Reply
Fri 9 Jul, 2004 06:05 am
Leaked reports say the International Court of Justice in the Hague will declare the barrier illegal, demand it dismantled and compensate Palestinians.
Israel to ignore the judgement...Nothing new there then.
In the immortal words of Rodney King, "can't we all just get along?"
No, sorry, never heard of him.
NickFun wrote:In the immortal words of Rodney King, "can't we all just get along?"
No it's difficult to get along with criminals who has been ignoring UN decisions and adopting racist policies since they founded their country on the land of others, speaking of Israel.
Thanks for the explanation hareega, I agree entirely. And welcome to a2k
That wall is an attempt to save people from murderers.
It has been working; not 100%, but a big improvement. Don't you think a wall to save lives, and curtail retaliatory strikes is quite useful?
Oh if it were that simple
I'm not sure why I should have an opinion, Steve, other than personally wanting to be a good citizen of the world and desiring justice for everyone.
It doesn't seem fair, to me, that the conflict fell into the hands of these two unfortunate groups. The strange creation of Israel came about through the machinations of others, your country and mine included. "We" created a monster and let it go. Sometimes I think that when the Jews and the Palestinians are fighting each other, it is a stop-gap for the greater anger they have towards everyone else who got them into such a predicament.
I cannot imagine the true depth of anger that the Palestinians must feel. I think what it must be like to have a group of people dropped into their midst. And the Jewish people seem so determined to build and increase their holdings. Gads, they are so successful! (Though how much of that is through the support of the United States?)
I think the creation of the Jewish state in the midst of Palestine was somehow meant to be a blending of people (that is, I assume there must have been something honorable in the minds of those men), but the Jews seem to have all the control. That can't be right. At least, from my vantage point it hardly seems fair. Yet the Jews are also a people to pity. They had a horrifying history and there seemed to be no place else for them to go. They seem to be good, honorable people yet there is this one giant blot that they refuse to see.
The movement of peoples is bound to cause problems... both "manifest destiny" and "homelands" for special races creates horrible territorial conflicts and even genocide. Walls aren't new, Germany, China, Scotland and probably other places have used them to control fighting and the movements of people. They offer some security, but at what price? Fear is such a terrible thing.
Anyway, for what it's worth, it is my opinion that the wall should not have been built. I think it should be taken down, but I feel like my opinion is meaningless. I don't have to live there and be fearful of my neighbors. We live in such a crazy world and there are very few "grown-ups" among us. I think a facilitator would say that the Palestinians and the Jewish people have to start from where they are right now. Some reparations could be made and some sort of contractual agreement reached that recognizes the injustices which have occurred. Unfortunately, I think that both sides have an ever-changing public attitude and when one side is ready to be conciliatory, the other is not. Without somebody to force them to get together, they probably never will. Maybe the World Court is the best place to start. The World Court system is based on the decisions of three justices and no jury, right?
Thanks for the post piffka, good to hear from you.
When I was younger I always had an instinctive sympathy for Israel. After the trauma of WW2 it seemed natural justice for there to be a Jewish homeland. And I never thought much more about it.
But now I think the foundation of a specifically Jewish state in Palestine was a mistake. My sympathies lie much more with those people who have been kicked off their lands. The Balfour declaration was in favour of a Jewish homeland, but there was an important caveat which the Zionists treated with contempt
Quote:His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people... it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...
And now Israel treats the International Court of Justice and the UN with contempt too. Israel is fast becoming an international pariah state.
Hi Steve...
Well, I've been reading to try and understand the question. I found this source from Yale University and wonder if you've ever seen it?
Jewish Virtual Library
Not being a student of history, I was shocked to read that the Balfour Letter was written in 1917 and Jewish people have been settling in Palestine since way before WWII. In fact, the largest culpability for Israel belongs to Britain... the USA came late to the conflict.
Here is the beginning of what this website says about the Court's conclusion re. the fence.
Quote:Fact Sheets
#31: The International Court of Justice and Israel's Security Fence
(Updated July 9, 2004)
The most important issue at stake in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is how to bring about a two-state solution that offers peace and security to both parties. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has nothing to contribute to resolving this issue and its decision actually subverts the prospects for peace by undermining direct negotiations, diverting attention from the Palestinians' failure to fulfill their road map obligation to stop the violence, and singling Israel out for opprobrium while ignoring the Palestinian terrorism that necessitated the construction of the security fence.
As Secretary of State Colin Powell observed, as long as the Palestinians believe they can win in the court of world opinion, they will have no incentive to pursue peace.
Israel only built this fence to defend its citizens after three years of unrelenting Palestinian violence that has taken the lives of nearly 1,000 Israelis. And the fence has served its purpose. Wherever the fence has been completed, the terrorist organizations have not succeeded in crossing it. No outside court or international organization has the authority to determine how Israel should protect its citizens.
The United States shares this view and that is why it objected to the Court's involvement. After all, if the Court can tell Israel that it can't build a fence to defend itself from terrorists, why can't the justices tell the United States that it is illegal to build a barrier to keep Mexicans from entering the United States, or that its war in Iraq was not justified?
Israel's Supreme Court took up the grievances of Palestinians and ruled that the construction of the security fence is consistent with international law and was based on Israel's security requirements rather than political considerations. It also required the government to move the fence in some places to make things easier for the Palestinians. Though the Court's decision made the government's job of securing the population from terrorist threats more difficult, costly, and time-consuming, the Prime Minister immediately accepted the decision and began to reroute the fence and to factor the Court's ruling into the planning of the rest of the barrier.
The security fence does create some inconvenience to Palestinians, but it also saves lives. The deaths of Israelis caused by terror are permanent and irreversible whereas the hardships faced by the Palestinians are temporary and reversible.
What is the basis for challenging the fence in the first place? Contrary to the language of the General Assembly resolution, the fence does not stand on "occupied Palestinian" land. The fence does not affect the final status of the territories. Israel has not annexed any territory around the fence; the land itself is a matter of dispute and, should a peace settlement be reached, the fence can be moved or torn down. Israel has already said it would reroute the fence to minimize the impact on the Palestinians.
The ICJ's opinion is only an advisory one on "the legal implications of building a wall" and does not have the force of law. The ruling was largely a foregone conclusion given that the UN General Assembly adopted a position on the matter and prejudged it. The court is a political body and Israel has no representation on the court. The 15 judge panel does, however, include a Palestinian from Jordan and an Egyptian.
The politicization of the proceedings was clear from the Court's decision to allow 56 countries from the Organization of the Islamic Conference, along with the 22 members of the Arab League, to testify against Israel. While Palestinians may legitimately criticize the fence, none of these other parties are in any way affected by Israel's efforts to defend itself. Is it any wonder the "trial" resembled the Israeli-bashing forum that occurred in Durban and the one-sided debates in the General Assembly?
The decision to submit the issue of the fence to the court ignored Article 36 of the Court's Statute which stipulates that contentious issues can only be brought before the Court with the consent of all sides. In this case, the issue is clearly contentious, Israel did not consent to arbitration before the court, and the parties already have mechanisms in place for resolving such issues.
Israel was put in a no-win situation. By virtue of being "taken to court," Israel was put on the defensive.
And why should the Court single out Israel's actions? Has it ever ruled on the dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir or the conflict between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus or any of the dozens of other international border disputes?
The part I bolded makes a good point. If all these countries said the fence wasn't a court issue, then why is the court's decision big news?
There's another Wall thread running and I posted on that before I saw this one.
It's here:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=28679&highlight=
I'll be back.
McT
Piff
I wouldn't pretend to be a student of middle east either. Talk about complicated....and depressing. Thanks for the website, interesting but very much a one-sided view.
The fact is the creation of Israel and the actions of the Zionists who were and still are determined to have all of the biblical lands as a Jewish state certainly does prejudice the welfare of the non Jewish population of Palestine.
Britain was duplicitous in making mutually exclusive promises to both sides. But we had an interest, along with the French of carving up that part of the world after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
After WW2 Britain was hoplessly overstretched and withdrew from Empire all over the place. But Ben Gurion and the leaders (many of whom Britain would have executed as terrorists) of the proto-Jewish state could never have successfully launched the project without assurances and backing of the US. Thats how it was and how it remains.
I would like to see a bi national state with guraranteed equality for Arab and Jew and special international status for Jerusalem. But its not going to happen. I fear there are people today in power who would rather see conflagration than compromise.
Regarding the ICJ ruling on the wall, I just think that 37 years of flouting International law has finally caught up with Israel.
I am strongly against the idea of a religious country. IF we allow Jews to occupy another country to establish their own religious country, people from other religions should be allowed the same as well. If Muslims had the same belief- and yes many of them do, then the actions of al-Qa'idah and Bin Ladin should be justified. Al-Qa'idah and bin Ladin share the same belief: doing anything to establish a religious country. Such thoughts leads to endless killing and hatred.
hareega, Welcome to A2K. We don't need to look elsewhere to find a religious nut running a country. GWBush promotes his christian beliefs, and makes every attempt to legislate those beliefs. These guys never heard of or cared about the separation of church and state.
thank you cicerone imposter
man I am a christian who is religious to some extent, and that is the reason I don't want Christianity to be involved in politics. Politics is dirty and I don't like seeing my religion involved in the disasters happening in the world so far. I don't like wars being started in the name of Jesus. My biggest example is Jesus Christ and the Apostles. They were tortured and killed for their belief, yet none of them caused a riot or started a fight or physically harmed anyone even for self-defence. That's why I don't see anything Christian in what George Bush is doing. His claims of being a true Christian should not fool anybody. No person should judge another one, but when it comes to fooling millions of people the church has to say a word in this "do whatever you want but don't mention the name of Jesus in it".
One question: to what extent is Judaism a religion as it is said that Jews are a nation too. In the case of the founding of Israel: was it for religious reasons, or - as many point out - was it founded to give the nation of Jews a homeland?
Nation of Islam?
Christendom?
All the same Rick, just vehicles for the manipulation of power.
The US has become a nation of Christians under GWBush, and promotes its religious beliefs by legislation.
To what extent can you compare the Nation of Islam with the Nation of Judaism? I mean, there is a local rabbi here who said that one of his best, Jewish friends is an atheist. But he's still Jewish, he still considers himself to be Jewish (to give one example).
And what about secular Israelis?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace