, to West Jerusalem at the Shrine of the Book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls

the entry is under discovery

[aranthus]

51. Why do you think Jordan had East Jerusalem?

Of course it's a naked conquest.

[azurnoir]

52. Was East Jerusalem part of the "Jewish" area in he partition?

one could say because Israel failed to conquer it in 1948, that being said it is my contention that due to article #29 of the treaty which allows for disputes and this is undoubtedly a dispute it should be brought to arbitration
any "after the fact" treaties about land really have no application here my point was that the scrolls were not found on Israeli soil either and IMO the fact that the scrolls were placed in a museum on Jordanian soil in 1954 by an Israeli makes Jordan's claim a bit stronger than I thought, in fact I was not sure of who has the claim to them and my point all along has been let it be decided through arbitration or courts without predicting the outcome of that case which really I still can not due except for this
if it does come to arbitration and Jordan wins the scrolls are in Israeli possession and Israel will keep it that way, no matter what is decided

[shira]

40. you're right it isn't....check out the Hague ruling on the separation barrier in 2004

The only reference to "terror" throughout their ruling (which is several pages long) is when they quote Israel, as if terror played no role in the fence's construction.

It's a Kangaroo court - a complete farce.

[azurnoir]

41. That is listed under it's advisory cases quite plainly

in my link

[aranthus]

43. They're all advisory.

ICJ cases are divided into those that seek a ruling in disputed cases, and those where a UN organization seeks an opinion. However, all decisions of the ICJ are advisory because there is no legal means of enforcing them.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. They wouldn't look foolish...

And seriously, who gives a shit about antagonising the extreme RW Israeli govt? It's not like they're the US or China or a country with any power.

I don't know what precedents there are for situations like this or what international law states about these sorts of disputes. I'd be interested in reading more about it before coming to any conclusions about it...

[Jim Sagle]

39. And sixth, Canada is prosemitic.

[Mosby]

11. Canada will not seize Dead Sea Scrolls

TORONTO, Jan. 4 (UPI) -- The Canadian government said it will not seize the Dead Sea scrolls on display in Toronto despite a request from the Jordanian government.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corp. said the Canadian government refused Jordan's request to seize the historical scrolls that were part of a display at Toronto's Royal Ontario Museum that concluded Sunday.

The Canadian government said in a statement that "differences regarding ownership of the Dead Sea scrolls should be addressed by Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority. It would not be appropriate for Canada to intervene as a third party."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2010/01/04/Canada-will-not-seize-Dead-Sea-Scrolls/UPI-57411262623821/

[azurnoir]

12. Yes Canada does have a rightwing PM doesn't it?

one that did not make much fuss about his American partner George W Bush kidnapping and torturing one of his citizens who was guilty of nothing save being Arab so really this is no surprise

[Mudoria]

53. I believe the Liberal party in Canada was in power till 2006...

I don't believe they said anything either....

[aranthus]

15. Of course they wouldn't.

I know lots of Canadians. On the whole, they aren't morons.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. Sensible Approach

Its not like they are in danger of destruction or disappearing into private hands.