94 Comments

1. BigFire:

International Court of Justice stands for everyone excepts Israel and United States. That’s been the norm for ages, why should they change?

Jul 9, 2004 - 10:46 am 2. Mark Poling:

The level of “make believe” here is incredible. The Chinese judge acts like International Law has any meaning. The Palestinian leadership acts like they have any legitimacy. Everyone pretends the UN has any purpose other that organized graft.

I know the United States needs to participate in the United Nations and the World Court, but damn!

What I admire about Israel is that, as a country, they’re willing to call the world on it’s BS.

End of incoherent rant.

Jul 9, 2004 - 11:01 am 3. Morgan:

Given that the wall seems to work as a barrier to suicide bombers, the World Court has effectively attempted to impose the death penalty on a large number of random innocent Israeli civilians. Israel is unlikely to comply.

One advantage of being irrevocably labeled by most of the world as the epitome of evil is that you don’t have to debate whether the benefit (in terms of international opinion) of capitulation to such a ruling outweights the costs. There would be no benefit at all.

Jul 9, 2004 - 11:08 am 4. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Sometimes, Roger, I think the whole world has gone bananas. The level of nonsense is amazing.

Of course, a more accurate analysis would be that the …hmmm… can’t find a good word… rulers? mandarins? elites? have gone nuts. Actually, a good word is needed there. These people are in undemocratic positions of power – sometimes substantial power. And from our point of view they are flippin’ nuts. In reality, I think they are merely behaving as elites do: they are ruling. They are not constrained by democracy, by majorities, or frankly, by anything at all. So they are ruling. And they are ruling as they see fit. This time its the judges. Next time it will be the weasel Chirac, or the terrorist Fischer.

Darfur was a big topic here. The French have major oil interests in Darfur. Expect security council help there?

It would seem that the Europeans and their institutions are enough for one or two outrages per day, and yet they are not even that significant a part of the modern world.

The Democratic party appears to be the US part of this ruling elite, except they aren’t ruling (yet).

Jul 9, 2004 - 11:19 am 5. Roger:

NOTE TO ALL: HTML is now enabled. That means, in Moveable Type, if you don’t know the rudimentary code (a href, etc.) and type simply http://www.etc. people will have to copy and past. Hey, nothing’s perfect. Maybe MT wil fix this.

Jul 9, 2004 - 11:29 am 6. TedM:

We all knew the result of this farce before the “trial”.

I can’t get excited about this bull again. It is something we have lived with and why most of us have not regard for these international organizations

Jul 9, 2004 - 11:42 am 7. Syl:

The Islamists have won Europe and the Left. This is the proof.

Jul 9, 2004 - 11:43 am 8. marek:

Anybody remembers zionism = nazism resolution?

Looks like about the same level of “international community” sophistication.

This verdict will be a constant headache for Israel. Now it’s not only terror as freedom fight, it will be now a fight in support of international community’s judgment. Yick…

Sometimes I feel like the only way for Israel is to behave like her neighbors without losing her soul, somehow.

Jul 9, 2004 - 12:05 pm 9. Syl:

What I don’t get is that Europe and the Left (same thing?) doesn’t understand that the Palestinian leadership and bin laden are both cut from the same Islamist cloth.

So when some decry the fact we haven’t caught bin laden, yet still almost worship Arafat you really have to wonder.

This is from a Friday sermon presented on Palestinian Authority TV in March, 2003, which sounds like it could have come from Democratic Underground:

“Why Iraq? Why precisely Iraq? Is it because it is in possession of weapons of mass destruction as they claim? No. The U.N. has proven that this claim is not true but despite this America wants to wage war against Iraq. Why Iraq, Oh Muslims? Wake up. You’re being attacked because of your religion. Iraq is being attacked for a number of reasons: There are economic and security reasons. There are reasons stemming from personal vendetta, there are historical reasons, and there are religious reasons.”

“You all know that America is enduring now an economic crisis that nearly finishes it. Hence it has no choice but to start a warÖ there should be war in order to raise the American standard of living. Iraq is the only Gulf state whose oil is not controlled by AmericaÖ”

“And there are personal reasons. You all know about the slap in the face which Iraq gave America at the time of the first invasion, when Iraq gave a knock out [punch] to America, the result of which was that Pharaoh the father [George Bush, Sr.] lost the presidency. This is a mark of shame on this family and therefore Pharaoh the son returned to power in order to take revenge. The only way to remove the shame is to topple down the Iraqi regimeÖ”

“This is also a religious war. What is the connection between Iraq and the Crusaders’ wars?”

“Just as Palestine is sacred so is also the land of Iraq, because the Prophet said soÖ”

“America will be destroyed, Allah willing, and Palestine, Iraq, and the Middle East will become a cemetery for oppressorsÖ”

from Memri

Jul 9, 2004 - 12:09 pm 10. heather:

Whell, this typekey thingy finally worked! Congratulations, Roger Simon. If even I can make it happen, then anyone can.

The International Criminal Court is part of the UN. It is an expression of anti American and anti Israel hatred and that is all. So much for “The Law”, eh?

Jul 9, 2004 - 12:19 pm 11. Robert McClelland:

Peep.

Jul 9, 2004 - 12:30 pm 12. James Stephenson:

What do you expect.

The ICC was never about being fair. It was about power. Power to enforce rulings against the USA. Power to enforce rulings against Israel.

The ICC was never about doing the right thing. It was about controlling or stopping the right thing.

And some people on the left actually want America to surrender her sovereign right to these idiots.

Funny.

Jul 9, 2004 - 12:33 pm 13. James Stephenson:

Well it seems that the Iman, much like the Left here, need to get their facts in order.

This year could end up being the best expansion of the American Economy since 1984.

Jul 9, 2004 - 12:35 pm 14. Thomas Lifson:

The ICC and the Arab world care not a whit that Saudi Arabia is building an even more formidable barrier fence along its border with Yemen. http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=39304&d=10&m=2&y=2004

Jul 9, 2004 - 12:37 pm 15. Good Ole Charlie:

Who is going to give a fig for this decision? Nobody of any consequence.

It’s more propaganda than jurisprudence.

Remember American History: “John Marshall has made his decision, now let John Marshall enforce his decision.” – Andrew Jackson, President.

Toothless…”Covenants without swords are mere words.” Thomas Hobbes (no, not the tiger), Leviathan (I believe).

Jul 9, 2004 - 12:45 pm 16. Robert McClelland:

The ICC and the Arab world care not a whit that Saudi Arabia is building an even more formidable barrier fence along its border with Yemen.

The difference is that Saudi Arabia is building the fence on their property. Israel is not.

Jul 9, 2004 - 12:48 pm 17. Thom:

Well, here’s some good news.

“BUENOS AIRES, July 8 (JTA) — In an unprecedented step, Catholic religious leaders have signed on to a statement rejecting anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism.

A statement expressing “total rejection of anti Semitism in all its forms, including anti-Zionism as a more recent manifestation of anti Semitism,” was released Thursday at the end of the 18th International Liaison Committee meeting between Jewish and Catholic intellectuals and religious leaders in Buenos Aires.

The Catholic and Jewish leaders also committed to work together for justice and charity.”

http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2004/07/09/news/world/ccondem0709.txt

Jul 9, 2004 - 12:55 pm 18. Forbes:

Doesn’t the US have a big fence stretching across our southern border with Mexico–or at least great portions of the border–when will some ambulance chasing lawyer bring this to the World Court’s attention. Ultimately, what these sorts want are universal open borders, universal citizenship, and a one world government. Unfortunately your rights will take a back seat to the lowest common denominator–such as a judge from Communist China.

Jul 9, 2004 - 1:26 pm 19. Thomas Lifson:

Saudi Arabia controls its “property” on which it is building its fence by reason of conquest. So does Israel, the difference being that Israel was fighting a defensive war.

Jul 9, 2004 - 1:29 pm 20. Yehudit:

testing type key.

Jul 9, 2004 - 1:39 pm 21. Yehudit:

Here’s a list of many of the fences around the world between one country and another. Obviously the “law” is not being applied equally, so the ruling is illegitimate.

Jul 9, 2004 - 1:41 pm 22. Charles Johnson:

‘Scuse me while I test this guy!

http://google.com

Jul 9, 2004 - 1:51 pm 23. ter0:

Perhaps if Israel had argued it built the wall the to keep Israelis in — rather than Palestinians out — the court would have found the purpose more to its liking.

Jul 9, 2004 - 1:58 pm 24. Rick Ballard:

Charles,

My compliments on the transition. While you’re here maybe you could take out a troll for Roger?

Also, the MT cookie checker needs to be adjusted so that we don’t have to sign in unless we sign out. If I leave the site now it believes that I’ve signed out.

Jul 9, 2004 - 2:08 pm 25. chriss:

Sheesh is one word.

Perverse is another.

Jul 9, 2004 - 2:11 pm 26. Tano:

Can we dispense with the mindless rants for just a moment and deal with reality?

The Court has no jurisdiction to rule against a wall built INSIDE ISRAEL.

If y’all think that the wall is a good thing, and that Israel has a right to defend itself with such a wall (I’m not arguing against that) – then support them in building the wall on THEIR SIDE of the line.

Jul 9, 2004 - 2:40 pm 27. Mary:

The Dutch judge actually supported the dissent by

the American judge, according to Haaretz.

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

Should we tear down the Great Wall of China?

(I’m Mary. Preview doesn’t show my name.)

Jul 9, 2004 - 2:41 pm 28. anachronda:

How ironic that the judge who read the ruling declaring Israel’s security barrier illegal comes from China – the country that ate Tibet whole and has a human rights record somewhere South of Attila.

Of course, the chief irony is that China is the one country famous for having found a wall useful to keep the hordes of barbians at bay.

But than, that probably goes without saying; might explain why nobody’s said it yet.

Jul 9, 2004 - 2:41 pm 29. TedM:

Tano,

There is no other side. The “border’ is whatever is negotiated. The territory was taken in a war.

The war was waged by Egypt Jordan and Syria. Remember. There was no other side.

Think of it like a barbed wire fence along a truce line.

Jul 9, 2004 - 2:54 pm 30. Sun-Tzu:

What is the basis of the Court’s standing to rule on the wall at all?

And please don’t cite a UN Resolution. Those:

1. Are non-binding. (Article VII, rather than Article VI based, iirc, expressing the sense of the UN, but unlike the Iraq resolutions, having no further force.)

2. Called for, in essence, land-for-peace. If the PA is unwilling or unable to negotiate in good faith, as the intifada indicated, on what basis is one to conclude that said land is no longer Israeli?

Of course, this begs the question: Which line are you referring to? The PA has still not come to recognize the right of the state of Israel to exist, iirc. (This would include removing certain clauses from both the English AND Arabic versions of its Charter, frex.) Under such circumstances, the “line” would seem to be the Mediterranean, in their view.

You say that it’s the pre-’67 borders? Why is that the “Israeli side” of the line? What makes that MORE legitimate?

Why not the ‘48 borders? You know, the original UN mandate? So what if it’s indefensible?

Somehow, the PA doesn’t have to lay out what IT thinks the line is, but the Israelis are supposed to conform with someone else’s rather arbitrary decision on what THEY think the line is? And a court is upholding this w/ no standing?

What was that about “mindless rants”?

Jul 9, 2004 - 2:54 pm 31. Tano:

Spin it all you want. The 67 borders are the officially recognized (thats by the US government as well) borders of the soverign state of Israel. Gaza and all of the West Bank are occupied territories.

What the court has ruled is precisely the same as what everyone has known all along. Israel does not have the right to do whatever it wants in the territories. And that includes annexing it, settling it, or walling parts of it off.

Build the wall on the 67 borders, and no one would have any objection.

Jul 9, 2004 - 3:03 pm 32. Robert McClelland:

The war was waged by Egypt Jordan and Syria. Remember. There was no other side.

So why do you think the Palestinians should suffer for that?

The reality of the situation is that everyone, including Bush, thinks that one of the major impedements to peace in the region is Israel occupying Palestinian land. So until that issue is addressed, which this advisory ruling by the ICC does in part, there will not be even the possibility of a settlement.

Jul 9, 2004 - 3:05 pm 33. Sun-Tzu:

Tano:

You still haven’t answered the question: Recognized by whom?

In particular, if the PA refuses to recognize those borders, exactly why should the Israelis? Especially when it’s THEIR security at stake?

Jul 9, 2004 - 3:17 pm 34. Yehudit:

What’s the point of registration if r McC can still post?

Jul 9, 2004 - 3:19 pm 35. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Ironically, the war in which the territory was captured was a pre-emptive defensive war.

In other words, when Israel saw its enemies building up their forces, Israel struck first, destroying the air forces of those nations.

Regardless of what various elite blabbermouths of the world want to say, Israel took the territory defensively, and hence own it. They choose not to do so because they do not want responsibility for the Palestinian population (but they will keep the Golan because of its critical strategic value).

After what the Palestinians have done, Israel should not have to listen to anybody about anything in that area. Palestinian terrorists, enjoying widespread support from the populace, targeted Israeli civilians over and over again. Those who don’t understand the fundamentual evil of those acts are not equipped to discuss human affairs.

The fence is an obviously good solution. I think it would be better if accompanied by a policy to take an additional square mile of Palestinian territory for each Israelli killed by Palestinians.

There is a democracy in the middle east, and it, just like the United States, is under attack. Israel is our ally and Israel is a worthy ally.

The Palestinian leadership and members who support terrorism can got straight to hell. Israeli is invited to speed their journey.

The same world court which has allowed the massacre and slavery in the southern Sudan is now harassing Israel.

What a joke.

Jul 9, 2004 - 3:21 pm 36. Yehudit:

In addition to the arguments above:

UN Resolution 242 recognizes Israel’s right to secure borders. All US statements as well have included a recognition of Israel’s right to security. The 67 borders are not secure. Also, most of these statements and resolutions say something about land for peace. So far the Pals have repeatedly shown they cannot or will not make peace. There is no historical precedent for Israel giving something for nothing.

Jul 9, 2004 - 3:23 pm 37. Sun-Tzu:

Those ‘67 borders, of course, left the Wailing Wall under Jordanian control. I take it, Tano, that Israel is expected, under the “internationally recognized borders” to leave that area in, uh, whose hands exactly? The UN, the PA, the Jordanians?

You DO mean that, right? You DO expect the Israelis to do that?

I mean, if not, then the borders are, suddenly, negotiable and fungible, and that would contradict the previous point, wouldn’t it?

Jul 9, 2004 - 3:27 pm 38. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Ironically, the war in which the territory was captured was a pre-emptive defensive war.

In other words, when Israel saw its enemies building up their forces, Israel struck first, destroying the air forces of those nations.

Regardless of what various elite blabbermouths of the world want to say, Israel took the territory defensively, and hence own it. They choose not to do so because they do not want responsibility for the Palestinian population (but they will keep the Golan because of its critical strategic value).

After what the Palestinians have done, Israel should not have to listen to anybody about anything in that area. Palestinian terrorists, enjoying widespread support from the populace, targeted Israeli civilians over and over again. Those who don’t understand the fundamentual evil of those acts are not equipped to discuss human affairs.

The fence is an obviously good solution. I think it would be better if accompanied by a policy to take an additional square mile of Palestinian territory for each Israelli killed by Palestinians.

There is a democracy in the middle east, and it, just like the United States, is under attack. Israel is our ally and Israel is a worthy ally.

The Palestinian leadership and members who support terrorism can got straight to hell. Israeli is invited to speed their journey.

The same world court which has allowed the massacre and slavery in the southern Sudan is now harassing Israel.

What a joke.

Jul 9, 2004 - 3:34 pm 39. ambisinistral:

With the rise of Islamism the two state solution is probably a moot issue anyways. For 60 years the Arabs have rejected compromise to try to grasp the whole enchillada. Now Isreal has unilarerally set the borders and the Palistineans are left stateless in their “refugee” camps.

Maybe Arafat will win another nobel prize — this one for created the world’s largest mud and brick trailor park.

Jul 9, 2004 - 3:58 pm 40. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Arab leaders for years have used the Palestinian cause as a way to distract their own people from the failures of their own governments. Israel, by building the wall, damages that issue. The Palestinians are now free to build a prosperous society, a democracy, the garden of Eden (well, they need to borrow Eden from Iraq). But its hard for them to cry victim when the Israelis no longer have a need to occupy their territory.

Instead, the various Palestinian groups are left in competition. Who becomes the next ruler? Hamas has done a lot of homework in the political sense, but as long as they remain terrorists, they will need a fast acting succession protocol for their leaders. Fatah is still there, with its kleptocratic leadership.

If the rest of the world would stop subsidiziing Palestinian organizations (and with the Iraq war, they lost one big subsidy), the Palestinians would be forced to get their act together (or more likely, to create yet another dictatorship).

Meanwhile, they are going to try for a catastrophic terror attack against Israel. Raising the “cost” of getting into Israel raises the level of violence necessary to make an attack worthwhile.

And then there’s Hezbollah, sitting on Israel’s northern border with an estimated 10,000 rockets and missiles, some presumably chemically armed.

I wonder what having an occupied Iraq between them and Iran does to their logistics (heh heh).

Jul 9, 2004 - 4:38 pm 41. Robert McClelland:

The same world court which has allowed the massacre and slavery in the southern Sudan is now harassing Israel.

Do you even know what the International Criminal Court is?

Jul 9, 2004 - 4:47 pm 42. rgvdh:

mark poling sez:

“I know the United States needs to participate in the United Nations and the World Court”

Why?

Jul 9, 2004 - 5:00 pm 43. Good Ole Charlie:

Robert McClelland:

“Go away, Boy…you bother me.”

Old huckster Line, but apropos.

Jul 9, 2004 - 5:02 pm 44. richard mcenroe:

{{{irony}}} Oh come now, surely a few thousand murdered innocents is a small price to pay to show respect for the rule of law… especially when they are someone else’s innocents…{{{/irony}}}

Jul 9, 2004 - 5:10 pm 45. PeterUK:

When the Chinese annexed Tibet the chinese army systematically raped the women of Tibet in order to make them pregnant in order to dilute the population.

China also sanctions the infanticide of millions of female.

The same enlightened country also allows the sale of the body parts of those it executes.

Jul 9, 2004 - 5:33 pm 46. Dave Schuler:

For those who oppose the wall: suggest a solution. In your proposal please take into account that:

The parents and grandparents of the present Israeli were forcibly ejected from the same European and Arab countries that oppose the Israelis now.

Things got to where they are right now due to Irael’s Arab neighbors repeatedly making war on them.

Yasser Arafat refused the reasonable settlement offered to him.

The Palestinian Authority refused to crackdown on the suicide bombers for fear of causing civil war. (How could they tell?)

There are enough radicals both in Israel and on the West Bank and Gaza to render any negotiated settlement moot.

Jul 9, 2004 - 5:43 pm 47. Tano:

Dave,

Dont be confused by all the willful misdirection going on here. Nobody is opposing the wall. The only point I am raising, and that the Court has ruled on, is WHERE the wall should be.

It is a wall for Israel’s defense – it should be on the border, or anywhere inside the border that they wish to put it.

End of story.

In his saner moments, I even seem to remember Roger making some comment supportive of my position, but maybe I dont remember well…

Jul 9, 2004 - 6:09 pm 48. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Tano

The wall should be wherever necessary to protect Israel.

The Palestinians have sacrificed all rights with their behavior, and if it has to go through Palestinian territory (whatever that means), then it should.

And if there’s a big Israeli settlement just across the line, well heck, run the wall around it too.

Let the Palestinians pay for their crimes.

Jul 9, 2004 - 6:15 pm 49. Dave Schuler:

Tano:

I think your point is well taken. However, the article that Roger cites implies that the ruling was on the wall per se not its placement. I haven’t read the decision itself. Have you? Do you have a link? If so your position would appear to be a middle ground but not necessarily supportive of the advisory ruling of the Court.

Jul 9, 2004 - 6:31 pm 50. Tano:

Dave,

No, I havent read the actual ruling. But the ruling was obviously about the wall as it exists. I dont see that the Court would have any jurisdiction over whether a wall built within Israel would be legal or not. I dont see that there is any international law that would, or could prevent a country from doing something like that within its own territory. As I understand it, the only reason that the ICJ has the case is precisely because it is outside their borders.

Jul 9, 2004 - 6:35 pm 51. Robert McClelland:

The ruling from the ICJ.

Jul 9, 2004 - 7:00 pm 52. Steve Keeley:

Sorry; just needed to test my registration.

Jul 9, 2004 - 7:00 pm 53. ricpic:

Test

Jul 9, 2004 - 7:13 pm 54. Doug:

It’s just a bizarro universe. To even spend the energy to comment on this absurd injustice seems a waste of time and energy. We must continue to thank god the United States remains on the side of right.

Jul 9, 2004 - 7:45 pm 55. Mike_Nargizian:

I was going to comment on this threat but instead I’ll relay a story from tonight.

I was eating with a good friend of mine.

For clarification he’s Greek but has lived here for about 15-18 years. He’s about 37 a little older than me, married to an American girl (Greek Descent)and a pretty good guy.

It started out in a general conversation and then him and another greek person commented on the war in Iraq. “Its none of our business being there” And then they said “Do you know the only reason for the war and for the terrorism?”

And I said don’t tell me the old line about for the oil.

And they said - “No its because of the US’s support of Israel. All the terrorism is because this country supports Israel.”

And I said - “So we should just sell them down the river and let the Arabs try and kill all of them?”

And he (my friend) said - “No Israel would make peace if we stopped backing them. And why do they need all that nucleur bombs?”

And I said -“Because all of the Arabs want to kill them and would in a heartbeat. And I said why does France need one?”

And he said - “France is an ‘educated’ country and they all don’t want to kill Israel”

I said - “France is nothing they have no power they’re down here on the influence in the world (which he scoffed at) And Israel per capita is one of the most educated societies in the world and much higher than France as a % of scientists, doctors and engineers, etc… You don’t know what you’re talking about. They’ve been trying to kill Israel and state it all the time for decades since the Partition.”

And he said - “It would all stop if Israel would make peace. And its because (the problems in the Arab Muslim world) of the Israeli genocide on the Palestinians”

He then scoffed at the idea of Israelis being very well educated like a “France”.

What he really meant was the general European attitude towards the Jewish state so well put at that French dinner party last year.(that shitty little country for those who don’t know)

And I said - “Genocide what the fuck are you talking about? Their population has tripled since Israel took over the territories.

He said - “Well how many Palestinians have they killed”

I said - “2000 since the Intifadah started 3 years ago and almost 1000 Israelis have died” (Its 3000 actually) And there’s a real Genocide going on in the Sudan the Arab Muslims are killing by the hundreds of thousands Black African Xtians and Muslims”

He said - “Well what about before that they killed 35 or 40,000.”

I said - “Where the fuck are you getting your figures from. You have no clue what the fuck you’re talking about”

He said - “Why do you even care about this. I am Greek I don’t care about Greece. (He’s full of shit his family all lives there and visits every other year). Just because you are Jewish you are American.”

At this point I told him get the fuck away from me.

You got to remember that this is good guy but a guy who grew up in Greece where there is no eclectic mix of people like the small county I come from, and where its illegal by law to build anything but a Church. Where Greek Orthodox is written on your license. I grew up with black, white, puerto rican, Italian, Irish, Jewish, Christian, Indian etc… And this guy is lecturing me on prejudice etc…

Its that sneaking out of the European attitude that comes through. We could avoid talking about this topic all the time and get along great but you get a dose of that irrational completely ignoramous mentality coming out.

Jul 9, 2004 - 8:05 pm 56. Tano:

Well, I read the actual decision – not something I would recommend for the weak of heart – 64 pages or so…

To the issue that Dave mentioned – I can relate that it is absolutely the case that the issue here is where the wall is, with respect to the precise legal standing of the various parties and the legal status of the boundaries between them. This case exists solely because the wall is on the far side of the green line.

I also read the lone dissent (it was 14-1 vote), from the American justice. His position was that the case should not have been accepted because not enough information was on hand. He acknowledged that that was the case primarily because Israel did not offer much in its defense, but neither was it obliged to (this was an advisory ruling, not a directly contested case). Otherwise he was actually rather sympathetic to the findings.

In his dissent he included the following passage, which I was heartened to see (to see that even American justices can rule fairly on issues of international law). Quite remarkable, given the nature of the political discourse on this questions (here, basically about settlements…):

” Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention also does not admit for exceptions on grounds of military or security exigencies. It provides that ìthe Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupiesî. I agree that this provision applies to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and that their existence violates Article 49, paragraph 6. It follows that the segments of the wall being built by Israel to protect the settlements are ipso facto in violation of international humanitarian law. Moreover, given the demonstrable great hardship to which the affected Palestinian population is being subjected in and around the enclaves created by those segments of the wall, I seriously doubt that the wall would here satisfy the proportionality requirement to qualify as a legitimate measure of self‑defence.”

Jul 9, 2004 - 9:46 pm 57. Miles Hawthorne:

I agree that in some areas the security barrier (only a miniscule percentage is an actual wall) should be made to conform more closely to the 1967 border. But to think that this would stop the opposition (in all its forms) is to engage in what psychiatrists call magical thinking. This was made very clear at the Camp David/Taba discussions. There a settlement was negotiated that came very close to giving the Palestinians all the wanted (85% in their own reckoning; 95% in the Israeli). Now someone who really wanted a deal when offered 85% of what he said he was after would damn well keep negotiating to get more. But Arafat walked away, never made a counter-offer and started Intifada II. So the two-state solution was actually a smoke screen all along and not wanted by the Palestinian leadership who were and are exploiting their people, socially and economically. (In a sense, the Europeans are doing this also.) Anyone who does not support the wall does not really care about of the Palestinian people, because it is their only hope to move their lives away from terrorism and toward their own salvation. Their leaders are not doing it and do not want to. Thought about logically, it is even more important for better Palestinian life than for the Israelis. But most are too mired in hatred and preconception to see that. The location of the wall is almost irrelevant.

Jul 9, 2004 - 9:58 pm 58. Michael B:

“Otherwise he [dissenting Judge Buergenthal] was actually rather sympathetic to the findings.” Tano

That’s an almost entirely unfounded characterization given the reason for his dissenting declaration was fundamental to the entirety of the affirming judges’ decisions. He’s in fact saying that, in theory and dependent upon those undisclosed yet absolutely fundamental, real-world factors, he’s sympathetic to the matters of international law being raised and addressed. Significantly, he opens his dissenting declaration thusly:

“Since I believe that the Court should have exercised its discretion and declined to render the requested advisory opinion, I dissent from its decision to hear the case. My negative votes with regard to the remaining items of the dispositif should not be seen as reflecting my view that the construction of the wall by Israel on the Occupied Palestinian Territory does not raise serious questions as a matter of international law. I believe it does, and there is much in the Opinion with which I agree. However, I am compelled to vote against the Court’s findings on the merits because the Court did not have before it the requisite factual bases for its sweeping findings; it should therefore have declined to hear the case.”

Hence it wasn’t the “sweeping findings” he was sympathetic to, it was the relative seriousness of the matter being addressed within the scope of intl. law.

Jul 9, 2004 - 11:37 pm 59. Michael B:

This is both an intriguing and a revealing case once the ICJ’s advisory opinion – and what it’s based upon – is looked at closely. That is so in part because it critically reflects upon the poorly founded and the almost irretrievably corrosive trans-nationalist views of a John Kerry, among other potential Left/Dem trans-nationalist politicians and ideologues. “Irretrievably” because if the bureaucratic/legal hydrogen balloon were ever to be unmoored from the realism the U.S. helps to keep it moored to, there will be no very easy turning back. “Corrosive” of a nation’s sovereignty as demarcated within the broad sweep of international law no less. And “bureaucratic/legal” because, much like the U.N. itself, the ICJ is held accountable to no immediate constituency that is suitably empowered to counter-balance the enormous power that potentially inheres to its decisions (thus reminiscent of Paul Voelker’s lack of subpoena based and other empowerment vis-a-vis the UN’s oil-for-kickbacks investigation). Such a blatant disregard for balance of power, Lockean tenets, that inform the very foundations of our own U.S. Constitution, should be noted by any informed and concerned citizen.

Israel’s circumstances occasionally function as coal miner’s canary cases, this is one of those situations, and a rather stark one it is at that.

“Dont be confused by all the willful misdirection …” Tano

In point of fact there is little or no evidence of “wilful misdirection” in any of the preceding posts, excepting perhaps an example or two provided by R. McClelland, who similarly evidences the same reality averse, overly abstracted and ideologically based thinking. Ironic that in appropriating that phrase for its rhetorical effect – while either blindly or wilfully ignoring its lack of applicability – you therein succeed in exemplifying precisely what the ICJ itself did in rendering this decision: pontifically pronouncing their advisory decision while simultaneously ignoring basic human, existential realities that should have perforce informed the decision (and therein evidencing the other judges’ propensity in favor of an ideological fervor that eschews both a better founded and better reasoned legal analysis as well as the acknowledgement of basic facts on the ground).

To wit, refer to ICJ Judge Buergenthal’s dissenting declaration again, a noteworthy excerpt of which follows:

“3. It may well be, and I am prepared to assume it, 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.”

In other words “don’t be confused by” the flagrant lack of conscience as exhibited by the affirming judges and others who are seemingly willing to kowtow, almost unthinkingly, to this decision. Or more rightly stated, are willing to have others (i.e., Israelis) kowtow to this decision and therein be put at risk.

Finally, it’s not at all surprising that the entirely apt and unforced China/Tibet comparison is being elided by those who favor this piece of pseudo-legal puffery by the ICJ. This is a piece of legalese marked not by sophistical casuistries so much as it is marked by a sterile lack of concern for basic facts on the ground (aka reality), as noted in Judge Buergenthal’s dissenting declaration and as noted by those who studiously refrain from acknowledging the China/Tibet comparison. Presumably the ICJ has made some decisions in the past that have carried some weight; this hydrogen-filled, trans-nationalist trial balloon is not one of them and given its own internal illogic manages to be both self-deflating and self-mocking.

Jul 10, 2004 - 12:21 am 60. Roberts:

The fact is that the “Green Line” is not a valid international border and never really has been. It was an armistice line from a conflict and has no more or less validity than any other armistice line during the Arab-Israeli conflicts.

Any argument about the fence on the basis of it being “within” or “without” the “borders” of Israel is fraudulent at its core.

Jul 10, 2004 - 1:54 am 61. Solomon:

So true. Israel has never been obligated by the UN, the body which supposedly empowers this court, to withdraw from ALL the *disputed* territories, merely from “territories.” (per 242 and 336) The final line is a matter for political negotiation. That’s why the Western Democracies opposed the court taking on the case in the first place – the location of the wall is fundamentally a political question. This court ruling simply dignifies the idea that some dirt is intrinsically “Arab.” Further, as has been repeatedly said, the exact course of the wall could be changed as part of a real, negotiated, final peace settlement. It itself is not a border.

Jul 10, 2004 - 4:28 am 62. Dave Schuler:

Tano:

You might want to take a look at my commentary on the ICJ’s opinion here. Although the opinion is restricted to those portions of the wall not built on Israeli territory, it’s difficult for me to see how any security fence would satisfy all of the Court’s objections.

And, along with Judge Hooijman, I’m concerned about the Court’s failure to take the terrorist threat that Israel faces seriously. While this wall may be a legal problem, some wall may be a practical necessity.

Jul 10, 2004 - 6:03 am 63. Tano:

Dave,

I disagree with your interpretation. A wall built in Israel would not restrict the freedom of movement of Palestinians on their side of the line. That is the only issue under the jurisdiction of the ICJ. I dont think it credible to claim that their decision speaks to any obligation of Israel to allow free movements across their legitimate borders. That is an unrestricted right of all soverign nations. Once again, it should be obvious that this case could not possibly have been brought before this court if the wall were wholly within Israel.

To other objections.

I disagree with Solomon and Roberst re. the green line. SC resolution 242 calls for the withdrawl of forces from “from territories occupied in the recent conflict”. That clearly relates to the land on the other side of the green line. Furthermore, when Israel tried to annex those territories around Jerusalem (land that they still do not acknowledge as being part of the West Bank), SC resolution 298 found 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”. Of course one must recall that no SC resolution can be passed without the agreement of the US government.

As the court finds “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.”

I found it hard to work through all of Micael B’s bloviations. He takes me to task for claiming that the American judge was basically sympathetic to the findings. But fortunatly, he then quotes the judge as saying ” My negative votes with regard to the remaining items of the dispositif should not be seen as reflecting my view that the construction of the wall by Israel on the Occupied Palestinian Territory does not raise serious questions as a matter of international law. I believe it does, and there is much in the Opinion with which I agree.” Sounds to me like my characterization is accurate.

The judge goes on to say that he dissents because not all information was available. Which is exactly what I said in my original piece. Where I also noted that the reason such information was not available (information regarding the dangers that Israel is facing) was because the Israeli’s declined to provide it.

As far as my charge of “willful misdirection” against other posters here, the evidence is obvious. The first batch of posters all seemed to be writing from the perspective that the court had ruled against the very concept of a protective wall – comments about how this was hypocritical given the great wall of China, or the Saudi’s wall on their border, or the right of any country to defend its borders, etc. All this ignoring the fact that the issue here is a wall outside of the borders of the country.

Or comments that international law has no meaning. (Hint: international law is treaty based – we, and the Israelis have signed these treaties and are bound by them to the same extent we are bound by our own domestic laws. They are not imposed on anyone – they are binding because we SIGNED them – and in many cases, were the primary force behind the writing of them).

Or comments that seem to confuse this court with the ICC etc.

Plenty to misdirection, or perhaps profound confusion.

Jul 10, 2004 - 7:39 am 64. Mike_Nargizian:

TANO -

I disagree with your interpretation. A wall built in Israel would not restrict the freedom of movement of Palestinians on their side of the line.

there is no “their side of the line”. And sure it would, they’re building a barrier between some of the Eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods and those are the most controversial parts of the wall. And most Palis who worked in Israel are now cut off from jobs they once had.

That is the only issue under the jurisdiction of the ICJ.

If you believe that you’re dreaming.

I dont think it credible to claim that their decision speaks to any obligation of Israel to allow free movements across their legitimate borders.

“Legitimate borders”? Again, at Taba the 5 main supposed objections from the PLO had nothing to do with the map and land exchange it was assumed that the taba land map was acceptable.

That is an unrestricted right of all soverign nations.

Palestine is not a sovereign nation. And if they are considered a ‘quasi’ one then why is the Chinese judge not commenting on China’s threats to a real democracy called Taiwan?

Once again, it should be obvious that this case could not possibly have been brought before this court if the wall were wholly within Israel.

WRONG AGAIN. It is obvious this case would not have been brought before the court if it “wasn’t Israel building the wall” is what you meant to say.

SC resolution 242 calls for the withdrawl of forces from “from territories occupied in the recent conflict”.

Exactly. The writers of that have stated I don’t know how many thousands of times that it was never assumed they would have to leave all territories occupied that’s why they battled to take out the “the territories” from the writing of it. Note, that it was assumed Jordan would take back the rest and there was also not 1 person there including the Arab nations at the time that ever once spoke about a Palestinian country being formed there as there already was one Jordan. And as most Palis who are honest around at that time say they were all Jordanians with Jordanian ID cards.

That clearly relates to the land on the other side of the green line.

Oh yeah? Who told you that a little birdie?

Jul 10, 2004 - 9:11 am 65. Solomon:

I disagree with Solomon and Roberst re. the green line. SC resolution 242 calls for the withdrawl of forces from “from territories occupied in the recent conflict”. That clearly relates to the land on the other side of the green line.

Yes, but both Israeli and American (without whom the resolution would not exist) negotiators have repeatedly asserted that the resolution specifically and intentionally does not use the word “all.” Its exclusion was an intentional part of the process. This is a case of repeating a lie long enough and turning it into fact (and there are many who are trying). The Resolution means what it says. “territories,” not “all territories.” No one facing the reality of Israel’s situation would make such a demand unless they were an enemy.

Jul 10, 2004 - 9:13 am 66. Fresh Air:

Tano–

The irony of all this is that this wall is doing more to ensure peace than the dozens of summits and thousands of pontifications by Israel’s supposed betters in Europe.

John Moore–

I watched a fascinating talk on CSPAN last night featuring Matthew Simmons, a leading oil industry research analyst. He said that China will consume as much oil as the U.S. by 2020. Their judge’s reprehensible ruling can be partially explained as a clumsy attempt to curry favor with the Arabs.

Jul 10, 2004 - 9:25 am 67. richard mcenroe:

Where is the World Court’s condemnation of Palestinian homicide bombers killing women and children, or Ethopia’s forced migration of hundreds of thousand of Eritreans? Where is its condemnation of Turkey for expelling Greek inhabitants of Cyprus?

Jul 10, 2004 - 9:40 am 68. DennisThePeasant:

Why am I not surprised to see Tano’s patented shuck and jive routine extended beyond the borders of Iraq? Misdirection, indeed!

The reality of the matter is quite simply that Arafat and the Palestinian Authority are not some neutral party afflicated by and unable to deal with the terrorists attacking Israel. Arafat, the P.A., and the Palestinian Liberation Organization has actively collaborated with, sponsored, harbored and aided those terrorists.

Given that, your prattling on about the legalisms of what constitutes legitimately ‘Israeli’ territory for a wall is pure shuck to your jive that Israel has the right to such a wall in the first place. The bottom line is that you oppose the wall and always will.

This comes across as little more than a variation of your “I would support a War on Terror if the War on Terror fought the ‘real’ terrorists and sponsors, etc…”, that we have experienced in the past in your opposing the liberation of Iraq.

Arafat, the P.A. and the P.L.O. are, by their own choice, in a state of undeclared war with the state of Israel to further their own political ambitions. The fact that Israel has chosen to build a wall to keep terrorists out, rather than kill Arafat and militarily crush both the P.A. and the P.L.O. is an act of charity and forebearance without parallel in modern history.

If you’re going to root for the Palestinians to exterminate the state of Israel, just as you’re going to defend an Iraq ruled by the savagery of Saddam Hussein, at least have the balls to say so directly and honestly.

Jul 10, 2004 - 9:48 am 69. Tano:

Misdirection seems to be the order of the day.

“Where is the World Court’s condemnation of…..”

The WC deals with cases brought before it. It does not offer opinions on any subject that arises in the world.

“China will consume as much oil as the U.S. by 2020. Their judge’s reprehensible ruling can be partially explained as a clumsy attempt to curry favor with the Arabs.”

Huh? The chinese judge read the ruling, because he was/is the chief. It was not “his” finding – it was a 14-1 decision by judges from all over the world.

As to the issue of the territories – once more some misdirection. The issue, with regard to the Court’s jurisdiction, and the legal status of the wall, is the legal status of the land occupied since 1967. ALL of the land on the far side of the Green line is occupied territory, under international law, and under US government interpretation. ALL of that land is to be ruled by Israel in accordance with international law governing occupied land. Whether Israel should/would be obliged to return every last inch of it is a separate question. The ambiguity in the SC resolutions leaves room for a negotiated settlement that includes changes of status of some of the land. But it does not allow Israel to unilaterally make such status changes – so barring an agreement between the parties, ALL of the land remains “occupied”, and Israel has no right to make permanent changes to it (incl. settlements).

Jul 10, 2004 - 9:51 am 70. Fresh Air:

Tano–

Read the opinion. It contains far more than an “announcement.” There are all sorts of speculations and judgments in there. Perhaps you are correct that the Chinese judge just went along with the majority, but I think that is a naive view. Perhaps some legal eagles could comment on how this particular court works?

Also, re the boundaries. I am quite sure Israel would gladly return all the land you claim is due the Palestinians if people would stop bombing them. Until then, why even bother making a claim? It’s really just an empty argument over nothing.

Jul 10, 2004 - 10:05 am 71. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Fresh Air

Good point. It is easy to forget that China is a quiet player in the middle east. In fact, I have read no analysis of that at all, and there should be some. I believe India is in a similar position regarding rapidly growing needs for oil. And Russia sits there with lots of oil, chuckling.

An interesting question is what does it all mean, since oil is a fungible commodity. It’s hard for a particular consumer to gain an advantage over another consumer.

Regarding the wall, there is an air of unreality to the whole discussion. While everyone is looking into the fine details of international law, Palestinians are plotting their next attacks and building rockets to shoot across the wall. The court’s president is from a dictatorship and hence cannot be considered to be unbiased on any answer. There is a French member, and we’ve seen how French officials operate on the international stage. The court is yet one more transnational organization with the naturally corrupted membership inherent in all such organizations.

Meanwhile, the US is the only nation in the world capable of projecting military power. And in the middle east, Israel has power. Israel in fact has the power to destroy the Palestinians in a second, but it has gotten no credit for its restraint. The Palestinians are setting up a kleptocratic terrorist state in occupied Jordan, an interesting piece of magic. Why the heck should anyone care what the ICJ has to say under the circumstances?

Israel has been repeatedly attacked from that territory. Jordan is doing nothing to prevent the attacks. The Palestinian Authority is causing many of the attacks. It would seem that Israel has an obvious moral right to do whatever is needed to protect itself, and if that involves using some “Palestinian Land,” then it does. Palestinians have behaved as a vicious enemy. They have been treated remarkably lightly under the circumstances, or the casualty ratio would be much, much higher.

What would Americans do if Mexicans were doing suicide bombings in San Diego, Tucson, and other near-border cities? I suspect we would build a much better wall than we have now, plant a big minefield, and put strong and deadly forces along it. But it is hard to even imagine such a thing, because the Palestinian terrorists are remarkably evil. Mexicans are not.

Europeans are considering economic sanctions. So what’s new? They’ll sanction Israel for defending itself, while spending their money on Cuban prostitutes in that peoples’ paradise. Wonderful values.

There is one international law issue of interest: collective punishment, which is prohibited. In the age of terrorism, where the terrorists are mixed with the rest of the people and enjoy widespread support from them, collective punishment may be necessary, when there is no way to sort out the good from the bad. And taking Palestinian Territory might be viewed as collective punishment, or it might just be self defense, depending on the circumstances.

There is the question of whether in the age of terrorism, collective punishment should be legal.

Jul 10, 2004 - 10:24 am 72. Mike_Nargizian:

TANO

Misdirection seems to be the order of the day. “Where is the World Court’s condemnation of…..”

The WC deals with cases brought before it. It does not offer opinions on any subject that arises in the world.

EXACTLY. Not on any subject but incredibly it chose to hear this case???? Makes you fin wonder.

Of all horrors going in the world a fence to stop terrorist onslaught -

1) Sudanese Genocide

2) Chinese superpower threatening Taiwan

3) Saddam’s Gassing of the Kurds and torture of his people.

4) Mullahs closing of newspapers and importing foreigners to beat up Iranians demonstrating for Democracy and Civil Rights.

As to the issue of the territories – once more some misdirection. The issue, with regard to the Court’s jurisdiction, and the legal status of the wall, is the legal status of the land occupied since 1967. ALL of the land on the far side of the Green line is occupied territory, under international law, and under US government interpretation. ALL of that land is to be ruled by Israel in accordance with international law governing occupied land. Whether Israel should/would be obliged to return every last inch of it is a separate question. The ambiguity in the SC resolutions leaves room for a negotiated settlement that includes changes of status of some of the land. But it does not allow Israel to unilaterally make such status changes – so barring an agreement between the parties, ALL of the land remains “occupied”, and Israel has no right to make permanent changes to it (incl. settlements).

Since you are such a legal technician get your facts straight.

After conceding your “misinterpretation” of 242 you do get facts above correct except for the last fact which you try and throw in “incl. settlements”.

Settlements are not illegal unless Israel forces its population to move into those territories.

Additionally, there is strong legal standing that the settlements are not governed by the Geneva Convention.

Jul 10, 2004 - 10:40 am 73. Tano:

FA writes,

“I am quite sure Israel would gladly return all the land you claim is due the Palestinians if people would stop bombing them.”

Excuse me? Perhaps you are forgetting that Israel has settled 400,000 people on that land. And that the stated position of one of the major parties in Israel was, for a long time, to build a greater Israel by annexing the WB.

You seem to be claiming that if only the Palestinians would stop committing terrorist acts, then the Israelis would be glad to return all the land east of the Green line. That is absurd.

Jul 10, 2004 - 11:34 am 74. Tano:

Mike writes,

“Settlements are not illegal unless Israel forces its population to move into those territories.

Additionally, there is strong legal standing that the settlements are not governed by the Geneva Convention.”

False, and downright absurd, on both counts. Israel is the occupying power and has the responsibilites to follow international law. That is a position that the United States has held throughout the past 37 years. Israel has no right to allow the settlement of occupied land by its population.

And, if you read one of my earlier posts, you see that even the American judge in this case found that it was obvious that the settlements are under the jurisdiction of the Geneva conventions, and are illegal.

Jul 10, 2004 - 11:40 am 75. PeterUK:

Tano,

Do you unequivocally support the right of the State of Israel to exist?

Do you believe that Israel is entitled to have denfensible borders?

Do you condemn palestinian suicide bombing?

In the light of the Rape of Tibet do you think that a chinese judge should even take part?

Jul 10, 2004 - 11:54 am 76. Tano:

“Do you unequivocally support the right of the State of Israel to exist?

Do you believe that Israel is entitled to have denfensible borders?

Do you condemn palestinian suicide bombing?”

Yes, yes, and yes.

The state of Israel has a right to exist within secure borders. I would go further to claim that I have NO problem with Israel exercising military control over the WB for 37 years. They should continue to exercise military control of the area until they can feel secure within their own borders.

The problem is that they have spent a good part of these past 37 years constructing illegal settlements on that land. They have NO RIGHT to do that – under international law, as interpreted by the US governement, as well as the rest of the international community. They have used their military position to create facts on the ground, and then come crying to us that they are victims of a violent resistance. If they had never tried to illegaly annex any of the land, then the Palestinian cause would have gotten nowhere with the international community.

Why hasnt Israel spent the past 37 years doing what we are trying to do in Afghanistan, or Iraq? Trying to find people to work with to help set up democratic and representative governance? Even today, when there is any chance of something like that emerging, the Israelis do all they can to undermine it. The Likud party, with their policy of settlements bears enormous culpability in the continuance of this situation. And Labor has been little better.

The only bright spot I see is that now, after being responsible for all the settlements, Sharon is finally toying with the notion of actually removing a few. Perhaps it can be a watershed event. The entire settlement movement has been a disasterous mistake, and it is long since time that that be faced and dealt with.

Jul 10, 2004 - 12:39 pm 77. marek:

Taro,

Does Oslo ring a bell? It has been about 10 ago when Gaza and Jericho were given to Palestinians to be self governed.

Jul 10, 2004 - 1:53 pm 78. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

So Tano, should the West Bank be Judenrein?

Jul 10, 2004 - 2:40 pm 79. Fresh Air:

Tano–

You are skewing the data. Of the 400,000 Jewish settlers, half are in Gaza, which already has a much smaller security fence, and which is not at issue in yesterday’s ruling. Of the 200,000 in the West Bank, depending upon the ultimate route of the fence, up to half of them will be unprotected. Thus you are really talking about 100,000-150,000 settlers that would need to be relocated, a figure that is well within previous resettlement negotiations.

But this is all a canard. Land is not the issue! It’s whether the PLO will stop killing Israelis. Since Israel is surrounded by hostile countries, it cannot afford to let land go without peace in return. The Israelis got the land they now occupy in war, and they will keep it until the war ends. Very simple.

Jul 10, 2004 - 3:09 pm 80. Tano:

FA,

There really is no excuse for the blatant misrepresentations that you make. You could call up accurate numbers in a mere seconds with our modern technology.

There are less than 10K settlers in Gaza, not half. In the WB, there are approx. 200K in land that Israel has annexed (near Jerusalem – not recognized by anyone including the US), and another roughly 200K in the rest of the WB.

Land is most certainly the issue. The general principle after ‘67 was a return of land for peace. But the Israelis have persued a policy of permanently annexing land. Is it any wonder that they are permanently missing out on peace?

You once again make the absurd claim that they will return all the land when they get peace. And through all their protestations to that effect, they keep building settlements – promising those people that they can put down roots, build families in permanent settlements. Why?

Once again, I am not criticizing them for maintaining control of the land, until such time as they get a peace they can feel secure with. It is the permanent settlement which is a problem.

Jul 10, 2004 - 3:30 pm 81. Tano:

“So Tano, should the West Bank be Judenrein?”

John,

I was always of the opinion that it would be great if Jewish people could live anywhere they want in the WB. And Palestinians could live anywhere they want in Israel. And maybe the entire territory could be one state, with the Jews bringing to that state their experience and guidance in terms of democracy. But that aint gonna happen. It is against the very concept of Zionism.

So maybe they could make a deal whereby the 400K settlers can remain in Palestine, and 400K Palestinian refugees, who came from Israel, could be let back in – sort of a limited nod to the “right of return” – one that would not threaten the overall Jewish majority in Israel.

If they could work something out like that – thats cool. Whatever the two sides can feel comfortable with.

But the Jewish presence in the WB as it stands now is illegal, and brought about through force.

Jul 10, 2004 - 3:37 pm 82. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Normally, I’d say that is reasonable.

But given what has been done to Israel and Israelis by both their neighbors and the Palestinians, I can’t make such a moral equation.

Israel, for whatever its negatives, is so far superior to the Palestinians that such equalities are not appropriate. And frankly, I have little respect for international law, because it seems to be used more to hurt the good forces than anything else.

Jul 10, 2004 - 3:45 pm 83. Miles Hawthorne:

Although I would like to disagree with Mr.John Moore, unfortunately I cannot. A bi-national state seems a pipedream, in part because of the Israelis but even more (vastly more, I’m afraid) because of the Palestinian Arabs. I will repeat myself (only been on this blog twice and I am doing it) by pointing to the failure of Camp David/Taba discussions at which Arafat never even made a counter-offer and instead began his uprising. It is hard to take seriously that the Palestinian leadership believes in a two-state solution after that (at least Arafat’s part of it… and then who is left? Hamas?) No, as I stated earlier, paradoxically the wall is the best solution for the Palestinians. Those who don’t see that don’t really care about them. And most don’t (especially those who pretend to).

Jul 10, 2004 - 3:55 pm 84. Syl:

It’s all the damn ceasefires that cause all the problems. Not wars.

Maybe I am turning into a Rambo

But, seriously, when reading the history of the Israel/Palestinian conflict it’s been Arab nations going to war with Israel, Israel fighting back and the international commmunity yelling STOP! then we have years of crap until the next war breaks out and everyone yells STOP! again.

Not unlike Iraq for Pete’s sake. We didn’t finish the job with Gulf War I and ended up with a nasty ceasefire with Saddam shooting at our planes daily, al Qaeda ripping up the Cole, troops in the Kingdom and Kuwait, and the international community (community? Hah!) forgetting there was such a thing as a ceasefire and the reasons for such.

Sometimes when you fight a war you should just damn fight the war and get it over with.

Green lines Schmeen lines.

‘Air of unreality’ is right on.

Jul 10, 2004 - 3:57 pm 85. Mike_Nargizian:

TANO -

Excuse me? Perhaps you are forgetting that Israel has settled 400,000 people on that land. And that the stated position of one of the major parties in Israel was, for a long time, to build a greater Israel by annexing the WB.

If there were 8 million Jews living there they would annex part of the West Bank and the rest would go to Jordan which was the plan in 67 so you are partially correct there. Plus, the Arab East Jerusalemites don’t want to go to the PLO they want to remain in Israel governed by Israel as they all now are trying to flee to the Israeli side.

You seem to be claiming that if only the Palestinians would stop committing terrorist acts, then the Israelis would be glad to return all the land east of the Green line. That is absurd.

IS THAT SO TANO?

The Arabs rejected 242 outright.

The Arabs rejected Israel’s exact offer after the 67 War. I believe the exact quote was -

“No recognition, no negotiation, no compromise”

(that’s not it exactly someone fill in exact words)

Mike writes,

“Settlements are not illegal unless Israel forces its population to move into those territories.

Additionally, there is strong legal standing that the settlements are not governed by the Geneva Convention.”

TANO -

False, and downright absurd, on both counts. Israel is the occupying power and has the responsibilites to follow international law. That is a position that the United States has held throughout the past 37 years. Israel has no right to allow the settlement of occupied land by its population.

Again YOU ARE WRONG….. but you like hearing yourself speak at least.

http://palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_4thgeneva.php

Israel rejects applying the Fourth Geneva Convention to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, stating that those territories were captured in 1967 as a result of a defensive war against Jordan and Egypt, countries which had illegally occupied them since 1948.

Furthermore, it is Article 49 that is commonly cited to accuse Israel of violating the Fourth Geneva Convention. But a close reading of Article 49 reveals that it prohibits “individual or mass forcible transfers” which are not happening in the territories under Israeli administration. Further, the Occupying Power is obliged not to “deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population” to territories under its control. The use of “deport” and “transfer” indicate that the Convention prohibits the Occupying Power from the active or forcible transfer of its own civilians. Article 49 does not oblige Israel to prevent voluntary settlement by its civilian population just because Arabs don’t like it.

It is also interesting to find in the Fourth Geneva Convention, in Art. 3 and elsewhere, prohibitions of murder, violence to life and person, and other acts that are commonly employed by Palestinian Arabs against innocent Israeli civilians. To date no one in the international community has made a formal protest against these Palestinian Arab tactics.

It is also worthy to note that the judge’s opinions in this case are subjective, they didn’t hear any Israeli point of view nor opinions of the victims of terrorism which is also cited in the Geneva Conventions cited above, and the American judge thought they had no business hearing the case.

Thus, their “opinion” has no teeth and is meaningless and is just another worthless tool in the propaganda war.

Jul 10, 2004 - 5:18 pm 86. Yehudit:

“Why hasnt Israel spent the past 37 years doing what we are trying to do in Afghanistan, or Iraq? Trying to find people to work with to help set up democratic and representative governance? Even today, when there is any chance of something like that emerging, the Israelis do all they can to undermine it.”

Examples?

“maybe the entire territory could be one state, with the Jews bringing to that state their experience and guidance in terms of democracy. But that aint gonna happen. It is against the very concept of Zionism.”

No, it goes against the reality of Palestinian Arab culture. There is no tradition of democracy, rule of law, women’s rights, gay rights…. it would be insane for Israel to beome part of a state where the majority are people who are autocratic, hate Jews, and treat women and gays like shit. And who repeatedly support tyrants like Saddam. (The Pals just made anothe demonstration this week insupport of Saddam after he appeared on TV in the courtroom – you want people like that ruling your country?)

“You once again make the absurd claim that they will return all the land when they get peace.”

It isn’t absurd, because Israel already did that exact thing. In Sinai. Israel returned it, and uprooted all the settlements that were there. And many Israelis were against it too, but it was done. By a “rightwing” government.

So Israel has the track record, regardless of whether you think it’s absurd.

What is the Palestinian track record? What is absurd is to treat the Pals like some reified community of reasonable people, instead of looking at how they actually behave.

Jul 10, 2004 - 5:26 pm 87. marek:

Yehudit and others,

Another pearl from Tano:

But the Jewish presence in the WB as it stands now is illegal, and brought about through force.

It was brought by force as a result of defensive war.

Israel was also fullfilling her obligations under Oslo until start of the intifada and gave to Palestinians almost full self rule in Gaza and parts of WB.

What is PLO/PA track record?

Arguing with Tano is like pushing the air. He lives in different world and his arguments are out of this world.

Jul 10, 2004 - 6:23 pm 88. john.cunningham:

Trying to reason with lackwits like Tano and McClelland is a waste of perfectly good electrons. These Lefty Tranzis live in a complete dream world. They are unable to grasp the reality that the reason why LOSERS of wars are LOSERS is that the LOSERS have to accept the consequences. Note how these asshats never propose that the Poles ejected from Byelorussia and the millions of Germans ejected from East Prussia, Pomerania, and Silesia have a “right of return.” Their so-called “international justice” is not a shield to protect human rights, it is a sword wielded against the Western democracies.

Jul 10, 2004 - 9:40 pm 89. Mike_Nargizian:

Is this TANO quoted by Yehudit?

“Why hasnt Israel spent the past 37 years doing what we are trying to do in Afghanistan, or Iraq? Trying to find people to work with to help set up democratic and representative governance? Even today, when there is any chance of something like that emerging, the Israelis do all they can to undermine it.”

You do not have a fing clue what the F you are even talking about. I love that last sentence especially which demonstrates someone just spewing deluded nonsense they think or made up in their head and regigitate.

I have met Palestinians and spoken on the phone with them, not when the PLO is around and they all say the PLO not Israel is the reason there is no chance for democracy there. The thugocracy is the reason why the Territories have deteriorated into a Mafia wild west where gangs rape, steal and murder at will without the reportage of the “Western Press”. And that was brought to you by Oslo. So anyone who can say “Even now when there is a chance for democracy what does Israel do?” doesn’t have a fing clue what they are talking about.

And as far as track record of building in the Territories. During the 19 years of Jordan and Egypt the West Bank and Gaza were complete shitholes. They had no electricity, sewage, hospitals or Universities, NADA. The population declined actually.

Under Israeli Civil Administration they got all of the above and since 67 the population in Gaza went from 250,000 to 1,000,000 (Love to hear the left wing wackos talk about “Genocide” of Palestinians)

“maybe the entire territory could be one state, with the Jews bringing to that state their experience and guidance in terms of democracy. But that aint gonna happen. It is against the very concept of Zionism.”

Maybe you could get a clue and they’ll you’d at least have 1 clue?

Jul 10, 2004 - 10:49 pm 90. Michael B:

Tano,

Those were not simply bloviations, those were premeditated, consciously unleashed bloviations in large part designed to communicate contempt, not an attempt to engage (though there was plenty there that was perfectly intelligible as well). The very act of engagement would inherently imply at least a modicum of respect for both the ICJ’s decision as well as your own contrived, even contortionist defense of the decision. That minimum level of respect is nonexistent for various reasons, not the least of which is you have still failed to take up the China/Tibet comparison. Given the fact the judge cum joker cum geopolitical thief who rendered the decision was Chinese, that’s more than a little relevant.

I’d ennumerate yet other reasons for that lack of respect but you haven’t even been able to represent the dissenting judge’s declaration without the all too typical – and predictable – smoke screen comprised of highly leveraged presumption, specious arrogations and similar qualities that reflect more of a superficial, pro forma performance than something grounded in a more substantive and more meaningful content.

Jul 11, 2004 - 7:10 am 91. Kevin P:

Roger:

Let the tano’s and the Roberts go on about the UN and the international court. The Wall is going up. The Palestinian people, who have been suffering for years and used as props by their Arab bretheren to continue their war against Israel will have to rise up and overthrow Arafat themselves before this issue gets settled.Can you imagine if we had left the refugees from Vietnam and Cuba rot in the federal prisons until democracy is restored in both those countries. That is what the Arab countries have done to their “Arab ‘ brothers. Instead of taking them into their countries and letting them live their until the issue was settled they have used them as Human barganing chips by making them fester in this camps.These are people who share their language and their religion and would have no trouble adapting to live with their brothers. instead they let them rot in a over populated palestine because they know they wiil resort to killing Israeli’s which is their goal.we took in the vietnamese and the cubans and incorporated them in our country, even though many did not speak English and had lived in totally different cultures.Many of the Arab countries have imported labor from sub-saharan africa instead of bringing in Palestinians who would blend in quicker. Why? Because they want the conditions to become so bad that the Palestinians will continue the work they couldn’t do in the three arab Israeli wars.The crocadile tears they shed for their brothers are so false and untrue. The sooner the wall is finished the quicker the Palestinians will realize that they have been fooled by that thug

Arafat and then there might be a solution to this misery that Arafat has no intention of ending.

Jul 11, 2004 - 11:35 pm 92. Roberts:

You are correct, Kevin. The reality on the ground trumps silly misrepresentations about unenforceable and obsolete Security Council resolutions. And others have pointed out the basic hypocrisy and misrepresentations in the ICJ opinion itself.

Jul 12, 2004 - 10:06 am 93. Sun-Tzu:

Well, one place was willing to at least hire them: Kuwait.

That is, until the Iraqis invaded in ‘90, and Palestinians joyously helped turn in various Kuwaitis. This was apart from the roof-top dance parties in the West Bank and Gaza when SCUDs landed on their (and Israeli) heads.

Not surprisingly, when the Kuwaitis got their country back, they booted all the Palestinians (and the Palestinians argued that this was another great injustice done to them).

As others have noted, the Palestinians seem to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Jul 12, 2004 - 1:07 pm 94. Kevin P:

Sun-Tzu:

Arafat was also based in Jordan until he got kicked out of there.I can’t say for sure but I think it was because of the 11 assasination attempts on the King that got him in trouble. I am sure if Arafat had gone to the World Court he could have got a judgement that Jordan was trampling on his freedom of speech and that the attempted murder of the King was not a valid factor in considering his deportation but he was to busy running for his life to file a complaint. Then he went to Lebanon and helped foment the bloody civil war that eventually made the country a colony of Syria.Of course this does not prove that Arafat is not a man of peace and of course he is well deserving of his Nobel peace prize.

Jul 12, 2004 - 3:37 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: