nuttie
02-23-2004, 01:24 AM
Today's editorial in the Daily Telegraph, UK:
Positive side of the fence
(Filed: 23/02/2004)
Israel is in the dock again. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is investigating the legality of the security fence being raised on the West Bank. Even a number of Israel's traditional friends are alarmed by the policy. Some worry that the fence will harm the Palestinian economy, cutting off workers from their factories and farms. Others see it as an attempt to extend Israel's border beyond its pre-1967 limit and feel that such walls have no place in the modern world.
These are all-important objections and they deserve to be answered separately. First, though, it is worth asking why this question should have come before the Hague judges at all. The ICJ is not a supreme court; it is an arbitration panel. It provides a mechanism whereby two states can, by mutual agreement, refer a dispute to third-party settlement. By sending this case to the Hague, the UN is striking at the principle of territorial jurisdiction that ultimately underpins diplomatic relations. That principle is already threatened by the European courts at Strasbourg and Luxembourg, and by the refusal of Spanish and Belgian judges to recognise national sovereignty. We are slowly returning to the pre-modern idea that law-makers need not be accountable to the people, but rather to abstract ideals.
Faced with a choice between international disapprobation and more Israeli deaths, Mr Sharon has understandably opted for the former. He believes that the fence would have prevented yesterday's atrocity in Jerusalem; and he is almost certainly right. Gaza is already cordoned off, and no Palestinian terrorists have penetrated the barrier in the past three years (although two British Muslims were able to do so on the strength of their UK passports).
Israel says the geography of the fence has chiefly been dictated by security considerations, notably the need to deprive snipers of a line of fire, but there are also political considerations such as the need to protect settlers and for Israel to maintain the unity of Jerusalem. Part of the West Bank has indeed been cut off, but Yasser Arafat must bear much of the responsibility for this: the Israelis are seeking to contain Palestinian terrorism because he has failed to do so. In any case, it is curious that those who support Palestinian statehood should at the same time persist in seeing the West Bank as an appendage of Israel. A two-state solution, after all, necessarily implies a secure border between the two states. Even in the relative safety of the United Kingdom, we are seeking to bring our frontiers under control. Surely Israel, which has been the target of thousands of terrorist attacks during the intifada, has the same right.
For the original, LINK HERE (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/02/23/dl2302.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/02/23/ixopinion.html)
Positive side of the fence
(Filed: 23/02/2004)
Israel is in the dock again. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is investigating the legality of the security fence being raised on the West Bank. Even a number of Israel's traditional friends are alarmed by the policy. Some worry that the fence will harm the Palestinian economy, cutting off workers from their factories and farms. Others see it as an attempt to extend Israel's border beyond its pre-1967 limit and feel that such walls have no place in the modern world.
These are all-important objections and they deserve to be answered separately. First, though, it is worth asking why this question should have come before the Hague judges at all. The ICJ is not a supreme court; it is an arbitration panel. It provides a mechanism whereby two states can, by mutual agreement, refer a dispute to third-party settlement. By sending this case to the Hague, the UN is striking at the principle of territorial jurisdiction that ultimately underpins diplomatic relations. That principle is already threatened by the European courts at Strasbourg and Luxembourg, and by the refusal of Spanish and Belgian judges to recognise national sovereignty. We are slowly returning to the pre-modern idea that law-makers need not be accountable to the people, but rather to abstract ideals.
Faced with a choice between international disapprobation and more Israeli deaths, Mr Sharon has understandably opted for the former. He believes that the fence would have prevented yesterday's atrocity in Jerusalem; and he is almost certainly right. Gaza is already cordoned off, and no Palestinian terrorists have penetrated the barrier in the past three years (although two British Muslims were able to do so on the strength of their UK passports).
Israel says the geography of the fence has chiefly been dictated by security considerations, notably the need to deprive snipers of a line of fire, but there are also political considerations such as the need to protect settlers and for Israel to maintain the unity of Jerusalem. Part of the West Bank has indeed been cut off, but Yasser Arafat must bear much of the responsibility for this: the Israelis are seeking to contain Palestinian terrorism because he has failed to do so. In any case, it is curious that those who support Palestinian statehood should at the same time persist in seeing the West Bank as an appendage of Israel. A two-state solution, after all, necessarily implies a secure border between the two states. Even in the relative safety of the United Kingdom, we are seeking to bring our frontiers under control. Surely Israel, which has been the target of thousands of terrorist attacks during the intifada, has the same right.
For the original, LINK HERE (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/02/23/dl2302.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/02/23/ixopinion.html)