Thread by @S_R_Anders

This op-ed by Secretary of State Pompeo and the U.S. Ambassador to Israel is complete nonsense, legal and otherwise.

wsj.com/articles/inter…

First, states do not "sign on" to U.N. Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs). UNSCRs are not treaties. Where binding, their terms apply to all U.N. member states by virtue of the U.N. Charter, regardless of whether they've consented to them specifically.

Second, the authors misattribute "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" to the preamble of UNSCR 242. In fact, the preamble of UNSCR 242 is simply "[e]mphasizing" this well-established principle, which is rooted in Art. 2(4) of the U.N. Charter.

For this reason, their assertion that UNSCR 242 made this principle contingent on participation in negotiations is false. The prohibition on armed conquest predated and is superior to UNSCR 242 and can't be conditioned by it.

In addition, their suggestion that Syria has never engaged in negotiations with Israel over their disputed borders (or the Golan Heights) is simply false.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Hei…

Third, the authors confuse what Israeli actions are at issue in UNSCRs 242 and 338. Both solely address the military occupation of the Golan Heights, which is permitted by international law within certain conditions. Neither deals with the annexation of territory.

In fact, when Israel did try to annex the Golan Heights in 1981, the UNSCR spoke quite clearly and explicitly in opposition, in UNSCR 497.

Notably, Pompeo and Friedman never address this resolution.

unscr.com/en/resolutions…

Hence, even if one accepted Pompeo and Friedman's arguments, they would have no bearing on the actual Trump administration policy change that lies at the root of the recent controversy: recognition of the annexation, not simply occupation, of the Golan Heights by Israel.

For some more context on this decision, check out my article for @lawfareblog from a few weeks back!
lawfareblog.com/recognizing-is…