Ha'aretz: International Court of Justice will rule Israel must tear down fence

[ibrodsky]

According to Ha'aretz, the International Court of "Justice" will rule tomorrow that Israel must tear down the security fence that has saved so many lives over the past several months. It seems the fence impedes the Palestinians from plying their trade.

Court: fence route not necessary to attain security aims

By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent

The International Court of Justice will rule on Friday that the separation fence contravenes international law, that it must be dismantled, and that compensation must be paid to the Palestinian owners of property confiscated for its construction, according to documents obtained by Haaretz.

The decision will be officially made public at 4 P.M. Friday under the heading, "Legal implications of the construction of the barrier in Palestinian occupied territory."

The court has ruled that on the basis of the material available to it, "[it] is not convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was necessary to attain its security objectives." Fourteen votes favored the decision and the sole opponent was the American Judge, Thomas Buerghenthal.

It then says: "The wall, along the route chosen, and its associated regime, gravely infringe a number of rights of Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel, and the infringements resulting from that route cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order."

"The construction of such a wall accordingly constitutes breaches by Israel of its various obligations under the applicable international humanitarian law and human rights instruments."

In support of Judge Buergenthal's opposition, the Dutch Judge, Pieter Kooijmans, rejected the call for all countries to act against the project.

The Hague court ruled that it had jurisdiction to render an opinion on the issue of the fence. The justices conducted a lengthy analysis of the legal situation and of the history of the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Parts of the fence constructed within the Green Line were not included in the court's decision.

Most of the justices believed that in building the fence, Israel violated international humanitarian law, by infringing on Palestinians' freedom of movement, freedom to seek employment, education and health. Israel violated international treaties it had signed which deal with these topics, the ruling states.

The International Court in the Dutch capital, The Hague, was asked to deliberate on the issue of the security fence by a United Nations General Assembly resolution of last December, and its decision will be presented to the world body.

Prior to the release of the decision, Israeli sources said they were unsure of the court's ruling. However, European sources said that on the basis of information available to them, the legal opinion would be "negative and critical" of Israel.

PA Chairman Yasser Arafat on Thursday said he had full confidence in the International Court. "I believe the court in the Hague is capable of stopping the construction of the fence that damages our people," he said in Ramallah.

For its part, the Defense Ministry has carried out changes on the official map delineating the route of the fence according to the ruling of the High Court of Justice. The changes run along the section of the fence northwest of Jerusalem, and in parts near Qalqilya, Modi'in and southeast of Jerusalem near Gush Etzion.

According to the map made public by the Ministry of Defense, there are many changes from the original route of the fence, and all are meant to alleviate the pressure on the Palestinian population in those areas.

However, the new map also shows the intention to build the fence around the Ariel salient, linking the largest settlement in the West Bank, with Karnei Shomron and Immanuel, to the Green Line.

Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization have prepared their public relations and diplomatic offensives in anticipation of the decision. The PLO representative in the United Nations, Nasser al-Qidwa, and diplomats from Arab countries at the UN, plan to request an emergency session of the General Assembly where the results of the court's decision will be presented.

It is expected that the Palestinians will seek operative application of the court's conclusions, in case Israel refuses to adopt the recommendations of the International Court...



http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/449395.html

[Mediocrates]

So? They've already determined that bombs don't kill people.

Meaning...therefore, what? Why should anyone be concerned with what the ICJ says - what enforcement does it have?

[rhodescholar]

So? They've already determined that bombs don't kill people.

Meaning...therefore, what? Why should anyone be concerned with what the ICJ says - what enforcement does it have?

None, and thank g-d the US told Europe to go f--- itself with respect to this abomination charading as a legal "court."

While these sons of bitc-hes sit in their safe havens in northern europe - lives, yes jewish lives - are being saved EVERY DAY because of it. Even the animal filth terrorists have stated that it is making their infiltration attempts extremely difficult if not impossible. A rational human being WITHOUT AN AGENDA would accept that as more than enough to inconvenience some arabs who started the war in the first place.

Only minorities like the jews of israel and groups like the Kurds have to tolerate this kind of utter b-llsh-t. I would PAY to see these s suicide bombed every day, and see how arrogant these bastards are, and what measures THEY begin implementing under that type of terrorism.

Each of the 13 judges should DIE for that piece of useful propaganda drivel that the arabs will undoubtedly use their decision for.

[RichardP]

Well said, Rhodescholar, I'd pay to see these idiots annihilated, too. There time will come, perhaps not soon enough for me; however, I hope I’m around to witness it. I’d be truly p***ed, if I was denied that chance.

[golani]

Well said, Rhodescholar, I'd pay to see these idiots annihilated, too. There time will come, perhaps not soon enough for me; however, I hope I’m around to witness it. I’d be truly p***ed, if I was denied that chance.

The current composition of the Court is as follows:

President: Shi Jiuyong (China)

Vice President: Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar)

Gilbert Guillaume (France)
Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone)
Vladlen S. Vereshchetin (Russian Federation)
Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom)
Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren (Venezuela)
Pieter H. Kooijmans (Netherlands)
Francisco Rezek (Brazil)
Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan)
Thomas Buergenthal (United States)
Nabil Elaraby (Egypt)
Hisashi Owada (Japan)
Bruno Simma (Germany)
Peter Tomka (Slovakia)

With such a panel,how could the verdict be different???
:mad:

[RichardP]

It makes me sick, Golani, what else can we expect? I'm going to be so ****ed-off tomorrow (today) when these jerks spout their drivel. :mad:
Thanks for the list... it reads like a Rogues Gallery.

[golani]

It makes me sick, Golani, what else can we expect? I'm going to be so ****ed-off tomorrow (today) when these jerks spout their drivel. :mad:
Thanks for the list... it reads like a Rogues Gallery.

Richard, what about security issue for Jews in Toronto??

Shabat Shalom

golani

[golani]

It makes me sick, Golani, what else can we expect? I'm going to be so ****ed-off tomorrow (today) when these jerks spout their drivel. :mad:
Thanks for the list... it reads like a Rogues Gallery.

Let us spit on them Richard

Why wasThat so called "court of justice" not convened about Darfour issue???

[David_in_NYC]

So? They've already determined that bombs don't kill people.

Meaning...therefore, what? Why should anyone be concerned with what the ICJ says - what enforcement does it have?
Exactly... they made their decision, now let's see them try to enforce it. From whence does this Court get its jurisdiction over Israel?

[ibrodsky]

So? They've already determined that bombs don't kill people.

Meaning...therefore, what? Why should anyone be concerned with what the ICJ says - what enforcement does it have?

Because this is another propaganda victory for the Islamist mass murderers and their Israel-hating allies. It's another declaration of "illegality" they can pull out of their pockets and wave around. It's another attempt to delegitimize Israel.

In fact, I think you are underestimating the impact. If it was a court in totalitarian Saudi Arabia, few non-Mulsims would pay any attention. But this is a ruling by a predominantly Western court in Europe--a court that is part of the broader movement for international government that is so dear to many liberals.

There are many people in this world who believe what the media and other authorities tell them--until told otherwise by what they recognize as a higher authority. Therefore, we shouldn't underestimate the power of the ICJ to poison the minds of tens of millions of gullible people.

[Mediocrates]

But as opposed to what? The thousands of proclamations, condemnations, resolutions, crticisms, diatribes, threats and screeds levelled against Israel from the UN? They should simply declare that the ICJ is merely the 'legal' arm of the IN (-Islamic Nations, aka "U"N) and be done with it. It's not by accident that this is for all practical purposes the ONLY ruling the ICJ has ever arrived it, is it?

In fact in a very dark way I see this as a plus - as the ICJ becomes just another forum for antizionism antisemitism and disengages from any wider issues and refuses to address any of the so called 'justice' issues in its own charter it will lose whatver legitimacy it tried to have. It will become meaningless.

[ibrodsky]

Please remember that a key foreign policy plank for one of the two major political parties in the U.S. is closer cooperation with the UN and other int'l bodies.

Sure, this ruling only tends to discredit the ICJ in the minds of most Israel supporters. But many other people will assume the ICJ ruled fairly that the fence goes beyond security and punishes the poor Palestinian mass murderers. Heck, the Israeli high court already ruled against part of the route, and many will assume that court is hopelessly biased in Israel's favor.

I don't see anything good coming from this unless an effective counter-campaign is waged--showing the world that the hypocritical ICJ has ignored fences in other countries including in Europe and the Arab Middle East. Plus, it needs to be shown that the ICJ is undermining the right of all nations to defend their people against war crimes.

[ibrodsky]

Live streaming, right now, of ICJ proceedings:

http://livestream.xs4all.nl/icjenhigh.asx

[Mediocrates]

But isn't it silly to worry to about getting a fair hearing or what to do whem (OMG!) they decide something against Israel? Isn't it patently clear that the ICJ had already decided what it would decide on the day it decided to rule on the issue at all? Isn't it patently clear that it even ignores the Israeli Courts that agree with its findings anyway? What other outcome was anyone expecting?

-No. What we are witnessing is a phenomena where so called NGO's or transnational bodies or international courts are created expressedly to prosecute a war against the Jews. That is, the ICJ and the UN really serve no other purpose. And we will continue to see the creation of more and more international bodies like the ICJ and quasi-formal structures which exist to do this. It's more or less the 21st Century equivalent of the Nuremberg Race "Laws". First you declare a new set of Jew-killing laws, then you proclaim that Jews are 'illegal' by not agreeing to be killed by them. Clearly if though some freak accident the ICJ decided in favor of Israel's safety the hue and cry would errupt to replace the court. The Eurotrash fascists here would be mute or hint of some dark Jewish plot or mysterious Bush-from-on-high conspiracy and immediately you'd see an attempt to retrofit a world court-like body directly into the UN.

I don't know how you demonstrate anything to committed nazi butchers and their ilk. They can't be shamed or intimidated no matter how high the pile of corpses you show them standing on. No one really cares all that much about Sudan and frankly most people would not really believe it if they saw it with their own eyes. Most people don't understand the nature of UN's complicity in Rwanda or the complexities of the oil for food bribery scandal. Most people are indifferent to UN aparachiks cheating and skimming and watching the bodies burn. I suppose what Israel can do is bombard the ICJ with an unending submission of claims for trials against all the Palestinian, Arab, muslim, Iranian countries and terrorist orgs for crimes against humanity. As each one is shot down by the court, submit another dozen. Overload the process. Sue the court itself, in effect.

[Ahava]

I agree with you all the ICJ will discredit itself completely when it rules against the fence, which it probably will. The international organisations such as EU, European Commission, UN are proving time and again what worthless piece of scum they are.

Rhodescholar and RichardP, yes they should experience it themselves first before judging others.
And oh golani let me spit on them aswell! This is so outrageous I'd want to knock them all out (if only I was a guy and stronger :o ).
I'm afraid though I have to agree with ibrodsky that it can have a pretty big impact, because indeed, for me the ICJ discredits itself, but for the rest it discredits Israel big time. But of course Israel should ignore this ruling completely.
Am Yisrael Chai!

[Mil]

They and their court can go f*** themselves. The decision is all political with no real balance of opinion attached to their views. If there would be a balance of opinion then the vote would at least be more evenly broken. Are there any lawyers here?

[tandem]

World Court Rules Israel's Barrier Illegal

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The World Court will say on Friday that Israel's West Bank barrier should be torn down as it is illegal and has imposed hardship on thousands of Palestinians, a leaked copy of its ruling showed.

As the president of the International Court of Justice in The Hague began a reading of the ruling that was expected to last two hours or more, his initial comments were in line with a text leaked to Reuters in Jerusalem earlier in the day.

A top adviser to President Yasser Arafat said Palestinians would seek U.N. sanctions against Israel: "As of today Israel should be viewed as an outlaw state," Nabil Abu Rdainah said.

Israel has said it will disregard the court's non-binding advisory decision, calling its barrier a vital security bulwark against infiltrations by Palestinian suicide bombers.

Palestinians brand the barrier a precursor to annexation of land Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East war and where they seek a viable state under a U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan.

The court acknowledged Israel's duty to protect its citizens but said it must do so within the law and should compensate Palestinians for homes and land lost or damaged by the building of the 100-meter (yard) wide strip of walls, ditches and fences.

Only American judge Thomas Buergenthal dissented from his 14 international colleagues' opinion, the leaked document showed.

The leaked document said the court would declare fences and walls infringed the rights of Palestinians trapped by twists and turns in the barrier that take it around Jewish settlements.

"The construction of the wall along the route chosen and its associated regime are contrary to international law," it said.

"The court is not convinced that the construction of the wall along the route chosen was the only means to safeguard the interests of Israel against the peril it invoked as justification."

The leaked text urged follow-up action by the U.N. General Assembly and U.N. Security Council, which could heighten Israeli concern about a move to impose sanctions on the Jewish state.

"The court is of the view that the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring an end to the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall," the leaked text said.

"The next step is to approach the U.N. General Assembly and Security Council to adopt resolutions that will isolate and punish Israel," Abu Rdainah said.

Palestinians tend to enjoy considerable support at the United Nations. But Israel looks to the U.S. veto in the Security Council to block any bid to punish it in the way that apartheid South Africa was after the World Court ruled its occupation of South West Africa, now Namibia, illegal in 1971.

The World Court is the top U.N. legal body and is formally known as the International Court of Justice.

Israeli and Palestinian officials declined comment before the ruling was announced. Arafat had said on Thursday: "We put tremendous faith in this court."

The General Assembly requested an opinion in December and the Hague court held hearings in February overshadowed by public lobbying and demonstrations from both sides.

The ruling was expected to be one of the most closely monitored in the 58-year history of the World Court and attested to paralysis in Middle East peacemaking after years of violence.

Israeli officials say the barrier, about a third of whose planned more than 600-km (370-mile) length has been built since 2002, has already pre-empted dozens of suicide bomb attacks. Such bombers have killed hundreds of Israelis.

"We will abide by the ruling of our own High Court and not the panel in The Hague with judges from the European Union who are not suspected of being particularly disposed toward Israel," Justice Minister Yosef Lapid told Israeli Army Radio Friday.

Five of the 15 judges are from the European Union.

Last week Israel's top court ordered one segment of the barrier re-routed to avoid cutting off Palestinian villagers from farms, jobs, public services and cities, but ruled Israel had a right to build it in the West Bank on security grounds.

European Commission spokesman Jean-Christophe Filori said the EU had long felt the barrier's route did not adhere to the 1949 armistice line between Israel and the West Bank and that it could hinder peaceful solutions to the conflict.

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

[Ahava]

Idea! Shall I go bomb the International court Building? Only half an hour by train. :)

[golani]

This high court has never been convened for scores of human rights violations in other countries
Similar security fences have been erected in so many countries without any reaction of the international community
When will Israel end to play Mr nice guys with these NGO,lawyers,journalists and all these islamofascist and leftist terrorists???

[golani]

European Commission spokesman Jean-Christophe Filori said the EU had long felt
the barrier's route did not adhere to the 1949 armistice line between Israel and
the West Bank and that it could hinder peaceful solutions to the conflict


So,armistice line does not mean state borders...
Why is Israel prohibited from defending herself???

[Ahava]

European Commission spokesman Jean-Christophe Filori said the EU had long felt
the barrier's route did not adhere to the 1949 armistice line between Israel and
the West Bank and that it could hinder peaceful solutions to the conflict


Oh but fortunately terrorism does not hinder a peaceful solution.


They and their court can go f*** themselves.

I second that.
:mad:

[ibrodsky]

But isn't it silly to worry to about getting a fair hearing or what to do whem (OMG!) they decide something against Israel? Isn't it patently clear that the ICJ had already decided what it would decide on the day it decided to rule on the issue at all? Isn't it patently clear that it even ignores the Israeli Courts that agree with its findings anyway? What other outcome was anyone expecting?

...

I don't know how you demonstrate anything to committed nazi butchers and their ilk. They can't be shamed or intimidated no matter how high the pile of corpses you show them standing on. No one really cares all that much about Sudan and frankly most people would not really believe it if they saw it with their own eyes. Most people don't understand the nature of UN's complicity in Rwanda or the complexities of the oil for food bribery scandal. Most people are indifferent to UN aparachiks cheating and skimming and watching the bodies burn. I suppose what Israel can do is bombard the ICJ with an unending submission of claims for trials against all the Palestinian, Arab, muslim, Iranian countries and terrorist orgs for crimes against humanity. As each one is shot down by the court, submit another dozen. Overload the process. Sue the court itself, in effect.

Please read my posts again. I never suggested Israel should try to convince the ICJ and its accomplices.

My point is that there are many people who will be swayed by the argument "The ICJ found that Israel's security fence was built as a land grab and to oppress the poor Palestinians and is, therefore, illegal."

I'm saying that anti-Israel propaganda has negative impact. I'm saying that Israel and her supporters need to counter this slander. Personally, I'd like to see the U.S. denounce the UN, withdraw funding, and order the UN headquarters temporarily closed until the institution reforms itself.

Your reaction--that the ICJ ruling is meaningless and may even help--is absurd. The ICJ ruling is another attack on Israel. It will embolden the Arab barbarians. It will encourage Israel's lunatic Left. It could lead to increased terrorism and will put more pressure on the U.S. to show that it is not "biased" in Israel's favor.

Of course Israel should reject the ruling. But if its reaction is limited to that, it will be another victory for Palestinian barbarians. Really, this is like the "Zionism is racism" UN resolution. Since the UN was forced to rescind that resolution, this ruling takes its place providing ammunition to Islamo-fascists and their allies that Israel is a "rogue state."

[ibrodsky]

By the way, one of the arguments just presented by the ICJ goes like this:

Israel claims it needs "the wall" (the Chinese judge refers to the fence exclusively as "the wall") to defend itself against attacks. But that right only applies to the requirements of defense vis-a-vis another state entity.

So, in effect the ICJ is saying that the PA has nothing to do with terrorism and that Israel has no right to protect her citizens from attacks originating in PA-controlled territory.

Never mind the evidence--full-steam ahead in the Muslim-EU war to destroy Israel.

[Mediocrates]

Oh perhaps there are people at this point who would be swayed by this argument. I tend to think not and instead the usual suspects will simply point to it and prattle their usual childish noises about international law.

And really, I'm going to the point that if a sufficient number of Israelis on the lunatic left or otherwise, really want to commit collective suicide, then so be it.

[RichardP]

The outcome is no surprise; after all we are dealing with, as Ibrodsky aptly put it, the Muslim EU. There is no point reiterating that, which has already been stated. I am so damn disgusted and sickened by this conclusion by the ICJ; which is nothing more or less, a body of anti-Semitic/Israel wankers.

[minusthejihad]

Just another day.

[Olivier]

The international organisations such as EU, European Commission, UN are proving time and again what worthless piece of scum they are.

(...)

Am Yisrael Chai!
Which means something like "the People of Israel lives"...

does the People of Israel really live by yelling "international organisations are all scum"?


What you say is no good for israel, Ahava.
Maybe you should not associate the name of Israel with this kind of behavior.

[Ahava]

How ironic is it that this huge instance of injustice happens at the hands of the International Court of Justice? Does nothing have a true meaning anymore?


By the way, one of the arguments just presented by the ICJ goes like this:

Israel claims it needs "the wall" (the Chinese judge refers to the fence exclusively as "the wall") to defend itself against attacks. But that right only applies to the requirements of defense vis-a-vis another state entity.

Another state entity, and that's exactly the reason this entire process was illegitimate from the start. The ICJ did not have the jurisdiction to handle this case.

There are enough lawyers who have been perfectly clear on it, like Ruth Lapidoth and I think the ICJ has no leg to stand on. How can this happen???

A proper explanation:
http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief3-18.htm

The ICJ made itself a joke today.
To all you ICJ judges, indicters, people who have "applauded" this decision and urge for UN measures against Israel and other accomplices: you can go f*** yourself, or better, die.

[Olivier]

The current composition of the Court is as follows:

President: Shi Jiuyong (China)

Vice President: Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar)

Gilbert Guillaume (France)
Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone)
Vladlen S. Vereshchetin (Russian Federation)
Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom)
Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren (Venezuela)
Pieter H. Kooijmans (Netherlands)
Francisco Rezek (Brazil)
Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan)
Thomas Buergenthal (United States)
Nabil Elaraby (Egypt)
Hisashi Owada (Japan)
Bruno Simma (Germany)
Peter Tomka (Slovakia)

With such a panel,how could the verdict be different?And note the decision were mostly taken unanimously (but the US judge).

Key elements of the court's opinion

Opinions issued Friday by the 15-member panel of judges at the International Court of Justice, or world court.
.
The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated regime, are contrary to international law. (14 votes to 1)
.
Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated. (14 votes to 1)
.
All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction. (13 votes to 2)
.
The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated regime. (14 votes to 1)
http://www.iht.com/articles/528699.html

[minusthejihad]

Which means something like "the People of Israel lives"...

does the People of Israel really live by yelling "international organisations are all scum"?


What you say is no good for israel, Ahava.
Maybe you should not associate the name of Israel with this kind of behavior.

I just added Ollie on my "Go F Yourself List".

[Ahava]

Which means something like "the People of Israel lives"...

does the People of Israel really live by yelling "international organisations are all scum"?


What you say is no good for israel, Ahava.
Maybe you should not associate the name of Israel with this kind of behavior.

Explain yourself. Or make me see why those organisations are NOT scum when it comes to Israel. Do you think I thought they were scum when I was lying in my cradle? Hell no! Even more so, not so long ago I did not have a strong opinion about them, but I had nothing against them for sure. I thought they were objective, helpful organisations in international matters. It's merely through experiencing the injustices that happened that I changed my mind. No indoctrination, no short-sightedness and no preconceptions.

Oh and as for "Am Yisrael Chai", when we tear down the 'wall', there are many Jews who won't live much longer, that's for sure.

[RichardP]

Well said, Ahava, straight from the core; I, too, am so p***ed-off… especially knowing the weights and measures of justice are tilted against the State of Israel and her citizens.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hireview/content.php?type=article&issue=spring04/&name=davis

HIR Book Review

Illegal Construction: a Legal Deconstruction

By Max Davis

Two years ago, Nagi Musah Farage and Muhamad Musah Farage, Arab brothers owning land in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Beit Hanina, found that Khaled El Natshe, an Arab builder, had begun construction on property belonging to their father’s estate. El Natshe responded to requests that he cease building on the land by threatening the brothers’ lives. Eventually, the Farages wrote to the Jerusalem municipality for aid in halting the illicit construction. The Farages’s May 2001 letter to the Jerusalem municipality joined requests by other Arab landowners, such as the Maronite Church and the Sheikh of the Jerusalem Uzbeke community, who have turned to the Jerusalem government for aid in halting illicit, intrusive construction by fellow Arabs. Beyond defiling personal land ownership rights, illegal construction in Jerusalem neighborhoods has marred city planning of such infrastructure as roadbeds, waterlines, and electricity. Ignoring the need for city planning in the maintenance of both largely Jewish and largely Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, pro-Palestinian groups have typically assailed any municipal efforts to curb zoning violations and illegal construction in the Arab sector as discriminatory. Deriding development of the Jewish sector as a product of favoritism, a cacophony of critics claim to find discrimination lurking in every Jerusalem city planning ordinance. For example, Amnesty International dismissed objections that the demolition of illicit structures results from their violations of planning codes and is carried out on structures built by Arabs and Jews alike, suggesting instead that “Palestinians are targeted for no other reasons (sic) than that they are Palestinians.” The propagation of such faulty claims and Israel’s subsequent attempts to respond to criticism by curbing demolition and other enforcement measures against illegal developers, has encouraged further illict construction that hinders development of roads, schools, and other important neighborhood services.

Read the rest at the link provided.

[sharonbn]

I know I'm going to get scores of abuses for what I'm about to say, but I would like to voice my opinion (you know, exercise free speech and all)

I believe the ICJ was, for the most part, right in its decision.

What you are all ignoring, is that ICJ did not say Israel is not allowed to erect a wall in order to defend its citizens. Israel may erect the wall on its own territory. Israel is not allowed to make irreversible steps on occupied territories with a hidden agenda to disrupt the future establishment of a Palestinian independent state.
The occupied territories are not part of the state of Israel. This is even according to ISRAELI LAW. Yes, Israel did not annex the O.T, with the exception of Jerusalem and Golan heights.

What Israel should do, is dismantle its illegal colonialist settlements, withdraw from the territories it is occupying for 37 years, and if it wishes, build a wall on its border.

The only negative aspect I find in the decision is that the court seemed to completely overlook the Pal terrorism as a major cause for the wall. The ruling about the fence does not by any mean clean the Pals of their war crimes.

[minusthejihad]

And that's why 2 cents can't buy a thing!

[Olivier]

I agree with sharonbn. Explain yourself. Or make me see why those organisations are NOT scum when it comes to Israel. Do you think I thought they were scum when I was lying in my cradle? Hell no! Even more so, not so long ago I did not have a strong opinion about them, but I had nothing against them for sure. I thought they were objective, helpful organisations in international matters. It's merely through experiencing the injustices that happened that I changed my mind. No indoctrination, no short-sightedness and no preconceptions.These men are not here not be pro and anti-israel, there are here to tell the law.

It's not a matter of the wall protecting israel from bombers, it's a problem where the wall is situated.

And it is situated beyond the "green line" which is the closest thing to an internationally recognized border.

Israel colonize beyond the border, israel breaks the law. Why accuse them being 'scum'?

[rhodescholar]

I agree with sharonbn. These men are not here not be pro and anti-israel, there are here to tell the law.

It's not a matter of the wall protecting israel from bombers, it's a problem where the wall is situated.

And it is situated beyond the "green line" which is the closest thing to an internationally recognized border.

Israel colonize beyond the border, israel breaks the law. Why accuse them being 'scum'?

Every international legal advisor i have discussed this with indicates they are wrong. A country has every right, as Rivkin in the jpost explains, to place embarkments to defend itself from an aggressive neighbor.

Since the arabs refuse to live up to any agreement they ever sign, and israel has no partner for peace right now who will confront the terrorists, its up to israel to decide what to do.

Israel didnt colonize jack. I watched the events leading up to the 6-day war, and israel won land in a defensive war - period. No nation that i can recall has been forced to concede land it won defensively.

If this wall saves lives - which is a point you refuse to address - that is sufficient to me and other ration human being WITHOUT AN AGENDA. Do you have one?

Why arent you commenting on the wall from the israeli perspective? Or are you a terrorist?

[rhodescholar]

[QUOTE=Olivier]And it is situated beyond the "green line" which is the closest thing to an internationally recognized border.
QUOTE]

This lie needs to be put to rest already. All 3 authors of the UN resolution calling for a "withdrawal from territories occupied" confirmed in interviews last year that they SPECIFICALLY left out the word "the" before territories.

Their intent was not to force israel back to the green line, but to push for negotiations to determine the NEW borders.

Understanding that point is Middle East History 101. You need to internalize that before you can move on to anything else.

[eyl]

You seem to be ignoring the purpose of the barrier (or at least, not considering certain implications of its purpose).

The barrier, as has been pointed out multiple times, is intended to provide security for Israel and for Israeli citizens. As the fence is intended as a temporary (not irreversible) measure, that also includes Israeli citizens living beyond the Green Line, especially as a border in that area has not yet been determined (though the ICJ mentioned it in passing, they ignored the implications of Article VI(9) of the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1947-1974/Israel-Jordan%20Armistice%20Agreement) which determines the Green line is not a final border). That's one reason the barrier cannot follow the Line; the other is topographical difficulties in some areas. Once a final border is negotiated, the barrier can then be moved to it, but not before.

In addition to the lack of reference to the cause of the barrier, I have several other problems with it:

1) The ICJ determined that the need of the barrier for self-defence was overcome by Palestinians' rights to free movement, etc. However, they ignored the fact, evident since the Court was convened, that the barrier has drastically cut down on the amount of attacks against Israelis since its erection. As I've pointed out above, placing it on the Green Line would have made it less effective.

2) In essence, the Court ruled that Israeli settlements could not be protected by the barrier. This leads to the absurd conclusion that the Court is ruling out nonlethal methods in favor of lethal ones - if the settlements cannot be protected by passive means, active means, which are far more likely to be lethal, must be used (and the question as to the settlements' legality is irrelevant - the inhabitants are Israeli civilians, so they must be protected by Israel so long as they are there, and haven't been ordered to evict).

3) The ICJ ruled that the 4th Geneva Convention applies, as per Aticle II, as the conflict was between two signatories, regardless of the fact that the West Bank was not legally Jordanian territory. This is contradicted, however, by Article IV, which the Court did not address, unless you accept the Jordanian occupation as legal; IOW, the Court is ruling the Geneva Conventions are applicable as a consequence of an annexation violating those same conventions (actually, GC4 applies in any case, but only Part II of it applies between non-signatories, again as per Article IV).

4) The Court gave, if not actual impropriety, the appearance of impropriety - a judge who had spoken out against the fence prior to the trial did not recuse himself, and the Court refused to do so; in addition, testimony for the Palestinians was accepted from a variety of nations which have no bearing on the case (e.g. Cuba), while Israeli victims of terrorism (or family members of such) were refused permission to testify. Both these facts raise serious doubts as to the impartiality of the Court at the outset.

Incidently, what is your position on settlements such as Kfar Etzion?

I know I'm going to get scores of abuses for what I'm about to say, but I would like to voice my opinion (you know, exercise free speech and all)

I believe the ICJ was, for the most part, right in its decision.

What you are all ignoring, is that ICJ did not say Israel is not allowed to erect a wall in order to defend its citizens. Israel may erect the wall on its own territory. Israel is not allowed to make irreversible steps on occupied territories with a hidden agenda to disrupt the future establishment of a Palestinian independent state.
The occupied territories are not part of the state of Israel. This is even according to ISRAELI LAW. Yes, Israel did not annex the O.T, with the exception of Jerusalem and Golan heights.

What Israel should do, is dismantle its illegal colonialist settlements, withdraw from the territories it is occupying for 37 years, and if it wishes, build a wall on its border.

The only negative aspect I find in the decision is that the court seemed to completely overlook the Pal terrorism as a major cause for the wall. The ruling about the fence does not by any mean clean the Pals of their war crimes.

[sharonbn]

You seem to be ignoring the purpose of the barrier (or at least, not considering certain implications of its purpose).
depends on what you believe to be the purpose of the fence. the declared purpose is security. However, the route raises doubts as to whether Israel has a hidden agenda:
1) to "punish" the Pal population for the terrorism
2) to make the creation of a Palestinian state difficult if not impossible (I eloborate later on)


The barrier, as has been pointed out multiple times, is intended to provide security for Israel and for Israeli citizens. As the fence is intended as a temporary (not irreversible) measure, that also includes Israeli citizens living beyond the Green Line, especially as a border in that area has not yet been determined (though the ICJ mentioned it in passing, they ignored the implications of Article VI(9) of the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1947-1974/Israel-Jordan%20Armistice%20Agreement) which determines the Green line is not a final border). That's one reason the barrier cannot follow the Line; the other is topographical difficulties in some areas. Once a final border is negotiated, the barrier can then be moved to it, but not before.

OK, so now we come to the temporary nature of the fence. Yes, Israel says the fence is temporary and will be removed once peace agreement is signed. Well, this may be the case, but given the past longevity of "temporary" measurements (e.g. Israeli "security band" in Lebanon), I find it hard to believe Israel will tear down the wall in any given plausible scenario in the future. What Israel is talking about is an implausible scenario, where Pal terrorism ceases and peace agreement is signed - than the wall will be torn down.

Why is this scenario implausible?
1) The fence, like the settlements before it, is a "red sheet" for the Pals. The wall itself will become target for Pal aggressive actions. Pals will say they fight the illegal wall. IDF will, of course scramble to defend the wall from breechings, etc. The vicious circle of terror attack and retaliation will continue, with much less civilian casualties. You can say this is better than what's today. But the wall will never be torn down as part of a peace process. The wall, much like Israeli presence in Lebanon will perpetuate the conflict instead of bringing it to an end.

2) let us assume that the Pals will tire from the terror attacks. Let us assume they make reforms in their gov't, and the new regime makes a deal with the terrorist groups on a cease fire or maybe even arrests the leadership. Now, the Pals wish to enter a peace process. as part of the agreement they demand the wall to be torn down. My guess is that the majority of the Israeli gov't and public will say "hey the wall is working, there are no more terror attacks. so why give up the wall at all?" they will say we cannot trust the Pals and we should only rely upon ourselves.

in my eyes, the wall, once erected, is the final nail in the chance for peace. It will either perpetuate the conflict by becoming the focus of the struggle, or will be so successful, that we will not want to give it away out of good will.

thus, to say the wall is "temporary" is either naive, or manipulative.


1) The ICJ determined that the need of the barrier for self-defence was overcome by Palestinians' rights to free movement, etc. However, they ignored the fact, evident since the Court was convened, that the barrier has drastically cut down on the amount of attacks against Israelis since its erection. As I've pointed out above, placing it on the Green Line would have made it less effective.

I don't think that this is what ICJ ruled. If Israel had chosen the route of the green line. with some detours because of topographical considerations, etc. then the wall could be justified.

you forget that the wall has an eastern route as well as western one. meaning, the planned wall is supposed to close off the Pals from ALL directions, not just the one facing Israel. Is this route really security measurement?

As to the effectiveness of the wall in its current route, "effectiveness" may be the most important consideration, but it should not be the only one. We could shoot the entire Pal population - this will probably be the most effective measurement of all, but no one suggests this line of action - which means that there are indeed other considerations at play.


2) In essence, the Court ruled that Israeli settlements could not be protected by the barrier. This leads to the absurd conclusion that the Court is ruling out nonlethal methods in favor of lethal ones - if the settlements cannot be protected by passive means, active means, which are far more likely to be lethal, must be used (and the question as to the settlements' legality is irrelevant - the inhabitants are Israeli civilians, so they must be protected by Israel so long as they are there, and haven't been ordered to evict).
1) the settlements survived for 30 years without the wall - now they cannot survive one day w/o it? Moreover, there is a large section of the right wing that opposes the wall (see Dr. Eldad)population in the settlements
2) as I recall, the wall is not intended to stop Israeli actions against Pal terrorists. so the equation is somewhat wrong.


3) The ICJ ruled that the 4th Geneva Convention applies, as per Aticle II, as the conflict was between two signatories, regardless of the fact that the West Bank was not legally Jordanian territory. This is contradicted, however, by Article IV, which the Court did not address, unless you accept the Jordanian occupation as legal; IOW, the Court is ruling the Geneva Conventions are applicable as a consequence of an annexation violating those same conventions (actually, GC4 applies in any case, but only Part II of it applies between non-signatories, again as per Article IV).
I am not that familiar with the intricate details of GC, so I will not comment on that. What I can do is quote an expert of int'l law from an interview she did in cannel 1 news. She said that a) Israel relies upon int'l law in its conduct in the occupied territories, and this fact gives the ICJ at least some legitimacy to give its opinion on the wall. b) she said that although Israel can ignore the ruling in the short term, this will not be possible in the long term.

I can say in general that I myself do not refer to the legal aspect of the decision, but to the moral and practical aspects implied from it. The legality (or lack) of the Jordanian and Egyptian occupation of WB and GS do not imply anything on the Israeli ocupation.


4) The Court gave, if not actual impropriety, the appearance of impropriety - a judge who had spoken out against the fence prior to the trial did not recuse himself, and the Court refused to do so; in addition, testimony for the Palestinians was accepted from a variety of nations which have no bearing on the case (e.g. Cuba), while Israeli victims of terrorism (or family members of such) were refused permission to testify. Both these facts raise serious doubts as to the impartiality of the Court at the outset.
Yes, I agree, There were several phenomena that gave the impression that the court is pre-biased towards a decision, before the discussions even started. That is manifested, in my eyes, in the disregard to Pal terrorism and numerous war crimes towards innocent civilians. I expected the court to acknowledge that without negotiations, Israel is left to decide its own security measures and that line of action is legal by itself. The results of the decision may or may not be legal and reasonable, but Israel still has a duty to defend all its citizens. I expected the court to include in its decision a list of demands from the Palestinians that will enable negotiations so that the decision on security measures may be a joint effort.


Incidently, what is your position on settlements such as Kfar Etzion?
Regarding Kfar Etzion and Gush Etzion in general, there are two aspects - moral and practical.

On the moral aspect, I am undecided. There are positive and negative considerations. On one hand, the area was Jewish prior to 48 and moreover, when the Arabs finally conquered the gush, they executed all the prisoners on the spot in what an only be described as hideous war crime. That history gives moral legitimacy to Jewish return to Gush Etzion. Hebron also shares similar history.

On the other hand, based on the same line of thinking, Arabs have legitimate claim over places like Lod and Ramla, where Arab residents were forcefully evicted in 48 (They were forced to march all the way to Hebron) and of course, Dier Yassin (the remaining houses of the village are now part of Giva'at Shaul neighborhood in Jerusalem). So an alternative viewpoint may be that during the war, both sides perpetrated war crimes on civilian population, and it is impossible to start doing justice now with everybody.

Practically speaking, I believe that all agreements that were signed between Israelis and Palestinians, incl' Oslo, Geneva and Ayalon-Nuseibah included Gush Etzion, Maale Adomim, Giva'at Zeev etc. inside the Israeli state.

[RichardP]

As I have said before, I do respect your beliefs, though, in most cases don’t agree. To me, the safety of Israelis is, of higher importance, than the Palestinians’ rights of free entry, or less security. The fence has provided this, let the Palestinians for once stop whining, and rid themselves of their vermin leadership, and their terrorist minions.
Why it is Israel is the one that takes responsibility for her action, be they good or bad? Whilst the Palestinians continue to shirk their own responsibilities? Let’s not hear the fear theory and the big bad wolf hyperbole… Israelis built their state from the ground up, with the proverbial blood, sweat and tears.
The Palestinians on the other hand, don’t build but destroy, using Israeli blood, tears and sweat. This is not to say that there aren’t Palestinians not up to the task, but the onus is on them to create the changes needed, not sit, and wail for someone else to take them by the hand.

[ibrodsky]

I know I'm going to get scores of abuses for what I'm about to say, but I would like to voice my opinion (you know, exercise free speech and all)

I believe the ICJ was, for the most part, right in its decision.

What you are all ignoring, is that ICJ did not say Israel is not allowed to erect a wall in order to defend its citizens. Israel may erect the wall on its own territory. Israel is not allowed to make irreversible steps on occupied territories with a hidden agenda to disrupt the future establishment of a Palestinian independent state.
The occupied territories are not part of the state of Israel. This is even according to ISRAELI LAW. Yes, Israel did not annex the O.T, with the exception of Jerusalem and Golan heights.

What Israel should do, is dismantle its illegal colonialist settlements, withdraw from the territories it is occupying for 37 years, and if it wishes, build a wall on its border.

The only negative aspect I find in the decision is that the court seemed to completely overlook the Pal terrorism as a major cause for the wall. The ruling about the fence does not by any mean clean the Pals of their war crimes.

Thanks for condemning in advance comments disagreeing with yours by labeling them "abuse." And thanks for implying that IsraelForum doesn't regularly accept legitimate dissenting views. I guess that explains why we made you a Moderator...

There are two things I find amazing about your opinion. First, you seem to believe the ICJ is genuinely interested in striking a balance between Israel's security needs and the rights of Palestinians. I think eyl has shown that is not the case. We all knew in advance what the ruling would be; we knew members of the court expressed their opposition to the security fence before the proceedings, and that the court was eager to hear from every friend of the Arab racists but refused to hear from the victims of terrorism.

Second, you accept the racist Arabs' assertions regarding Israel's "borders" that most of them have never recognized. Thus, you call Jews living on the wrong side of a cease-fire line "colonialists," essentialy accepting the Arab racists' demand for an ethnically-cleansed West Bank. Most of us understand that racism--not longing for a state of their own that they never thought about before 1967--is what the conflict is really all about.

Then you suddenly remember that terrorism was the reason for this temporary barrier--as if that has no bearing on Israel's right to build it where it will be effective.

[Gilgamesh]

I know I'm going to get scores of abuses for what I'm about to say, but I would like to voice my opinion (you know, exercise free speech and all)

I believe the ICJ was, for the most part, right in its decision.

What you are all ignoring, is that ICJ did not say Israel is not allowed to erect a wall in order to defend its citizens. Israel may erect the wall on its own territory. Israel is not allowed to make irreversible steps on occupied territories with a hidden agenda to disrupt the future establishment of a Palestinian independent state.
The occupied territories are not part of the state of Israel. This is even according to ISRAELI LAW. Yes, Israel did not annex the O.T, with the exception of Jerusalem and Golan heights.

What Israel should do, is dismantle its illegal colonialist settlements, withdraw from the territories it is occupying for 37 years, and if it wishes, build a wall on its border.

The only negative aspect I find in the decision is that the court seemed to completely overlook the Pal terrorism as a major cause for the wall. The ruling about the fence does not by any mean clean the Pals of their war crimes.

The already built fence, is very close to the so called the green line. What the ICJ focused, was on east Jerusalem. What was concluded in the ICJ is against the Jewish people claim for east Jerusalem (and our entire claim to the land of Israel follows from there).

As a Zionist, I claim to have a historical, cultural, religious, natural and other to the land of Israel. The historical, cultural, religious sites and others exist also beyonned the so called "green line". So, forsaking some sites means also abondoning our reason and claim for a connection between the Jewish nation and the land of Israel.

How can a Jew, any Jew, support the restoration of a Jewish sovereignity in the land of Israel of all places, on historical and cultural grounds, while abondoning all sites with such great significance? Zionism itself was on court. It is stupid these effects of the sentance are ignored by our leaders.

The issue was never the fence, but the international status of the green line.

What the Arabs are doing is rewrting history and law. The Green line was never recognized as international border. Never ever. It has NO international significance of any sort. only temporal insegnifical historical. Giving the "green line" any other defenition is a lie.

The ICJ ignored the Arabs terrorism since it doesn't consider it a crime. It called it "violance" instead of terrorism for a reason. This gives you critical ovservation on the true nature of the ICJ.

Although the Arabs won significant propaganda victory, what matters most is our own actions in the future

[Olivier]

OK, so now we come to the temporary nature of the fence. Yes, Israel says the fence is temporary and will be removed once peace agreement is signed. Well, this may be the case, but given the past longevity of "temporary" measurements (e.g. Israeli "security band" in Lebanon), I find it hard to believe Israel will tear down the wall in any given plausible scenario in the future. What Israel is talking about is an implausible scenario, where Pal terrorism ceases and peace agreement is signed - than the wall will be torn down.

Why is this scenario implausible?
1) The fence, like the settlements before it, is a "red sheet" for the Pals. The wall itself will become target for Pal aggressive actions. Pals will say they fight the illegal wall. IDF will, of course scramble to defend the wall from breechings, etc. The vicious circle of terror attack and retaliation will continue, with much less civilian casualties. You can say this is better than what's today. But the wall will never be torn down as part of a peace process. The wall, much like Israeli presence in Lebanon will perpetuate the conflict instead of bringing it to an end.

2) let us assume that the Pals will tire from the terror attacks. Let us assume they make reforms in their gov't, and the new regime makes a deal with the terrorist groups on a cease fire or maybe even arrests the leadership. Now, the Pals wish to enter a peace process. as part of the agreement they demand the wall to be torn down. My guess is that the majority of the Israeli gov't and public will say "hey the wall is working, there are no more terror attacks. so why give up the wall at all?" they will say we cannot trust the Pals and we should only rely upon ourselves.

in my eyes, the wall, once erected, is the final nail in the chance for peace. It will either perpetuate the conflict by becoming the focus of the struggle, or will be so successful, that we will not want to give it away out of good will.

thus, to say the wall is "temporary" is either naive, or manipulative... and israel is the world champion at "temporary arrangments that last forever.

Given the difficulty of evacuating settlements on the Gaza strip which are absolutely surrounded and extremely hard to defend, you can guess how "temporary" the wall will be.

"Anti-terrorism" is the official reason, annexation is the real motive and the long-term consequence

And it's definitive annexation.



Now for the rest what will follow is just inevitable: the development of weapons unhidered by the wall to attack israel, ultimately WMD which will in turn allow israel to use nuclear weapons in retaliation (oops "protection against terrorism").

This is not just a temporary wall of protection, but a wall of definitive annexation (and then a wall of conflict escalation).

[Olivier]

you seem to believe the ICJ is genuinely interested in striking a balance between Israel's security needs and the rights of Palestinians.The ICJ's job to tell the law, not to strike a balance (especially where there has been ceaseless, unilateral annexation for dozens of years).

[Ahava]

I agree with sharonbn. These men are not here not be pro and anti-israel, there are here to tell the law.

And I agree with ibrodsky, Mediocrates, rhodescholar, RichardP, golani, David in NYC, mil and tandem. Easy, innit, taking over someone else's arguments? Just see what fits your agenda best and share that opinion.

It's not a matter of the wall protecting israel from bombers, it's a problem where the wall is situated.

And it is situated beyond the "green line" which is the closest thing to an internationally recognized border.

Israel colonize beyond the border, israel breaks the law. Why accuse them being 'scum'?
they didn't even take in terrorism as a factor, which means it is not a fair trial. Just look at their reasoning behind this decision.
To speak with Netanyahu: which is more important, the quality of life of the Palestinians or life itself of the Israelis?
Israel is a country that's under constant attack. this means Israel has the right to defend itself. if this means a fence, and if this means the fence is partly situated in the territories, which is not "Palestinian ground" by the way, then so be it.

[RichardP]

Well said, good retort, Ahava; not to mention, I read your other post re: woman attacked in France, because they, the attackers, thought she "looked
Jewish"... it speaks volumes.
All the pseudo-intellectual drivel from our detractors, gets the ol’ heart going though.

[ibrodsky]

The ICJ's job to tell the law, not to strike a balance (especially where there has been ceaseless, unilateral annexation for dozens of years).

Yes, it must be a big disapppintment to you that the Arabs have failed in their 50+ year quest to "annex" Israel.

I'm not usually one to quote Hillary Clinton approvingly, but she actually said something smart today: namely, Israel's security fence is a non-violent response to terrorism. (That seems to really infuriate Islamo-fascists and their EU collaborators. If Jews are going to defend themselves, at least give the Death Cult their martyrs and resulting PR bonanza.)

But even a non-violent approach to stopping mass murder of Jewish children offends you.

As for me, I boycott all French products and will never visit your crappy little country again.

[ibrodsky]

The ICJ's job to tell the law, not to strike a balance (especially where there has been ceaseless, unilateral annexation for dozens of years).

In other words, if some Jews get killed because of the ICJ's ruling, tough luck.

Of course, I don't see you demanding the ICJ put the PA and the vast majority of "Palestinian" people (they are really just Jordanians and Egyptians) on trial for supporting and perpetrating mass murder attacks against innocent civilians.

We get riled when Palestinian savages shoot a pregnant Jewish mom and her four young daughters at point blank range. You get riled when Israel builds a fence to stop the slaughter.

[RichardP]

Ollie and his fellow whatever one wants to call them, don’t give a <edited by moderator> about the Jews/Israelis. Not that I’m telling you anything you don’t know Ibrodsky; but they’re their <edited by moderator> racism will turn its ugly head on them one day; none too soon, I must say.

[eyl]

depends on what you believe to be the purpose of the fence. the declared purpose is security. However, the route raises doubts as to whether Israel has a hidden agenda:
1) to "punish" the Pal population for the terrorism
2) to make the creation of a Palestinian state difficult if not impossible (I eloborate later on)

Note that the route the ICJ ruled on is not the current route the barrier takes, which is probably not the final route it will eventually take once it's completed.

OK, so now we come to the temporary nature of the fence. Yes, Israel says the fence is temporary and will be removed once peace agreement is signed. Well, this may be the case, but given the past longevity of "temporary" measurements (e.g. Israeli "security band" in Lebanon), I find it hard to believe Israel will tear down the wall in any given plausible scenario in the future.

How many soldiers are in Lebanon now?

What Israel is talking about is an implausible scenario, where Pal terrorism ceases and peace agreement is signed - than the wall will be torn down.

Why is this scenario implausible?
1) The fence, like the settlements before it, is a "red sheet" for the Pals. The wall itself will become target for Pal aggressive actions. Pals will say they fight the illegal wall. IDF will, of course scramble to defend the wall from breechings, etc. The vicious circle of terror attack and retaliation will continue, with much less civilian casualties. You can say this is better than what's today. But the wall will never be torn down as part of a peace process. The wall, much like Israeli presence in Lebanon will perpetuate the conflict instead of bringing it to an end.

Remember the sequence of what happened in Lebanon. The pressure to withdraw began once Hizbullah ceased attacks against Israeli civilian targets, therefore giving the prrception that soldiers were dying there for absolutely no benefit. And that was largely due to the security zone (coupled with Operations Din veHeshbon and Grapes of Wrath). If the barrier can achieve the same thing, it will have served its purpose. And what basis do you have for saying "the wall will never be torn down as part of a peace process"? Lebanon isn't a parallel here; there wasn't a peace process there.

2) let us assume that the Pals will tire from the terror attacks. Let us assume they make reforms in their gov't, and the new regime makes a deal with the terrorist groups on a cease fire or maybe even arrests the leadership. Now, the Pals wish to enter a peace process. as part of the agreement they demand the wall to be torn down. My guess is that the majority of the Israeli gov't and public will say "hey the wall is working, there are no more terror attacks. so why give up the wall at all?" they will say we cannot trust the Pals and we should only rely upon ourselves.

On the contrary. Once the Palestinians show they are commited to opposing terrorism, in fact and not just in words, there will be much more public support for moving the barrier as opposed to the current situation. If there isn't - well, as avowed leftist, that's your job :) . Given the right circumstances I might even pitch in. But in the current situation, there is little justification for demands to move or remove the barrier.

in my eyes, the wall, once erected, is the final nail in the chance for peace. It will either perpetuate the conflict by becoming the focus of the struggle, or will be so successful, that we will not want to give it away out of good will.

Wrong. Once terrorism (at the least against civilians) stops, or at least is actively opposed by the Palestinians, then you can get a "critical mass" of the public behind a peace process. At the moment, that doesn't exist, because the Palestinians are perceived (rightly, IMO) as totally untrustworthy in this regard.

thus, to say the wall is "temporary" is either naive, or manipulative.

It doesn't matter if you view the governments motive in building the barrier as purely security or as a land grab. The wall, physically, is movable. If the political will to move it exists, it can be moved, regardless of the intent behind it.

I don't think that this is what ICJ ruled. If Israel had chosen the route of the green line. with some detours because of topographical considerations, etc. then the wall could be justified.

How else can you see their ruling? The ICJ ruled that any deviation (into the OT) from the Green Line was illegal; topographical or other considerations which might require it were not mentioned anywhere in the decision. And that still doens't address the security of the settlements.

you forget that the wall has an eastern route as well as western one. meaning, the planned wall is supposed to close off the Pals from ALL directions, not just the one facing Israel. Is this route really security measurement?

Uh, have you forgotten there are settlements in the Jordan Valley?

As to the effectiveness of the wall in its current route, "effectiveness" may be the most important consideration, but it should not be the only one. We could shoot the entire Pal population - this will probably be the most effective measurement of all, but no one suggests this line of action - which means that there are indeed other considerations at play.

Let me get this straight; Israel's not shooting all of the Palestinians indicates Israel's ill intentions regarding the barrier?


1) the settlements survived for 30 years without the wall - now they cannot survive one day w/o it?

There wasn't anywhere near this level of violence in those years, as you well know.

Moreover, there is a large section of the right wing that opposes the wall (see Dr. Eldad)population in the settlements

So? (whose Dr Eldad?)

2) as I recall, the wall is not intended to stop Israeli actions against Pal terrorists. so the equation is somewhat wrong.

While the barrier does not preclude active measure by the IDF, its lack would require more of them.

I am not that familiar with the intricate details of GC, so I will not comment on that. What I can do is quote an expert of int'l law from an interview she did in cannel 1 news. She said that a) Israel relies upon int'l law in its conduct in the occupied territories, and this fact gives the ICJ at least some legitimacy to give its opinion on the wall.

Israel relies on intl law (specifically the GC) in the Territories by its own choice, not by necessity; and only the humanitarian provisions of it.

b) she said that although Israel can ignore the ruling in the short term, this will not be possible in the long term.

I suspect the High Court determination will take precedence over the ICJ ruling as far as Israel is concerned, especially since the last is non-binding.

Yes, I agree, There were several phenomena that gave the impression that the court is pre-biased towards a decision, before the discussions even started. That is manifested, in my eyes, in the disregard to Pal terrorism and numerous war crimes towards innocent civilians. I expected the court to acknowledge that without negotiations, Israel is left to decide its own security measures and that line of action is legal by itself. The results of the decision may or may not be legal and reasonable, but Israel still has a duty to defend all its citizens. I expected the court to include in its decision a list of demands from the Palestinians that will enable negotiations so that the decision on security measures may be a joint effort.

Well, on the last point, a case can be made to defend the Court; the issue before it was the legal question of the legality of the barrier. It should, however, given much more weight to the motives behind the establishment of the barrier; as it is, it's like convicting someone of murder by adressing only the fact that a homicide occured, ignoring the circumstances which made it an action of self defense.

[eyl]

.. and israel is the world champion at "temporary arrangments that last forever.[/b]

Any claim that the Green Line is Israel's legal border is also in support of a "temporary arrangements that lasted for ever".

Given the difficulty of evacuating settlements on the Gaza strip which are absolutely surrounded and extremely hard to defend, you can guess how "temporary" the wall will be.

Huh? Once the barrier is up (and note that we're mainly discussing the barrier extending from the Green Line, not around isolated settlements), they'll be easier to defend, so by your statement it would then be easier to evacuate them.

"Anti-terrorism" is the official reason, annexation is the real motive and the long-term consequence

And it's definitive annexation.

Prove it (and see my comments to sharnonbn above).

Now for the rest what will follow is just inevitable: the development of weapons unhidered by the wall to attack israel, ultimately WMD

Different from the current situation hgow, exactly?

which will in turn allow israel to use nuclear weapons in retaliation (oops "protection against terrorism").

Have you misplaced your mind?

[eyl]

The ICJ's job to tell the law, not to strike a balance (especially where there has been ceaseless, unilateral annexation for dozens of years).


Let's see - Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967, and the Golan in 1981. I'm unaware of any other annexations which took place during your claimed "ceaseless, unilateral annexation for dozens of years".

[Olivier]

As for me, I boycott all French products and will never visit your crappy little country again.yeah sure, when all else fails, when judges notice the fact israel is building a wall on lands that are being seized.


..... bash the french.


The court has recognized the right of israel to defend itself, and no one can prevent s state to build a wall on it's own territory, but what you would like to have is the right to steal land. A bit like Bush giving the right of return on behalf of the palestinians, you'd like the tribunal to give the land of the palestinians on their behalf.

And when you don't have it, you bash the french. I think you are just extremely hateful.


Anyway, there is no need to get excited, you know Israel totally rejects the opinion of the World Court as it totally rejects most security council decisions.
It's absolutely nothing new. Colonization business as usual.



some more of the rulings, from the BBC (you hate the BBC as well, I guess :o )

IT IS A WALL
The "wall" in question is a complex construction, so that that term cannot be understood in a limited physical sense. However, the other terms used, either by Israel ("fence") or by the [UN] Secretary General [Kofi Annan] ("barrier"), are no more accurate if understood in the physical sense. In this opinion, the court has therefore chosen to use the terminology employed by the General Assembly.


ENCIRCLEMENT
Approximately 975 sq km (or 16.6% of the West Bank) would, according to the report of the Secretary General, lie between the Green Line and the wall. This area is stated to be home to 237,000 Palestinians. If the full wall were completed as planned, another 160,000 Palestinians would live in almost completely encircled communities, described as enclaves in the report. As a result of the planned route, nearly 320,000 Israeli settlers (of whom 178,000 in East Jerusalem) would be living in the area between the Green Line and the wall.


ANNEXATION
Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.

The construction of the wall and its associated regime create a "fait accompli" on the ground that could well become permanent, in which case, and notwithstanding the formal characterisation of the wall by Israel, it would be tantamount to de facto annexation.

[Olivier]

Israel is a country that's under constant attack. this means Israel has the right to defend itself. if this means a fence, and if this means the fence is partly situated in the territories.I an afraid you are slowly mutating into another fanatic Ahava. First you are unapologetic for saying the judges who are just applying the law are "scum", and second you are not speaking in good faith either "the fence is partly situated in the territories" you say.

If annexing 1000 square kilometers is just "partly" for you ... it's hard to think you are speaking in good faith.

[eyl]

Again - the route the ICJ ruled on (which is presumably the one mentioned here, since you didn't link) is not the current route, and the current route will likely not be the final route.

some more of the rulings, from the BBC (you hate the BBC as well, I guess :o )

[Olivier]

Again - the route the ICJ ruled on (which is presumably the one mentioned here, since you didn't link) is not the current route, and the current route will likely not be the final route.I do not see it making such a difference between a wall annexing 975 sq km and a wall annexing 974, 960, 1020.... sq km


note the court ruled sections already built should be dismantled.

[Binyamin]

This discussion has not been covering the jurisdiction of the ICJ.

It is interesting that BBC decided the settlements are against international law. That is very unclear.

The temporaray/permanent argument about the wall is the strongest reason why it should not be built along the Green Line. If it is permanent, why should Israel be required to give up all of the land which it holds at this point, without getting anything in return? The U.N. demanded that Israel should trade land for peace. This acknowleges Israel's right to hold the land as collateral for peace. If Israel has to build the wall along the Green Line, they will lose this collateral, and the Pals will have lost any incentive to make peace.

[ibrodsky]

yeah sure, when all else fails, when judges notice the fact israel is building a wall on lands that are being seized.

..... bash the french.

The court has recognized the right of israel to defend itself, and no one can prevent s state to build a wall on it's own territory, but what you would like to have is the right to steal land. A bit like Bush giving the right of return on behalf of the palestinians, you'd like the tribunal to give the land of the palestinians on their behalf.

And when you don't have it, you bash the french. I think you are just extremely hateful.

Anyway, there is no need to get excited, you know Israel totally rejects the opinion of the World Court as it totally rejects most security council decisions.
It's absolutely nothing new. Colonization business as usual.



And when you can't defend your position, ignore the arguments and focus on something else.

But as you show above, the ICJ ruling is really not about the fence, it's about handing the Arabs back the land they lost through their own belligerence. According to the ICJ, Israel has the right to build a fence on a border the Palestinians and their supporters don't recognize and never recognized.

And as Binyamin points out, building the fence on the "green line" would destroy what little incentive the "Palestinians" have for negotiating a fair settlement.

As for your comments about "colonialization," you don't lnow what you are talking about. Colonialism is conquest with the purpose of exploiting the seized territory's natural resources and labor. The Jewish settlements are nothing more than re-establishing Jewish communities in those parts of historic Israel.

The real issue re: the settlements is that "Palestinian" supporters want to ensure that the ethnic cleansing of places like Hebron in the 1920s stands. Tell us, Olivier, what do you have against Jews living in their historic homeland? If there are one million Arabs living in Israel, why can't there be 200,000 Jews living in a "Palestinian" state? Why do you accept the racist Arab demand for a Jew-free West Bank?

Can you answer these questions or will you just evade them by bashing me again?

I think you are just extremely hateful.

[ibrodsky]

Well, we knew it was coming. Emboldened by the ICJ ruling, Palestinian savages have struck again, killing one and injuring dozens in a Tel Aviv bomb blast.

[ibrodsky]

Comment: Israel follows its own law, not bigoted Hague decision
By ALAN DERSHOWITZ

The Israeli government has both a legal and a moral obligation to comply with the Israeli Supreme Court's decision regarding the security fence.

After all, the Supreme Court is a creation of the Knesset and is therefore representative of all of the people – Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike. Moreover, the Supreme Court has a real stake in both sides of the fence dispute. Its job is to balance the security needs of its citizens against the humanitarian concerns of West Bank Palestinians. It tried to strike that balance by upholding the concept of a security fence while insisting that the Israeli military authorities give due weight to the needs of the Palestinians, even if that requires some compromise on the security of Israelis.

Contrast this with the questionable status of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. No Israeli judge may serve on that court as a permanent member, while sworn enemies of Israel serve among its judges, several of whom represent countries that do not abide by the rule of law.

Virtually every democracy voted against that court's taking jurisdiction over the fence case, while nearly every country that voted to take jurisdiction was a tyranny. Israel owes the International Court absolutely no deference. It is under neither a moral nor a legal obligation to give any weight to its predetermined decision.
The Supreme Court of Israel recognized the unquestionable reality that the security fence has saved numerous lives and promises to save more, but it also recognized that this benefit must be weighed against the material disadvantages to West Bank Palestinians. The International Court, on the other hand, discounted the saving of lives and focused only on the Palestinian interests. By showing its preference for Palestinian property rights over the lives of Jews, the International Court displayed its bigotry.

The International Court of Justice is much like a Mississippi court in the 1930s. The all-white Mississippi court, which excluded blacks from serving on it, could do justice in disputes between whites, but it was incapable of doing justice in cases between a white and a black. It would always favor white litigants. So, too, the International Court. It is perfectly capable of resolving disputes between Sweden and Norway, but it is incapable of doing justice where Israel is involved, because Israel is the excluded black when it comes to that court – indeed when it comes to most United Nations organs.

A judicial decision can have no legitimacy when rendered against a nation that is willfully excluded from the court's membership by bigotry.
Just as the world should have disregarded any decision against blacks rendered by a Mississippi court in the 1930s, so too should all decent people contemptuously disregard the bigoted decisions of the International Court of Justice when it comes to Israel. To give any credence to the decisions of that court is to legitimize bigotry.

The International Court of Justice should be a court of last resort to which aggrieved litigants can appeal when their own country's domestic courts are closed to them. The Israeli Supreme Court is not only open to all Israeli Arabs, but also to all West Bank and Gaza Arabs. Israel's Supreme Court is the only court in the Middle East where an Arab can actually win a case against his government.

...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1089516095976

The article ends with this interesting tag line:

Prof. Dershowitz wrote this article the day before the International Court rendered this opinion because he was certain – based on the composition of the court – that its verdict would be against Israel. Following the decision he did not have to change a single word.

Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard.

[Ahava]

I an afraid you are slowly mutating into another fanatic Ahava. First you are unapologetic for saying the judges who are just applying the law are "scum", and second you are not speaking in good faith either "the fence is partly situated in the territories" you say.

If annexing 1000 square kilometers is just "partly" for you ... it's hard to think you are speaking in good faith.

Fanatic? :confused: I for one think it's pretty fanatic to say the Israelis have no right to defend themselves. It's pretty fanatic to be on the side of suicide bombers who are so upset that they can't blow up themselves and with them many Jews anymore.
In case you missed it, the fence is supposed to be temporary, which means no border, which means no annexing. The fence has proved to work, just look at the number of successful attacks since the fence. The fact that the fence works, is enough for me to fully support it. People around the world blame Israel for not taking into account the comfortability of the Palestinians enough. They seem to forget one tiny thing: the Palestinians are pretty much Israel's enemies. I'm sure Israel could've pumped a lot more money in the fence and that way have made it as comfortable as possible for the Pallies, but the fence costs a lot already and all this is because of bloodthirsty Palestinians and their supporters. There is a limit even to the goodness of Israel. They already have more mercy for their enemies than all other countries/people would have.
Oh and I will easily repeat that those judges are scum, because they are NOT applying the law. Haven't read my and other's links? Maybe Canajew can shed some more light on it? The trial was unjust right from the start. The ICJ should not have taken up this case. Apart from this, look at this:
http://www.take-a-pen.org/english/Fences.htm

No need for UN condemnations and IC rulings over all those fences, eh?

[eyl]

Several other points, regarding legal points of the ruling:

From Judge Higgins' seperate opinion (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwp_advisory_opinion/imwp_advisory_opinion_separate_higgins.htm):

2. The question of discretion and propriety is very much harder. Although ultimately I have voted in favour of the decision to give the Opinion, I do think matters are not as straightforward as the Court suggests. It is apparent (not least from the wording of the request to the Court) that an attempt has been made by those seeking the Opinion to assimilate the Opinion on the wall to that obtained from the Court regarding Namibia. I believe this to be incorrect for several reasons.
:
:
3. In the present case, it is the General Assembly, and not the Court, which has made any prior pronouncements in respect of legality. Further, in contrast to how matters stood as regards Namibia in 1971, the larger intractable problem (of which the wall may be seen as an element) cannot be regarded as one in which one party alone has been already classified by a court as the legal wrongdoer; where it is for it alone to act to restore a situation of legality; and where from the perspective of legal obligation there is nothing remaining for the other “party” to do. That is evident from the long history of the matter, and is attested to by Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 1515 (2002) alike.
:
:12. There remains, however, a further condition to be fulfilled, which the Court enunciated in the Western Sahara case. It states that it was satisfied that:

“The object of the General Assembly has not been to bring before the Court, by way of a request for advisory opinion, a dispute or legal controversy, in order that it may later, on the basis of the Court’s opinion, exercise its powers and functions for the peaceful settlement of that dispute or controversy. The object of the request is an entirely different one: to obtain from the Court an opinion which the General Assembly deems of assistance to it for the proper exercise of its functions concerning the decolonization of the territory.” (Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, pp. 26‑27, para. 39.)

In the present case it is the reverse circumstance that obtains. The request is not in order to secure advice on the Assembly’s decolonization duties, but later, on the basis of our Opinion, to exercise powers over the dispute or controversy. Many participants in the oral phase of this case frankly emphasized this objective.

13. The Court has not dealt with this point at all in that part of its Opinion on propriety. Indeed, it is strikingly silent on the matter, avoiding mention of the lines cited above and any response as to their application to the present case. To that extent, this Opinion by its very silence essentially revises, rather than applies, the existing case law.
15. Addressing the reality that “the question of the construction of the wall was only one aspect of the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict”, the Court states that it “is indeed aware that the question of the wall is part of a greater whole, and it would take this circumstance carefully into account in any opinion it might give” (para. 54).

16. In fact, it never does so. There is nothing in the remainder of the Opinion that can be said to cover this point. Further, I find the “history” as recounted by the Court in paragraphs 71‑76 neither balanced nor satisfactory.
34. I also find unpersuasive the Court’s contention that, as the uses of force emanate from occupied territory, it is not an armed attack “by one State against another”. I fail to understand the Court’s view that an occupying Power loses the right to defend its own civilian citizens at home if the attacks emanate from the occupied territory - a territory which it has found not to have been annexed and is certainly “other than” Israel. Further, Palestine cannot be sufficiently an international entity to be invited to these proceedings, and to benefit from humanitarian law, but not sufficiently an international entity for the prohibition of armed attack on others to be applicable. This is formalism of an unevenhanded sort. The question is surely where responsibility lies for the sending of groups and persons who act against Israeli civilians and the cumulative severity of such action.

OTOH, this seems a rather wierd conclusion:
35. In the event, however, these reservations have not caused me to vote against subparagraph (3) (A) of the dispositif, for two reasons. First, I remain unconvinced that non‑forcible measures (such as the building of a wall) fall within self‑defence under Article 51 of the Charter as that provision is normally understood. Second, even if it were an act of self‑defence, properly so called, it would need to be justified as necessary and proportionate. While the wall does seem to have resulted in a diminution on attacks on Israeli civilians, the necessity and proportionality for the particular route selected, with its attendant hardships for Palestinians uninvolved in these attacks, has not been explained.

She is, in effect, setting forth the opinion that only forcible, active (and inherently more lethal) means may be used in self-defense.

[rhodescholar]

The bottom line ovier is that your opinion re: the fence, as in the case of targeted assasination,s checkpoiunts, military incursions, targeted arrests, etc is the same. Europeans state they "accept israel's right to defend itself," but wont come on record as to what exact methods they will approve of.

When each and every step israel takes - aggressive defenses, passives defenses, etc are condemned by europe, you cant expect israel or her supporters to respect either the euros or their institutions. Whining on the sideline about every action israel takes, without coming out on record and clearly delineating what measures israel CAN take is simple proof that europe is not objective, and favors the arab muslims in their genocidal war against the jews of israel, the first non arab-muslim group to form its own nation in a very long time. (The unwillingess of the arab muslims to allows a huge "minority," the kurds, to form their own country is equaly emblematic.)

So when you stand there posting that the ICJ has "ruled against israel," when in fact no israeli is allowed to even serve on teh court - and no evidence from israeli terroism victims could even be presented, when the very purpose of the wall was to stop terrorism, your credibility collapses entirely.

Any attorney worth his weight in tissue paper would laugh at this court's makeup and conjectures, as it mimics courts not only in miss of the 1930s as stated above, but soviet courts of the cold war.

This ruling may be seen as having propaganda value for the arab muslims, but in the long run. it is really a powerful tool in the chest for those who wish to disband the UN/reform it entirely, and revisit these types of international "courts" and organizations.

[eyl]

(continued)
From Judge Buergenthal's opinion (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwp_advisory_opinion/imwp_advisory_opinion_declaration_buergenthal.htm) :

3. It may well be...that on a thorough analysis of all relevant facts, a finding could well be made that some or even all segments of the wall being constructed by Israel on the Occupied Palestinian Territory violate international law (see para. 10 below). But to reach that conclusion with regard to the wall as a whole without having before it or seeking to ascertain all relevant facts bearing directly on issues of Israel’s legitimate right of self‑defence, military necessity and security needs, given the repeated deadly terrorist attacks in and upon Israel proper coming from the Occupied Palestinian Territory to which Israel has been and continues to be subjected, cannot be justified as a matter of law. The nature of these cross‑Green Line attacks and their impact on Israel and its population are never really seriously examined by the Court, and the dossier provided the Court by the United Nations on which the Court to a large extent bases its findings barely touches on that subject.
:
4. This is true with regard to the Court’s sweeping conclusion that the wall as a whole, to the extent that it is constructed on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, violates international humanitarian law and international human rights law. It is equally true with regard to the finding that the construction of the wall “severely impedes the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self‑determination, and is therefore a breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right” (para. 122). I accept that the Palestinian people have the right to self‑determination and that it is entitled to be fully protected. But assuming without necessarily agreeing that this right is relevant to the case before us and that it is being violated, Israel’s right to self‑defence, if applicable and legitimately invoked, would nevertheless have to preclude any wrongfulness in this regard. See Article 21 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which declares: “The wrongfulness of an act of a State is precluded if the act constitutes a lawful measure of self‑defence taken in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.”

5. Whether Israel’s right of self‑defence is in play in the instant case depends, in my opinion, on an examination of the nature and scope of the deadly terrorist attacks to which Israel proper is being subjected from across the Green Line and the extent to which the construction of the wall, in whole or in part, is a necessary and proportionate response to these attacks...it is not inconceivable to me that some segments of the wall being constructed on Palestinian territory meet that test and that others do not. But to reach a conclusion either way, one has to examine the facts bearing on that issue with regard to the specific segments of the wall, their defensive needs and related topographical considerations.

Since these facts are not before the Court, it is compelled to adopt the to me legally dubious conclusion that the right of legitimate or inherent self‑defence is not applicable in the present case. The Court puts the matter as follows:

“Article 51 of the Charter . . . recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self‑defence in the case of armed attack by one State against another State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State.

The Court also notes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside, that territory.
:
Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case.” (Para. 139.)

6. There are two principal problems with this conclusion. The first is that the United Nations Charter, in affirming the inherent right of self‑defence, does not make its exercise dependent upon an armed attack by another State, leaving aside for the moment the question whether Palestine, for purposes of this case, should not be and is not in fact being assimilated by the Court to a State....Moreover, in the resolutions cited by the Court, the Security Council has made clear that “international terrorism constitutes a threat to international peace and security” while “reaffirming the inherent right of individual or collective self‑defence as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations as reiterated in resolution 1368” (SCR 1373). In its resolution 1368, adopted only one day after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, the Security Council invokes the right of self‑defence in calling on the international community to combat terrorism. In neither of these resolutions did the Security Council limit their application to terrorist attacks by State actors only, nor was an assumption to that effect implicit in these resolutions. In fact, the contrary appears to have been the case.

Second, Israel claims that it has a right to defend itself against terrorist attacks to which it is subjected on its territory from across the Green Line and that in doing so it is exercising its inherent right of self‑defence...For to the extent that the Green Line is accepted by the Court as delimiting the dividing line between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, to that extent the territory from which the attacks originate is not part of Israel proper. Attacks on Israel coming from across that line must therefore permit Israel to exercise its right of self‑defence against such attacks, provided the measures it takes are otherwise consistent with the legitimate exercise of that right...The Court’s formalistic approach to the right of self‑defence enables it to avoid addressing the very issues that are at the heart of this case.

7. In summarizing its finding that the wall violates international humanitarian law and international human rights law, the Court has the following to say:

“To sum up, the Court, from the material available to it, is not convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was necessary to attain its security objectives. The wall, along the route chosen, and its associated régime gravely infringe a number of rights of Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel, and the infringements resulting from that route cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order. The construction of such a wall accordingly constitutes breaches by Israel of various of its obligations under the applicable international humanitarian law and human rights instruments.” (Para. 137.)

The Court supports this conclusion with extensive quotations of the relevant legal provisions and with evidence that relates to the suffering the wall has caused along some parts of its route. But in reaching this conclusion, the Court fails to address any facts or evidence specifically rebutting Israel’s claim of military exigencies or requirements of national security. It is true that in dealing with this subject the Court asserts that it draws on the factual summaries provided by the United Nations Secretary‑General as well as some other United Nations reports. It is equally true, however, that the Court barely addresses the summaries of Israel’s position on this subject that are attached to the Secretary‑General’s report and which contradict or cast doubt on the material the Court claims to rely on. Instead, all we have from the Court is a description of the harm the wall is causing and a discussion of various provisions of international humanitarian law and human rights instruments followed by the conclusion that this law has been violated. Lacking is an examination of the facts that might show why the alleged defences of military exigencies, national security or public order are not applicable to the wall as a whole or to the individual segments of its route. The Court says that it “is not convinced” but it fails to demonstrate why it is not convinced, and that is why these conclusions are not convincing.

8. It is true that some international humanitarian law provisions the Court cites admit of no exceptions based on military exigencies. Thus, Article 46 of the Hague Rules provides that private property must be respected and may not be confiscated. In the Summary of the legal position of the Government of Israel...the Secretary‑General reports Israel’s position on this subject in part as follows: “The Government of Israel argues: there is no change in ownership of the land; compensation is available for use of land, crop yield or damage to the land; residents can petition the Supreme Court to halt or alter construction and there is no change in resident status.” The Court fails to address these arguments.
10. A final word is in order regarding my position that the Court should have declined, in the exercise of its discretion, to hear this case...it could be argued that the Court lacked many relevant facts bearing on Israel’s construction of the wall because Israel failed to present them, and that the Court was therefore justified in relying almost exclusively on the United Nations reports submitted to it....The Court may therefore not draw any adverse evidentiary conclusions from Israel’s failure to supply it or assume, without itself fully enquiring into the matter, that the information and evidence before it is sufficient to support each and every one of its sweeping legal conclusions.

[Olivier]

The temporaray/permanent argument about the wall is the strongest reason why it should not be built along the Green Line. If it is permanent, why should Israel be required to give up all of the land which it holds at this point, without getting anything in return?

The U.N. demanded that Israel should trade land for peace. The SC and the ICJ are different things.

The ICJ simply says israel has no legal right to build a wall and to annex land from the pals.


As for the 'land for peace' concept, I think there is more and more land for Israel (and less and less peace).

I do not really believe in land for peace anymore. A lot of the land that has been colonized beyond the green line is not to be traded, it is to be colonized and kept forever.




Why do I say that ? You have to judge israel on actions, not words.

When you see how difficult it is just to *speak about* leaving Gaza
- four steps plan, each step blocking the whole.
- In 18 months there is supposed to be a vote over an 'operational phase'.
- No evacuation before march 2005 at the earliest
(note that this is what I understand, it's probably even more complicated than this)

the power the settlers have in israeli politics makes "land of peace" an empty concept. More of a pretense to grab more land.

Don't say "land for peace" it's "land for settlers" :(

[Ahava]

I do not really believe in land for peace anymore.

I do not really believe in peace anymore. :(
Hence, the fence. :rolleyes:

[Olivier]

Can you answer these questions or will you just evade them by bashing me again?I can certainly answer your questions provided you stop all french-bashing and any infringement over the rules of conduct of the forum during at least one month.

Were you not a moderator, you'd be on my ignore list already.



(and anyway, even if you prove able to do that, I have no magic recipes..)

[Olivier]

I do not really believe in peace anymore.
Hence, the fence. Hence, terrorism too.

But you won't stop terrorism this way, you just made the situation worst and added lots of irreversibility.


Let Israel build this wall on the green line and people will believe the objective of this wall is defence, not land-grabbing.

[Ahava]

Hence, terrorism too.

But you won't stop terrorism this way, you just made the situation worst and added lots of irreversibility.


Let Israel build this wall on the green line and people will believe the objective of this wall is defence, not land-grabbing.
How 'bout post #61, Ibrodsky's article, and post #62, my post where I back up my views?
Your above post is worthless as it does not address the points in those both posts. Your post is rebutted already.

[RichardP]

What, may I ask, is this 'WALL' ? I find it amusing with a twist of irony, that France is ghettoizing their Islamic communities, and at the same time, you condemn Israel, for erecting a ‘FENCE’ for DEFENCE. What may I ask, are France’s motives?
Perhaps, in the future, France will be doing the same… to make up for her short-sightedness of the present. :eek:

[Ahava]

Yippee! Ode to the ICJ and Olivier (http://mirror.media.canada.com/idl/ntnp/20040710/44110-12055.jpg)

[RichardP]

Funny and maddening... because it's so true, Ahava... :(

[Binyamin]

From the ICJ's opinion (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/).
46. The first such argument is to the effect that the Court should not exercise its jurisdiction in the present case because the request concerns a contentious matter between Israel and Palestine, in respect of which Israel has not consented to the exercise of that jurisdiction. Israel has emphasized that it has never consented to the settlement of this wider dispute by the Court or by any other means of compulsory adjudication; on the contrary, it contends that the parties repeatedly agreed that these issues are to be settled by negotiation, with the possibility of an agreement that recourse could be had to arbitration. It is accordingly contended that the Court should decline to give the present Opinion...

47. The Court observes that the lack of consent to the Court’s contentious jurisdiction by interested States has no bearing on the Court’s jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion.
...

It followed from this that, in those proceedings, the Court did not refuse to respond to the request for an advisory opinion on the ground that, in the particular circumstances, it lacked jurisdiction. The Court did however examine the opposition of certain interested States to the request by the General Assembly in the context of issues of judicial propriety. Commenting on its 1950 decision, the Court explained in its Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara that it had “Thus . . . recognized that lack of consent might constitute a ground for declining to give the opinion requested if, in the circumstances of a given case, considerations of judicial propriety should oblige the Court to refuse an opinion.” The Court continued:

“In certain circumstances . . . the lack of consent of an interested State may render the giving of an advisory opinion incompatible with the Court’s judicial character. An instance of this would be when the circumstances disclose that to give a reply would have the effect of circumventing the principle that a State is not obliged to allow its disputes to be submitted to judicial settlement without its consent.” (Western Sahara, I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 25, paras. 32-33.)
...
49. Furthermore, the Court does not consider that the subject-matter of the General Assembly’s request can be regarded as only a bilateral matter between Israel and Palestine. Given the powers and responsibilities of the United Nations in questions relating to international peace and security, it is the Court’s view that the construction of the wall must be deemed to be directly of concern to the United Nations. The responsibility of the United Nations in this matter also has its origin in the Mandate and the Partition Resolution concerning Palestine (see paragraphs 70 and 71 below). This responsibility has been described by the General Assembly as “a permanent responsibility towards the question of Palestine until the question is resolved in all its aspects in a satisfactory manner in accordance with international legitimacy” (General Assembly resolution 57/107 of 3 December 2002).
50. The object of the request before the Court is to obtain from the Court an opinion which the General Assembly deems of assistance to it for the proper exercise of its functions. The opinion is requested on a question which is of particularly acute concern to the United Nations, and one which is located in a much broader frame of reference than a bilateral dispute. In the circumstances, the Court does not consider that to give an opinion would have the effect of circumventing the principle of consent to judicial settlement, and the Court accordingly cannot, in the exercise of its discretion, decline to give an opinion on that ground.

51. Some participants have argued that an advisory opinion from the Court on the legality of the wall and the legal consequences of its construction could impede a political, negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. More particularly, it has been contended that such an opinion could undermine the scheme of the “Roadmap” , which requires Israel and Palestine to comply with certain obligations in various phases referred to therein.

52. One participant in the present proceedings has indicated that the Court, if it were to give a response to the request, should in any event do so keeping in mind

“two key aspects of the peace process: the fundamental principle that permanent status issues must be resolved through negotiations; and the need during the interim period for the parties to fulfill their security responsibilities so that the peace process can succeed”.

53. The Court is conscious that the “Roadmap”, which was endorsed by the Security Council in resolution 1515 (2003) (see paragraph 22 above), constitutes a negotiating framework for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is not clear, however, what influence the Court’s opinion might have on those negotiations: participants in the present proceedings have expressed differing views in this regard. The Court cannot regard this factor as a compelling reason to decline to exercise its jurisdiction.
54. It was also put to the Court by certain participants that the question of the construction of the wall was only one aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which could not be properly addressed in the present proceedings. The Court does not however consider this a reason for it to decline to reply to the question asked. The Court is indeed aware that the question of the wall is part of a greater whole, and it would take this circumstance carefully into account in any opinion it might give. At the same time, the question that the General Assembly has chosen to ask of the Court is confined to the legal consequences of the construction of the wall, and the Court would only examine other issues to the extent that they might be necessary to its consideration of the question put to it.

55. Several participants in the proceedings have raised the further argument that the Court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction because it does not have at its disposal the requisite facts and evidence to enable it to reach its conclusions.

56.
57. In the present instance, the Court has at its disposal the report of the Secretary-General, as well as a voluminous dossier submitted by him to the Court, comprising not only detailed information on the route of the wall but also on its humanitarian and socio-economic impact on the Palestinian population. ... Moreover, numerous other participants have submitted to the Court written statements which contain information relevant to a response to the question put by the General Assembly. The Court notes in particular that Israel’s Written Statement, although limited to issues of jurisdiction and judicial propriety, contained observations on other matters, including Israel’s concerns in terms of security, and was accompanied by corresponding annexes; many other documents issued by the Israeli Government on those matters are in the public domain.

58. The Court finds that it has before it sufficient information and evidence to enable it to give the advisory opinion requested by the General Assembly. Moreover, the circumstance that others may evaluate and interpret these facts in a subjective or political manner can be no argument for a court of law to abdicate its judicial task. There is therefore in the present case no lack of information such as to constitute a compelling reason for the Court to decline to give the requested opinion.

They said before that "It is not clear, however, what influence the Court’s opinion might have on those negotiations: participants in the present proceedings have expressed differing views in this regard. The Court cannot regard this factor as a compelling reason to decline to exercise its jurisdiction." But they are acknowleging that their opinion will be used "in a subjective or political manner".


63. Lastly, the Court will turn to another argument advanced with regard to the propriety of its giving an advisory opinion in the present proceedings. Israel has contended that Palestine, given its responsibility for acts of violence against Israel and its population which the wall is aimed at addressing, cannot seek from the Court a remedy for a situation resulting from its own wrongdoing. In this context, Israel has invoked the maxim nullus commodum capere potest de sua injuria propria, which it considers to be as relevant in advisory proceedings as it is in contentious cases. Therefore, Israel concludes, good faith and the principle of “clean hands” provide a compelling reason that should lead the Court to refuse the General Assembly’s request.

64. The Court does not consider this argument to be pertinent. As was emphasized earlier, it was the General Assembly which requested the advisory opinion, and the opinion is to be given to the General Assembly, and not to a specific State or entity.

65. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes not only that it has jurisdiction to give an opinion on the question put to it by the General Assembly (see paragraph 42 above), but also that there is no compelling reason for it to use its discretionary power not to give that opinion.

[Binyamin]

66. The Court will now address the question put to it by the General Assembly in resolution ES-10/14. The Court recalls that the question is as follows:

“What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?”

67. As explained in paragraph 82 below, the “wall” in question is a complex construction, so that that term cannot be understood in a limited physical sense. However, the other terms used, either by Israel (“fence”) or by the Secretary-General (“barrier”), are no more accurate if understood in the physical sense. In this Opinion, the Court has therefore chosen to use the terminology employed by the General Assembly.
"Barrier" is obviously the best description from the three, and it accurately and physically describes the entire construction. Also interesting to note, from Para. 80-82:
"on 14 April 2002, the Cabinet adopted a decision for the construction of works, forming what Israel describes as a “security fence”, 80 kilometres in length, in three areas of the West Bank.

82. ... The project was taken a stage further when, on 23 June 2002, the Israeli Cabinet approved the first phase of the construction of a “continuous fence” in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem)." ,where they put scare quotes around the term "security fence."

70. Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class “A” Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain...

71. In 1947 the United Kingdom announced its intention to complete evacuation of the mandated territory by 1 August 1948, subsequently advancing that date to 15 May 1948. In the meantime, the General Assembly had on 29 November 1947 adopted resolution 181 (II) on the future government of Palestine, which “Recommends to the United Kingdom . . . and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation . . . of the Plan of Partition” of the territory, as set forth in the resolution, between two independent States, one Arab, the other Jewish, as well as the creation of a special international régime for the City of Jerusalem. The Arab population of Palestine and the Arab States rejected this plan, contending that it was unbalanced; on 14 May 1948, Israel proclaimed its independence on the strength of the General Assembly resolution; armed conflict then broke out between Israel and a number of Arab States and the Plan of Partition was not implemented.

72. By resolution 62 (1948) of 16 November 1948, the Security Council decided that “an armistice shall be established in all sectors of Palestine” and called upon the parties directly involved in the conflict to seek agreement to this end. ... In particular, one such agreement was signed in Rhodes on 3 April 1949 between Israel and Jordan. Articles V and VI of that Agreement fixed the armistice demarcation line between Israeli and Arab forces (often later called the “Green Line” owing to the colour used for it on maps; hereinafter the “Green Line”). It was agreed in Article VI, paragraph 8, that these provisions would not be “interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties”. It was also stated that “the Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of [the] Agreement [were] agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto”. The Demarcation Line was subject to such rectification as might be agreed upon by the parties.Sounds like it was very clearly not accepted as a final border.
73. In the 1967 armed conflict, Israeli forces occupied all the territories which had constituted Palestine under British Mandate (including those known as the West Bank, lying to the east of the Green Line).

74. On 22 November 1967, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 242 (1967), which emphasized the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war and called for the “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”, and “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency”.Where's the rest of it?
75. From 1967 onwards, Israel took a number of measures in these territories aimed at changing the status of the City of Jerusalem. The Security Council, after recalling on a number of occasions “the principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible”, condemned those measures and, by resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, confirmed in the clearest possible terms that:

“all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties, transfer of populations and legislation aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section, are totally invalid and cannot change that status”.

Later, following the adoption by Israel on 30 July 1980 of the Basic Law making Jerusalem the “complete and united” capital of Israel, the Security Council, by resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, stated that the enactment of that Law constituted a violation of international law and that “all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem . . . are null and void”. It further decided “not to recognize the ‘basic law’ and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem”.

76.
77. Lastly, a number of agreements have been signed since 1993 between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization imposing various obligations on each party. Those agreements inter alia required Israel to transfer to Palestinian authorities certain powers and responsibilities exercised in the Occupied Palestinian Territory by its military authorities and civil administration. Such transfers have taken place, but, as a result of subsequent events, they remained partial and limited.

78. The Court would observe that, under customary international law as reflected (see paragraph 89 below) in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 (hereinafter “the Hague Regulations of 1907”), territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.
At a later point they mention Israel's argument that there was no recognized government in the territories before 1967.



This is about half way through, I plan to finish tomorrow.

[ibrodsky]

I can certainly answer your questions provided you stop all french-bashing and any infringement over the rules of conduct of the forum during at least one month.

Were you not a moderator, you'd be on my ignore list already.

(and anyway, even if you prove able to do that, I have no magic recipes..)

The fact is that you support the bigotry of the UN. Israel is the *only* country in the world not allowed to participate in UN commissions and ICJ. Meanwhile, totalitarian countries are invited to chair various commissions--no matter how many people they imprison, torture, and kill for expressing dissenting opinions.

Yet you have the audacity to come here and insist that France--where Muslims kill Jews with impunity and the diplomatic corp hurls obscenities at Israel (of course, it's OK for your ambassadors to bash Israel)--is somehow above criticism.

Sorry, but France's shameful record of collaborating with Nazi Germany and more recently Arab totalitarian states does not make France above criticism.

Just yesterday, a woman and her infant were attacked by a group of French Arab thugs because they thought she was Jewish--while a large group of French citizens looked on passively. The only question is whether the French lack morality, courage, or both.

The day is coming when our leaders will realize what most Americans already know: France (which provided safe haven for the Muslim fascist Khomenei and now hosts Yaser Arafat's "wife") is our enemy and should be treated as such.

[Ahava]

I got this by e-mail: (not that it will help but it's a sign, it's all I can do anyway)


PLEASE READ AND FORWARD FAR AND WIDE


Within the next 48 hours, Jews worldwide will be sending e-mail messages to the United Nations, the EU Parliament and the EU Court of Justice with the identical message that is on this e-mail.

PLEASE take a quick moment to copy the message below and paste it on to a new e-mail that should be sent to the e-mail addresses listed below:

ecu@un.org - United Nations
civis@europarl.eu.int - EU Parliament
info@curia.eu.int - EU Court of Justice



Subject: The building of the Israeli fence

When Israel builds a fence to keep out terrorists, the UN and EU are up in arms because it makes it difficult for terrorists to kill more Jews.

When terrorists shoot (point blank!) an 8-month-pregnant Jewish woman and her 4 little girls, there is absolute silence from your organizations.

If you think your indifference goes unnoticed, count the number of messages you will receive worldwide in the next 48 to 72 hours on this.

[RichardP]

Merci, Ahava, oops, er, thanks, will do... I, too, willl send it to friends. Ibrodsky, right on!

[Ahava]

To make the circus complete:

Annan calls on Israel to accept ICJ ruling

UN Secretary-General says "I think court decision is clear. Israel must comply with international law and respect the interests of the Palestinians”.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Sunday urged Israel to respect international law amid demands that the world body make Israel accept an International Court of Justice ruling by which Israel's security barrier violates international law.

"I think the decision of the court is clear," Annan told reporters during a global Aids meeting held in Bangkok. "While we accept that the government of Israel has a responsibility and duty to protect its citizens, any action it takes has to be in conformity with international law and has to respect the interests of the Palestinians," he added.

The UN General Assembly is expected to meet this week to discuss the ruling.
http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=9648

[Canajew]

didn't see if anyone has ment ioned it, but everybody should read the dissent of Justice Burgenthal.

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwp_advisory_opinion/imwp_advisory_opinion_declaration_buergenthal.htm

Should be required reading for everyone to see exactly what was wrong with this court, particularly with respect to burden of proof and the nature of such proceedings. The court was engaged in a propaganda exercise.


And how is it getting no notice in the media that the Court actually said that Israel did not have a right to self defence. For if anything is sufficient to demonstrate that this court was so biased and so manipulative that it has absolutely no credibility than this does.

The court may have tried to dress this up as law, but it is nothing other than a pre-determined political decision that makes a mockery of international law.

[RichardP]

Annan is an out and out git, twit, and anti-Semite: “Respect the interests of the Palestinians.” The same Palestinians, who fanatically dance in celebration of Israel homicide victims; and not to overlook, are also the perpetrators and sponsors of these terrorist acts. The UN, ICJ and many others are in want of the destruction of Israel and all Jews. They will not be content until this goal is achieved… and, if the rest of the lame-brain democracies believe and trust this a-hole; they should know that, they are next on his hit list. I say screw him and his co-conspirators; Never Again!

[Binyamin]

46. The first such argument is to the effect that the Court should not exercise its jurisdiction in the present case because the request concerns a contentious matter between Israel and Palestine, in respect of which Israel has not consented to the exercise of that jurisdiction. Israel has emphasized that it has never consented to the settlement of this wider dispute by the Court or by any other means of compulsory adjudication; on the contrary, it contends that the parties repeatedly agreed that these issues are to be settled by negotiation, with the possibility of an agreement that recourse could be had to arbitration. It is accordingly contended that the Court should decline to give the present Opinion...

47. The Court observes that the lack of consent to the Court’s contentious jurisdiction by interested States has no bearing on the Court’s jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion.

In other words, the court may only give this opinion because Israel will not be required to follow it. If it will bind Israel in any way, it will be null and void, as it will remove the issue from the courts jurisdiction.

[Binyamin]

I got this by e-mail: (not that it will help but it's a sign, it's all I can do anyway)
PLEASE READ AND FORWARD FAR AND WIDE

Within the next 48 hours, Jews worldwide will be sending e-mail messages to the United Nations, the EU Parliament and the EU Court of Justice with the identical message that is on this e-mail.


There is no reason that only Jews should send them this message.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/ICJ_Ruling_on_the_Fence.asp

ICJ Ruling on the Fence

Coverage of the UN court's condemnation of the security fence omitted some key information.

The July 9 ruling http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm of the UN's International Court of Justice, condemning the Israeli security fence, came as no surprise to any of the parties involved. Israel was once again censured for taking self-defensive measures against a Palestinian terrorist campaign that continues to enjoy silent acceptance from the United Nations and its court.

Somewhat more surprising to HonestReporting was the poor quality of media coverage of the ICJ ruling. For example, see the alarmist front pages from Malaysia, http://www.honestreporting.com/images/malasia.jpg France, http://www.honestreporting.com/images/liberation.jpg and China, http://www.honestreporting.com/images/china.jpg and this front page from the Florida Ledger:

Many news outlets granted undue stature to the ICJ's non-binding opinion by omitting a number of essential points:

● OPINION OF THE AMERICAN JUDGE

The dissenting opinion of the American judge at the ICJ, Thomas Buergenthal, http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm ruled that the court should have declined to hear the case at all, since it lacked sufficient information and evidence. As reported by the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/10/international/middleeast/10BARR.html?pagewanted=2

the judge said the court should not have ruled until it had considered "all relevant facts bearing directly on issues of Israel's legitimate right of self-defense." He said the impact of "repeated deadly terror attacks" was something "never really seriously examined by the court."
Yet Judge Buergenthal's pointed critique of the court's own failure to take Palestinian terror into account was not published by most major news outlets. Typical of most coverage were Washington Post and Reuters,
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&ncid=1896&e=3&u=/nm/20040709/us_nm/mideast_barrier_judges_dc_1
which noted Buergenthal's dissent without describing its essential content.

● STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN OFFICIALS
Also absent from most news reports were rejections of the court's authority by senior American officials: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1089441978503&p=1078027574121
Secretary of State Powell said, "We didn't think it should have gone to the court in the first place," adding further that it is up to Israel to decide "what reaction they wish to have to it." White House spokesman Scott McClellan added, "we do not believe that that's the appropriate forum to resolve what is a political issue."

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry issued a statement expressing "deep disappointment" in the ICJ and affirming that "Israel's fence is a legitimate response to terror that only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel.... It is not a matter for the ICJ." And Senator Hillary Clinton http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/449648.html said: "It makes no sense for the United Nations to vehemently oppose a fence which is a non-violent response to terrorism rather than opposing terrorism itself."

By omitting these statements, news outlets implied that the ICJ ruling was broadly accepted, which it certainly was not. Alan Dershowitz, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1089441979154&p=1006953079865 in an important response to the ruling, adds that

virtually every democracy voted against that court's taking jurisdiction over the fence case, while nearly every country that voted to take jurisdiction was a tyranny.

Yet most readers were left with the false impression that the ICJ condemnation of Israel represented broad-based 'international opinion.'
[For a backgrounder on the ICJ's ruling, see the report from BICOM; http://www.bicom.org.uk/cgi-local/research/research.pl?id=158 for a review of the major legal factors involved, see the article by Laurence E. Rothenberg and Abraham Bell.] http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp513.htm

● HISTORY OF ICJ OPINIONS
Most news outlets acknowledged that the ICJ's ruling on the security fence has no binding significance, but that didn't stop the Washington Post from slipping into a South Africa comparison:

Although the ruling, which was requested by the U.N. General Assembly, is nonbinding, the court's opinions carry moral and political weight. Past decisions have been used to pressure governments in the court of public opinion, such as a ruling in 1971 against South Africa's occupation of Namibia, which led to Namibia's independence and fueled an economic boycott against South Africa's white-minority government.

It's curious that among all 24 advisory opinions http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htm delivered by the ICJ since 1947, the Washington Post chose this example as context for the anti-Israel ruling. No mention is made of the numerous cases in which ICJ rulings were simply ignored, such as the case brought against US involvement in Nicaragua in 1984, or Argentina's rejection of a 1977 ICJ ruling that granted Chile dominion over disputed islands.

Comments to Washington Post: letters@washpost.com
* * *
The security fence has already proven itself as an essential deterrent http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/MFA+Spokesman/2004/Anti-terrorist+fence+cuts+Samaria-based+attacks+by+90+percent.htm against Palestinian terrorism, but even it doesn't provide 100% protection. This morning's deadly bombing http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1089516094537 in Tel Aviv, perpetrated by Yassir Arafat's Fatah Al Aqsa Brigades, was immediately labeled by Prime Minister Sharon as "the first murder under the auspices of the International Court of Justice's ruling."

When reporting on the ICJ ruling, did your local paper include

1) Judge Buergenthal's statement condemning his own court,
2) the lack of support for the decision among democratic nations, and
3) the history of ICJ opinions, which have been regularly rejected by UN members?

This is a critical time for HonestReporting subscribers to type out a letter to your local editor, giving the other side of the story ― over a thousand Israelis killed by Palestinian terror in the past four years, and the proven effectiveness of the security fence as a deterrent. For those who are capable, write an op-ed, using the talking points above, and these more general points (courtesy The Israel Project):
http://www.theisraelproject.org/

~ What would America do if time and again we had been attacked by terrorists who infiltrated our stores, pizza parlors, buses and holiday celebrations to deliberately kill women and children? Wouldn't we want a fence?

~ Supporters of Israel, and even Israeli officials themselves, deeply regret that the security fence is needed. We all know that the fence can cause inconveniences. But isn't saving just one life worth it? Shouldn't we stop other mothers from losing their children in terrorist attacks?

~ The security fence is a temporary and nonviolent way to reduce terrorism. It is already saving lives. When the terrorism stops, the fence can be taken down.

~ The route of the fence has been determined by how to stop terrorists from killing innocent people. However, in order to reduce inconveniences to Palestinians, the Israeli Supreme Court
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Fence_Rulings_Democracy_in_Action.asp has ruled that the fence must in some places be moved to make things easier for the Palestinians. Israel is a democracy committed to rule of law and will indeed follow this court decision.

See also this fine page http://www.conferenceofpresidents.org/fence.html on the security fence and its supporters from the Council of Presidents.

Letter-writing guidelines: See our Contact the Media http://www.honestreporting.com/a/Contact_the_Media.asp page for links to local papers. When writing a letter, be sure to include full name, full address, day and evening phone numbers. Letters should be succinct (up to 250 words), while op-ed's can be approximately 600-800 words. Questions? Drop us a line: action@honestreporting.com

[eyl]

Judges' ruling rewrites UN Charter on self-defence (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10108141%255E7583,00.html)

THE advisory opinion brought down by the International Court of Justice last Friday in relation to Israel's separation barrier has implications far beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Buried deep in the text of its opinion is a bombshell that purports to radically rewrite the rules of international law governing the inherent right of states to defend themselves and their citizens.

The ICJ recognises that this right is enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. But the ICJ then says that this right is limited to self-defence in the case of armed attack "by one state against another state". That limitation does not appear anywhere in the text of Article 51 itself. Article 51 recognises that states have an inherent right of self-defence "if an armed attack occurs". It does not say that the armed attack must have been carried out by, or be attributable to, another state.

The distinction is critical in the on-going struggle against international terrorism. Although every act of terrorism necessarily originates in territory (or aboard a ship or aircraft) that is owned or occupied by a sovereign state, it does not follow that every such act of terrorism is supported by that state, and attributable to it in a legal sense.

The ICJ is now saying that if terrorists based in the territory of state A attack state B without the passive or active support of state A, state B may not have the right to defend itself from future attack by striking back at the terrorist base – despite Article 51. This is best illustrated by a concrete example.

Suppose a branch of al-Qa'ida establishes a mobile base on some remote islands in the Indonesian archipelago. Suppose also that the Indonesian government uses sincere efforts to put the base out of operation but is unable to do so. Suppose further that from that base a devastating terrorist attack is planned, financed and co-ordinated, then carried out on Australian soil, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Australian civilians.

Suppose, finally, that the Indonesian government, for internal political reasons, refuses to give Australia or any other state or international organisation permission to send troops onto its territory to wipe out the base.

Would Australia, in those circumstances, be legally justified in attacking the base, relying on its inherent right of self-defence? Until now, many lawyers would have answered yes. But according to the advisory opinion of the ICJ, the answer is no. Australia's only legal recourse would be to refer the matter to the UN Security Council in the hope that that body would authorise the use of force under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.

But that could be a slow process, fraught with political uncertainty. There is no guarantee that the Security Council would authorise the use of force. Even if a majority of Security Council members were prepared to give that authorisation, it could be vetoed by China, Russia or France, or (less likely) by the UK or the US.

And even if the Security Council eventually decided to authorise the use of force, a further attack against Australia could be launched while it debated the issue and Australia would still legally be prohibited from striking at the base until the Security Council authorisation had been obtained.

Little wonder that several judges of the ICJ felt the need to publish separate opinions expressing disagreement with the ICJ's pronouncements concerning a state's exercise of its right of self-defence. Judge Pieter Kooijmans (Netherlands) observed that the ICJ had failed to note that the Security Council resolutions condemning international terrorism, on which Israel relied, do not refer to an armed attack "by another state" but to acts of "international" terrorism.

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Thomas Buergenthal (US) expressly affirmed that the right of self-defence is not restricted to responses to attacks by state actors but is also exercisable against armed attacks by non-state actors. Judge Rosalyn Higgins (UK) also stated that she does not share the majority's views on self-defence.

In the long run, the ICJ's pronouncements on a state's right of self-defence will be of more lasting significance than its conclusions about Israel's separation barrier. Many states are likely to reject the ICJ's attempt to confine the right of self-defence to responses to armed attacks by state actors. The ICJ's opinion not only departs from the text of Article 51 of the UN Charter, it also defies common sense.

Leanne Piggott is lecturer in Middle East politics in the discipline of government and international relations at the University of Sydney.

[Mediocrates]

Un fortunately as I've said elsewhere I don't believe the ICJ has any notion similar to the American concept of precident or case law. The ICJ can say two entirely contradictory things neither of which make much sense and both of them are entirely acceptable. Moreover the ICJ really only exists to measure compliance of UN member states to the UN's own charter. It is not given, or much cares about absrtract notions of 'justice' or 'liberty'. It exists to merely benchmark various issues, many of which aren't brought to it at all but issues that it takes onto itself against the UN charter itself. The UN charter is not a law so ICJ rulings aren't really law either, they are legal [or legalistic] interpretations [for no other vocabulary exists] of issues brought to the court under the UN charter. What's interesting though is that the ICJ saw fit to specifically exclude, civil, internal or intranational conflicts from the definition of dispute. That is, instead of opening the door to what the notion of self defence is, what the ICJ has done, if anyone cares, is to legitimize civil wars, seperatist movements, revolutions and internal terrorism. It tosses out the legality of the Fence on only two legal concepts: 1) #51 doesn't apply unless another country attacks, and 2) There are 'other ways' to defend against it.

The preable about the logistics of aid and such are not reasons the ICJ itself states or uses. They are stated examples why the judgment that follows need not rest on legal reasons at all.

Now as to the first point - we've covered already. As to the second point, it does not explain what these 'other ways' might be or what the criteria for their legality might be. It does this on purpose. The first reason is that there is no notion of precident so what it says today it can easily ignore tomorrow. And the second reason is purely political. It won't permit Israel any opportunity to defend itself nor will it establish any legal criteria where Israel is permitted to act in any way with the prior blessing of the court or the UN.

So what we're left with is a statement from the ICJ, the "Legal Wing" of the UN that:

1) Civil Wars are acceptable as long as whomever you're attacking doesn't fight back.

2) There is no legal justification or framework for self defence from civil wars.

Now of course we understand the UN's abject refusal to do anything about Sudan or Chechnya or any of the world's hotspots. It's because the ICJ and the UN [i]support their self proclaimed legality of those wars. Either they are internal matters and of no consequence to the ICJ or, they are so called liberation movements from which there is no legal legitimate defense. Take your pick. But at its root, this ICJ decision has thrown a light on the UN's agenda that anyone with eyes can see.

To highlight the concept that NGO's are now incorporated and agents of warfare see:
Unrestricted Warfare

Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui
(Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, February 1999)

(excerpt, page 183)

Supra-National Combinations [Chao Guojia Zuhe]

[Combining National, International, and Non-State Organizations]

It seems we now face another paradox: in terms of theory, "going beyond limits" should mean no restrictions of any kind, going beyond everything. But in fact, unlimited surpassing of limits is impossible to achieve. Any surpassing of limits can only be done within certain restrictions. That is, "going beyond limits" certainly does not equate to "no limits," only to the expansion of "limited." That is, to go beyond the intrinsic boundaries of a certain area or a certain direction, and to combine opportunities and means in more areas or in more directions, so as to achieve a set objective.

This is our definition of "combined war that goes beyond limits." As a method of warfare with "beyond - limits" as its major feature, its principle is to assemble and blend together more means to resolve a problem in a range wider than the problem itself. For example, when national security is threatened, the answer is not simply a matter of selecting the means to confront the other nation militarily, but rather a matter of dispelling the crisis through the employment of "supra-national combinations."

We see from history that the nation-state is the highest form of the idea of security. For Chinese people, the nation-state even equates to the great concept of all-under-heaven [tianxia 1131 0007classical name for China]. Nowadays, the significance of the word "country" in terms of nationality or geography is no more than a large or small link in the human society of the "world village." Modern countries are affected more and more by regional or world-wide organizations, such as the European Community [sic; now the European Union], ASEAN, OPEC, APEC, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the WTO, and the biggest of them all, the United Nations. Besides these, a large number of multinational organizations and non-state organizations of all shapes and sizes, such as multinational corporations, trade associations, peace and environmental organizations, the Olympic Committee, religious organizations, terrorist organizations, small groups of hackers, etc., dart from left and right into a country's path. These multinational, non-state, and supra-national organizations together constitute an up and coming worldwide system of power.[3]
Perhaps not many people have noticed, but the factors described above are leading us into an era of transformation in which great power politics are yielding to supra-national politics.

The main characteristic of this era is that it is transitional: many indications of it are appearing, and many processes are just now beginning. National power is a main part, and supra-national, multinational, and non-state power is another main part, and the final verdict on which of these will play the main role on the international stage has yet to be delivered. On the one hand, the big powers still play the dominant part. In particular, that all-round big power, the United States, and the big economic powers like Japan and Germany, and the rising power China, and the fading power Russia, are all trying to exert their own influence on the overall situation. On the other hand, there are far-sighted big powers which have clearly already begun to borrow the power of supra-national, multinational, and non-state players to redouble and expand their own influence.

They realize they cannot achieve their objectives by relying only on their own power. The most recent and most typical example is the use of the euro to unify the European Community. This vigorous process has continued to today, but it has just now emerged from a period of floundering. The time when the process will conclude is still far off. The recent direction and the long-range prospect are not clear-cut. They are things which come about as a matter of course.

Nevertheless, some signs of a trend are evident; that is, the curtain is now slowly falling on the era in which the final decision on victory and defeat is made by way of state vs. state tests of strength. Instead, the curtain is quietly opening on an era in which problems will be resolved and objectives achieved by using supra-national means on a stage larger than the size of a country.[4]

[Olivier]

your legal approach to the ruling seem a bit out of the point to me...

Globalist: Israel's wall, a victory for the logic of war
Roger Cohen ~~article_owner~~
Tuesday, July 13, 2004


QALQILYA, West Bank Inside the "War Room," as it is informally called, Israeli soldiers gaze at banks of computer and television screens. What they see are images of the wall or fence or barrier - it is all these things in different places - that is transforming the physical and mental landscape of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Their job is to stop anyone crossing the barrier and so make Israel safer.

An officer shows off the gadgetry: night-vision cameras trained 24 hours a day on a barrier loaded with electronic gizmos that signal the precise location of anyone who touches it, ensuring that Israeli forces reach the area within two to eight minutes to stop the sort of infiltration of Palestinian suicide bombers that resulted in close to 100 Israeli deaths in March 2002 alone.

The barrier, destined to run over 690 kilometers, or 430 miles, from the northern West Bank to its southern rim, with numerous protrusions into the area, has become an article of faith for these soldiers and officers. It is an effective tool, they say, not a political statement. Projected to cost well over $1 billion, it works and must be completed.

If Israelis are going to the beach and to clubs again, and if bombings have become rare, it is thanks in large part, they insist, to these ditches and guard towers and coils of barbed wire and miles of wire fencing that separate two peoples, demarcating the gulf between them.

Belief in the barrier is by no means confined to the army. Most Israelis are tired of the conflict, exhausted by it. They want to forget what goes on over there, in the West Bank. A wall helps them do that. They feel that peace was within reach in the 1990s, but now the best that can be hoped for is damage limitation. A fence seems to serve that objective: It makes the task of Palestinians who want to kill them harder.

"There is a feeling that you cannot resolve this situation for the coming decades, you can only manage it," says Tom Segev, a historian. "The wall is ugly and terrible, but it is also a way of managing."

So when the International Court of Justice in The Hague rules that the barrier is illegal, or when the Israeli Supreme Court declares that its planned path northwest of Jerusalem must be changed, many Israelis shrug. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's insistence that the barrier is necessary for self-defense - and international opinion or law be damned - finds a generally sympathetic domestic reception.

Opinions diverge on the reasons for the precipitous fall in Palestinian bombings this year. Is the intifada exhausted after almost four years? Was Yasser Arafat cowed by the Israeli killing of Hamas leaders? Did the removal of those leaders throw Palestinian militants into disarray? Have the ceaseless patrols by more than 12,000 Israeli soldiers in the West Bank blocked attacks?

Perhaps each theory has its share of truth. But whoever espouses these ideas also tends to see the barrier as an effective, additional guarantee of some semblance of normal life in Israel. Sure, the price is high - the defeat of hope - but so be it.

What is missing, of course, from such Israeli musings is any real grasp of the life of the person on the other side of the barrier, the Palestinian. On those war-room screens the most common sight is a Palestinian in a donkey cart trundling along a dirt track beside the barrier.

The contrast between the high-tech Israeli cameras that deliver these images and the abject existence of the Palestinians photographed provides an apt summation of the divergence of the societies: a first-world Israel forging ahead as best it can, a third-world Palestinian society going backward.

The barrier, destined for completion by the end of next year, amounts to the most visible expression of the way Israelis and Palestinians have parted company. Because it wills and advances this unilateralist separation, the wall is profoundly political, whatever Israeli officers say.

To move through the West Bank today is to witness the growth of parallel networks. Israelis drive on highways to their settlements spreading like garrisons on hills. Palestinians are increasingly confined to dirt tracks beside these roads. The impression of colonizer and colonized is inescapable.

Nowhere is this separation more evident than between Qalqilya and the adjacent West Bank town of Hable. Having built the fence around three sides of these two towns, Israeli authorities realized that the two places, now cut off, depended on each other. So now the army is building a series of tunnels under the winding fence that will be used by Palestinians.

Israeli officers portray this as a generous gesture. They are proud of helping the tunnel people communicate. They show off flourishing orange trees and say the trees are proof of how "we let them into their fields." At one gate, Mutassem Abu Tayem, a 36-year-old Palestinian farmer, waits on a donkey cart to be let onto his land. His view? "We are living in a prison and are treated like beasts."

Fair treatment, many Israelis would say, for a people who adopted a national strategy of blowing up busloads of children. But the moral cost of the barrier to the idea of a Jewish homeland seems enormous. In the Jerusalem area, where the wall is really a wall of concrete, higher than the Berlin Wall, the offense to the ideal that was Israel appears incalculable.

Look one way from the Mount of Olives and you see the golden walls of the Old City, refracting light. Turn east toward the village of Abu Dis and there is this gray monument to defeat, deadening light. To one side, minarets and churches and onion domes and synagogues piled, it seems, one on top of the other. To the other, the razor cut of a wall through land and psyche.

Life is an accumulation, war a dissection. It is clear in Jerusalem today that the logic of war has won.

http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?file=529169.html

[Canajew]

can someone point out to Olivier that the map he has in his sig has no connection to the fence as it is currently planned. It is, in fact, VERY different, and thus isleading, given that we all know it has changed since then.

But on the whole this may be the least inflamatory, biased article he has ever posted. Only response I have is that the prospects for peace were illusory, and reocgnizing reality as it exists is not a less noble or peaceable alternative than to allow the enemy to continue to have the opportunity to attack at ease.

[Binyamin]

Australia's only legal recourse would be to refer the matter to the UN Security Council in the hope that that body would authorise the use of force under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.

But that could be a slow process, fraught with political uncertainty.
Actually, there is total certainty. They will not get permission.



The article which Olivier posted shows very clearly the illogical view many people have of the issues here. The fence works- yes. But what about those poor Pals on their donkeys!

No serious legal or moral argument was made against the fence. The article defends the fence pretty well. But when all is said and done- what will be with those Palestinians? Who cares if the fence is justified?

[Canajew]

but it is an important question nonetheless. what will be done with the Palestinians? The article misses the point, but at what point will they be freed from their corrupt leadership and theirt dysfunctional education/brainwashing system so that the wall might possibly not be necessary at some distant point in the future. The author's gut inclination is to blame Israel and the fence for all the problems of Palestinian society, rather than recognizing the fence as a MANIFESTATION of those problems.

And maybe it will exacerbate things. but on the flip side, maybe not. As the greater the likelihood of "success" of terrorist attacks and "armed conflict", the more difficult it is for the moderates in Palestinian society to constrain the combatants, and the less likely the combatants are to accept or even contemplate compromise.

Once again, the only way for this to ever end is for the Palestinains to realize they have lost in their goal of the destruction of Israel and cannot win. This is the correct paradigm through which to view the security fence. Becuase if they never give up, their poor pesants walking donkey carts down the street will always have donkeys as transportation, regardlkess of whether there is an "ugly" fence or not.

[Mediocrates]

And in other court related news today:

http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=65674

US Court: The PLO Must Pay Damages for Terrorism
The Ungars were murdered in a drive-by shooting in 1996, near the city of Beit Shemesh. Yaron was an American citizen, which gave his family standing before US federal courts.

Issued late Monday, the decision upholds a judgment against the PLO and the PA from April. The judges hearing the case over the years, since March 2000, have made several other dramatic decisions, as well.

In January 2004, the decision awarding $116 million to the Ungars was issued against the Hamas terrorist group. The Ungars argued that the PLO and PA are accomplices to the crime because they provide assistance to the Hamas terrorists. Without ruling specifically on that claim, the judge issued a default judgement against the PLO and PA when those organizations refused to comply with discovery requests and refused to make Yasser Arafat, and other PLO leaders, available for questioning.

In November of 2002, the judge in the case, Ronald Lagueux, declared for the first time in a US court that the Palestinian Authority fails to meet the criteria for statehood and that it cannot be granted sovereign immunity.

A PLO/PA appeal of the current verdict is expected.

The Associated Press quoted David Strachman, the attorney for the Ungars, as saying on Tuesday, "[The ruling] shows average citizens that are attacked have an avenue to use to go and punish terrorists."

Al-Qaeda is similarly in the dock, with a US Federal Court in New York hearing a similar case against that international terrorist group brought by families, and in some cases the home countries, of the victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks in the US.