UN's highest judicial authority decided that the 425-mile-long barrier Israel is building in the West , which has caused hardship for thousands of Palestinians, violates international law and should be dismantled, an Israeli newspaper reported Friday. The Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz said that the court also will declare that Israel must compensate Palestinians whose land was taken to build the barrier. The newspaper said its report was based on court documents it obtained. In an official statement the court's administrator stressed that "the only authentic text is the official text issued by the court," but did not contest the accuracy of the Haaretz report. The Palestinians have said they expect the court to rule in their favor, and officials in Jerusalem said on condition of anonymity they expected a decision critical of Israel. The 15-member court's advisory opinions are nonbinding but bear moral, historic and political weight. They can be the basis for action by the U.N. General Assembly or Security Council. "We are confident we will have a positive result," Nasser Al-Kidwa, the Palestinian U.N. observer, said Thursday. The barrier is a complex of high concrete walls, razor-wire fences, trenches and watch towers. About one-fourth, or about 100 miles, has been completed, much of it close to the pre-1967 border although some of it dips into the West Bank. The first issue the court likely will address in its opinion is whether it has jurisdiction. Israel, the United States and several European countries urged the court to distance itself from what they called a political rather than a legal question. If the court says it has jurisdiction and then rules the barrier illegal, the Palestinians will seek a General Assembly resolution demanding that Israel dismantle the wall, Al-Kidwa said. If the Israelis refuse, the Palestinians will seek Security Council enforcement and risk a U.S. veto. "An advisory opinion is important in itself. It alone should be enough to make a difference" and force Israel to remove the barrier, Al-Kidwa told reporters. Israel claims that the barrier is essential to protect the Israelis form the Palestinian anti-occupation fighters. But Palestinians say the barrier imposes intolerable hardships on innocent people, isolating them from schools, agricultural fields or workplaces. They also say the barrier is nothing but an Israeli land grab that will make it impossible to establish an independent state alongside Israel — a primary goal of the U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan. Palestinians won some support last week from the Israeli Supreme Court, which ordered the government to reroute a 25-mile section of the barrier near Jerusalem.
Israel has never recognised a single UN resolution nor any international condemnation for its human rights abuses and contraventions of international law. Neither does Israel reconise the jurisdiction of the World Court, so it is likely to fall on deaf ears. Certainly they have diehard role models currently in the White House who have shown that international law is to simply be disregarded when it proves non-conducive to our political agendas (and those of our preferred bedfellows). Don't hold your breath waiting for compliance.
But it ain't the only contributer to the evil going on out there. Isreal has done alot of wrong yes, but over all i would say the palestein is much worse.
Defiant Israel said Friday, July 9, it would ignore the International court of Justice’s (ICJ) ruling that the separation wall is illegal and should be removed. The Palestinians, however, called the ruling, backed by a 14-1 vote with the lone dissenter US judge Thomas Buerghenthal, a "historic decision" issued by the UN highest judicial authority. The European Union also hailed the ruling, again urging Israel to take down the wall that encroaches on Palestinian lands, but the United States - which had earlier killed off many UN draft resolutions condemning Israel for the wall - considered it not "appropriate". "Israel has no reason to submit to a plainly absurd decision which pays no account to the role of the security fence in the fight against terrorism," a senior Israeli government official told Agence France-Presse (AFP) on condition of anonymity. Israeli government spokesman Avi Pazner claimed the ICJ had "no jurisdiction" to rule over the wall and said that it should only come up for debate after Israel's planned pullout of the Gaza Strip is completed next year. With the only voice of opposition coming from the US judge, Washington - which had blocked Security Council draft resolutions condemning Israel, called the ICJ’s ruling inappropriate. "We don't believe it is appropriate that this came out in that venue," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters en route to a campaign event by US President George W. Bush in Pennsylvania. "We believe it is a political issue," McClellan said, as Bush is facing an uphill Presidential battle to win over the influential Jewish community for the November vote. Rebuffed But the ICJ President judge Shi Jiuyong of China rebuffed the Israeli and US claims, saying the court had the jurisdiction to give a non-binding advisory opinion requested by the UN General Assembly. "The Court cannot accept the view... that it has no jurisdiction because of the 'political' character of the question posed..." he said. "The court accordingly has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion." The body said in a much-anticipated verdict that the "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". It added that Israel should pay compensation to Palestinians whose property had been damaged by the construction work. Even before reports of the verdict emerged, the Israeli government had made clear it had no intention of halting construction work which is due to be completed by the end of next year and should eventually stretch for some 700 kilometers (430 miles). "Historic" Palestinian officials called the ruling "historic" and a victory for "international legitimacy". "This is an historic day and an historic decision that has been delivered by the world's highest legal authority," Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qorei told a press conference in his West Bank offices. "The court has said to the world, to Israel and to the United States, that the wall is illegal as it is built on other people's land, on occupied territory." Palestinian President Yasser Arafat's chief aide weighed in, saying international sanctions should be imposed on Israel after the world court’s ruling. "The decision of the court is a victory for the rights of Palestinians and for international legitimacy," Nabil Abu Rudeina told AFP. "This decision will lead to the isolation of Israel, and the international community should impose sanctions against Israel, for it is violating the law and international relations." "Particularly Concerned" Meanwhile, the European Commission again urged Israel to take down the separation wall as the verdict of the world court was read on. "As you know, the EU has stated in numerous occasions that it is particularly concerned by the route marked out (..) in the occupied West Bank, which is in departure of the armistice line of 1949 and is in contradiction to the relevant provisions of international law," a spokesman for the European Union executive said. Outside the legal aspects of the case, the European Union "is concerned that the envisaged departure of the route from the green line could prejudge future negotiations and make the two-state solution physically impossible to implement." "Therefore, the EU continues to call on Israel to remove the barrier from inside the occupied Palestinian territories, including in and around East Jerusalem," the spokesman said, noting that the commission was "particularly concerned at the negative effect of the barrier causing humanitarian and economic hardships to the Palestinians." The 15-member court's advisory opinions are nonbinding but bear moral, historic and political weight, the International Herald Tribune reported Friday. The court already called for the UN General Assembly and Security Council to take action to halt the construction work. Palestinians have accused Israel of seeking to pre-empt the boundaries of any future two-state settlement to their bloody conflict with the wall, which takes the form of both a fence and a concrete wall at times. The 600km-long separation wall will cut occupied Jerusalem off from the rest of the West Bank. It will eventually snake some 900 kilometers (540 miles) along the West Bank and leave even larger swathes of its territory on the Israeli side. The ruling came after Israel's Supreme Court ordered the government Wednesday, June 30, to change a large section of its West Bank controversial separation wall, saying the current route violates the human rights of the Palestinian population. According to a report by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) with the competition of the wall, 30 percent of the West Bank population, or some 680,000 people, will be "directly harmed." Last October, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly passed a resolution, demanding Tel Aviv to "stop and reserve" the construction of its separation wall. Another UN report underlined that the controversial barrier constitutes illegal annexation of Palestinian territory. However, the defiant Israeli government of Ariel Sharon approved last October a new 100-million-dollar section of the controversial barrier. -=- and this is new too... Israel sucks, i'de rather fight for PALESTINE!!!
i feel for both sides, really i do. what a conundrum. people are just people, no matter where they're from. i read somewhere that half of the israelis wish to see an end to the occupation of palestinian territory, but are too afraid to do anything about it. i can't really blame them for being afraid. but at the same time, damn, the abuses against the palistinians who just want to live and work are increased every time an enraged terrorist bombs someone. and yet, isn't there just a little seed of satisfaction watching the abusers be abused? even knowing that there will be a price to pay for every bomb that goes off? jeez, man, not a place i'd want to be.
Israel's Intifada Victory By Charles Krauthammer Friday, June 18, 2004; Page A29 While no one was looking, something historic happened in the Middle East. The Palestinian intifada is over, and the Palestinians have lost. For Israel, the victory is bitter. The past four years of terrorism have killed almost 1,000 Israelis and maimed thousands of others. But Israel has won strategically. The intent of the intifada was to demoralize Israel, destroy its economy, bring it to its knees, and thus force it to withdraw and surrender to Palestinian demands, just as Israel withdrew in defeat from southern Lebanon in May 2000. That did not happen. Israel's economy was certainly wounded, but it is growing again. Tourism had dwindled to almost nothing at the height of the intifada, but tourists are returning. And the Israelis were never demoralized. They kept living their lives, the young people in particular returning to cafes and discos and buses just hours after a horrific bombing. Israelis turned out to be a lot tougher and braver than the Palestinians had imagined. The end of the intifada does not mean the end of terrorism. There was terrorism before the intifada and there will be terrorism to come. What has happened, however, is an end to systematic, regular, debilitating, unstoppable terror -- terror as a reliable weapon. At the height of the intifada, there were nine suicide attacks in Israel killing 85 Israelis in just one month (March 2002). In the past three months there have been none. The overall level of violence has been reduced by more than 70 percent. How did Israel do it? By ignoring its critics and launching a two-pronged campaign of self-defense. First, Israel targeted terrorist leaders -- attacks so hypocritically denounced by Westerners who, at the same time, cheer the hunt for, and demand the head of, Osama bin Laden. The top echelon of Hamas and other terrorist groups has been either arrested, killed or driven underground. The others are now so afraid of Israeli precision and intelligence -- the last Hamas operative to be killed by missile was riding a motorcycle -- that they are forced to devote much of their time and energy to self-protection and concealment. Second, the fence. Only about a quarter of the separation fence has been built, but its effect is unmistakable. The northern part is already complete, and attacks in northern Israel have dwindled to almost nothing. This success does not just save innocent lives; it changes the strategic equation of the whole conflict. Yasser Arafat started the intifada in September 2000, just weeks after he had rejected, at Camp David, Israel's offer of withdrawal, settlement evacuation, sharing of Jerusalem and establishment of a Palestinian state. Arafat wanted all that, of course, but without having to make peace and recognize a Jewish state. Hence the terror campaign -- to force Israel to give it all up unilaterally. Arafat failed, spectacularly. The violence did not bring Israel to its knees. Instead, it created chaos, lawlessness and economic disaster in the Palestinian areas. The Palestinians know the ruin that Arafat has brought, and they are beginning to protest it. He promised them blood and victory; he delivered on the blood. Even more important, they have lost their place at the table. Israel is now defining a new equilibrium that will reign for years to come -- the separation fence is unilaterally drawing the line that separates Israelis and Palestinians. The Palestinians were offered the chance to negotiate that frontier at Camp David and chose war instead. Now they are paying the price. It stands to reason. It is the height of absurdity to launch a terrorist war against Israel, then demand the right to determine the nature and route of the barrier built to prevent that very terrorism. These new strategic realities are not just creating a new equilibrium, they are creating the first hope for peace since Arafat officially tore up the Oslo accords four years ago. Once Israel has withdrawn from Gaza and has completed the fence, terrorism as a strategic option will be effectively dead. The only way for the Palestinians to achieve statehood and dignity, and to determine the contours of their own state, will be to negotiate a final peace based on genuine coexistence with a Jewish state. It could be a year, five years or a generation until the Palestinians come to that realization. The pity is that so many, Arab and Israeli, will have had to die before then.
You simply love anything that paints half a picture so long as it maintains the duplicitous, revisionistic status quo eh WP? Are you even capable of seeing how slanted that report is. 1000 israelis dead oooh! Up that figure by several multiples and you might be getting close to the savagery that has remained uncondemned and unaddressed by the "rule of law" brigade in which you place so much unquestioning faith. God forbid the day should come when a wholesale invasion/occupation of your area intent on dispossessing you of your rightfully and legally owned land befalls you and and you and your family whilst the powers that be look on and say its all for the best. The true history and character of the state of Israel: http://members.fortunecity.com/911/palestine/facts.htm http://www.alternativeinsight.com/Israel_Propaganda_Strategy.html http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n5p38_Garaudy.html http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0151/vest.php
I find it amazing how arrogant, overly aggressive and judgemental you are. Every single post I read from you is laced in anger. I'm wondering how much of a peace lover you really are. That being said... Isreal was terrorized by palestein for a good long while and Isreal didn't really do much about it. Where was your precious UN to help them? Once they figured out that they were pretty much on their own they took the offensive. Why? Because the best defence is a good offense. And their strategy has worked pretty damn well for them. A little harsh? Yes. Is it saving their ass? You bet. In order to win a war you must breat the will to fight of your enemy. That includes the will of the millitary and the civilians. All of palestein is willing to kill isreal not just the military. So in order to protect themselves they must break the will of the civilians and the military. We saw the same against japan in world war II. And guess what, japan used the same tactics as palestein, suicide bombers. All of japan was going to fight the US to the bitter end like palestein will fight Isreal. How did we solve their suicidal will to fight? A couple of atomic bombs. It broke their will to go on, and they surrendered in no time. They can't fight your damned politically correct war and expect to have victory, If you have an entire nation battleing you including the civilians, you've got to kick their ass. End of story. And try not to be so bitter lickheris, hmmmm kay?
Confronting willful ignorance that simply ignores the facts presented only to return again to the same mantras about Israel being the poor victim is cause for some righteous anger indeed. What is hated is the refusal to acknowledge where the terrorsim and barbarity originated from on this issue, something you do with a flair as noted once again above. Once again, Palestinians and Palestinian towns and villages were abundant across the land when the early zionist movement began its waves of immigration under the British mandate in the early 20th century. Throughout the land Arab Muslims, Arab Jews (the distinct minority and, in fact, the only Jews with a direct historic connection to the land, unlike the Eastern European Zionists who brought with them their military commanders and their organised terrorist squads, the Irgun and The Stern Gang, to begind bombing, killing and driving the rightful residents and owners from their land. How interesting that one who most likely holds stong beliefs about the value of private property and the right of a property holder to defend against unlawful seizure so willingly ignores the historic documented record of just that very wholesale act in order to uphold a revisionist belief in a "Land with a people for a people without a land". Nothing is farther from the truth yet so incrementally and systematically reinforced in the public psyche thanks to the acceptance of a fraudulent biblical claim by a political movement which itself eschewed its religious roots in favour of simple imperialist force of arms. The lie you unquestioningly propagate is one which I have every rightful suspicion that you yourself would fight tooth and nail against if it were your home, town, city, etc. similarly invaded, evacuated at gunpoint and summarily levelled to erase any physical remnants of its existence so a new history could be established in popular thought. Zionism WAS, IS and ALWAYS WILL BE at its core a terrorist movement, but one which has been so catered to that it has received the legitimacy of time and international complicity that most refuse to bother examining the truth or applying consistent condemnation and accountability to those who began the conflict in the first place. The real arrogance is that which tactily or actively upholds the lie and the brutality fostered by Zionism over the last century. It is a racist, exclusivistic and exapnsionistic doctrine rightfully left in the late 19th century from whence it arose.
I only read the first paragraph of your post, because it was the same old lickherish rant it is everytime. And frankly it gets extremely boring to read your posts. And I dont plan on reading all you have written or any of those links you posted. Frankly I find you to be the most boring person to read on these forums because every post is extremely slanted left wing propeganda that you call fact. I doubt anything has change for this debate. Never did understand why peace lovers supported terrorism.
And you sir are an ignorant indoctrinated right winger who wouldnt know left wing if it bit him on the ass. Why you bother posting anywhere other than that braindead cesspool of jingoistic bravado - Military.com - is anyone's guess. By your words you demonstrate just how unwilling to learn anything other than whatever rabid and intellectually dishonest rhetoric O'Reilly, Hannity or Coulter regularly spew you truly are. Go on then warmonger, pursue your blindness and enjoy the repetition of the pitfalls history into which you fall. God forbid you should ever have confront your own falsely held notions and have to grapple with the ugly truth.
Well, for your part then I think you should tone down some of your own unsubstantiated right-wing slants. I don't believe "peace lovers" (is there supposed to be some bad connotation to that term?) support terrorism. I don't. I just don't feel compelled to side with the extremely interventionist and almost as propagandic stance of the supporters of the war on terrorism. I see both sides as seriously flawed. So please don't just fling accusations about that peaceniks support terrorism, which doesn't even make sense.
I am only unwilling to learn from you. And your post is a perfect example of why. If you bother exploring the forums you will notice that I had 2 very good debates with soulrebel51. Although his views differ greatly from mine, he is a class act and I think you could learn something from him. You are just here to go on a political crusade and take shots at people with different views than you. You actually come off as more of a pesuedo intillect to me, judgeing by the way you so obviously want to down your opponents. And you know, I really don't understand why you think you are in a justified position to pass me off as a hardcore rightwingin O'Rielly lovin war monger. I'm a centrist. And you sir, although you may be very intelligent, act a fool. Psssst, I dont really think peace lovers support terrorism.
Make whatever excuses enable you to rest smugly in your presumptions WP, and level whatever charge you wish at me. The material remains posted for those with an interest in moving beyond the convenient groupthink mentality you demonstrate by declaring you will NOT read the information provided. Tis you who exhibit both intellectual dishonesty and laziness in choosing to focus on the messenger rather than the issue under discussion and its many largely ignored facets. Don't strain yourself though, I understand how difficult it is to click on a link and take time to read. Centrist indeed! Even Fox News pundits claim to be centrists, and we all know how "fair and balanced" THEY are!
Head in the sand. Such a mature response and one certainly indicative of the falsity of your claim to Centrism. This is precisely the sort of mentality which has effectively deadened the public debate in the US and divided the nation. Its only a matter of time until our house falls to ruin and our smug preeminence along with it. Bravo, good little sheep Bah bah bah!
I don't see how you can sit there and critisize my maturity yet at the same taunt me so that I will lash out. Am I the only one that see's that as hypocritical? You do realize that you are doing exactly what I said you would do don't you? You don't debate, you take shots. And on what grounds are you qualified to call me a sheep? My views differ from yours so now I can't think for myself? Absurd. This place is like a colony of psychoanalysts.
LickHERish and West Point- You guys rule. Seriously, you two should go on Crossfire or something, assuming there are no sharp objects on the set. This thread got me laughing so hard I damn near pissed myself just now. But don't mind me, please continue.
