World Court Rules Israel's Barrier Illegal

Simply based on the cost of the wall I think it's safe to say that its life will be measured in years.

Dag's argument was not only about the duration of the wall but that it failed to address "root causes".

Frankly if the wall lasts for 30 years I'd not loose much sleep over it, so long as said "root causes" are addressed.

So my argument to dag was that this is not intended as the final settlement, the final settlement may never come, but it won't be because of this wall.

Addressing "root causes" is not mutually incompatible with this wall. I think this wall will help create an enviroment where addressing the territorial dispute will be possible.

The point I was making to dag was that this is intended as a temporary security measure, and not the final settlement that addresses the "root causes".

Sure, this "temporary" wall might be around for a while. Hell I'll be surprised if it lasts less than 5 years. But my point was more about what the wall's intent is (immediate security concerns) and what it is not about (a method to address "root causes").

Yes, I do realize that the wall's lifespan will might end up being longer than intent. But my comments on intent had more to do with the intended scope of the wall's purpose (address immediate security issues, not "root causes") than the lifespan.

If this post is too confusing intent vs lifespan is the prevailing theme.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

A lot of your argument seems to hinge on the assumption that Israel will indeed cease with the incursions, assassinations and road blocks once the wall is up. I would say that is indeed a mere assumption.

It is a mere assumption. Just like anything about the future is mere assumption to some degree.

But it is also based on very careful study of this conflict. If the wall is successful in preventing terrorist attacks it is unlikely that Israel will have the political capital to engage in many of their activities.

Most of their moves really need a Palestinian bombing to use as a pretext for a retaliation that was planned before the bombing.

Quote:

But I dont believe for a moment that just because they've got the wall up, they'll suddenly refrain from the opportunity to bomb a Hamas honcho, for example.

It's not the wall that will prevent them from doing so but rather the absence of attacks.

If the wall is successful in eliminating the attacks they will be hard pressed to garner the political capital for assasinations.

Even with the terror attacks to respond to the US leaned on Israel quite hard for some of those assasinations.

If Israel were assasinating people in the prolonged absence of attacks the US, for one, would be wicked pissed. They wouldn't be able to paint it as self-defence anymore, it would look like initiating aggression.

Quote:

The result might well be and/and: both the wall and incursions, assassinations and bombings.

Well, IMO this will only happen if the wall can't eliminate the terror.

I want more than a wall. I want hermetically sealling the country.

I posit that if there are NO terrorist attacks whatsoever Israel will have no political capital to assasinate. I posit that if there are NO terrorist attacks Israel will have little internal political pressure to assasinate.

0 Replies

"I want more than a wall. I want hermetically sealling the country. "
Kind of like North Korea sealed itself of? There, and the silly me thought you were for the fence as a temporary solution.
Anyhow, I won't get back into this argument, for I haven't seen any development since where we left of, and my opinions were voiced. just wanted to comment about the Berlin wall. You are wrong, Craven, on two of your three points.
the Wall was proposed by Adenauer and built by West Germany to keep the Easterners OUT. It WAS also a security measure against the remnants of the Red Army, that was still vastly present in East Germany, Czech Republic, Poland -everywhere in the immediate neighborhood of West Germany. From their perspective it was a totally rational move. Why again was it wrong from your perspective? For it sounds awfully similar to the Israeli justifications of their wall.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

the Wall was proposed by Adenauer and built by West Germany to keep the Easterners OUT. It WAS also a security measure against the remnants of the Red Army

Ehm, Dagmaraka? I dont think thats true ... I dont know who all "proposed" it, but it was built by the East-Germans.

If you go to Berlin and pass along the former wall, you'll find some memorial plaques and the like with heartwrenching pictures of East-German soldiers building it, to the stunned looks of onlookers ...

"12./13. August 1961
Am Nachmittag des 12. August um 16.00 Uhr unterschrieb Walter Ulbricht, Staatsoberhaupt der DDR, die Befehle, die Grenze zu schließen. Am Sonntag um Mitternacht begannen die Armee, die Polizei und die Kampfgruppen, die Stadt zu "sichern"."

Thats from here but a better timeline is here.

Here's what Adenauer said about it in a speech to parliament the next day:

Quote:

Die Machthaber in der sowjetisch besetzten Zone Deutschlands haben seit den frühen Morgenstunden des 13. August den Verkehr zwischen dem sowjetischen Sektor und den drei westlichen Sektoren Berlins fast völlig zum Erliegen gebracht. Entlang der Sektorengrenze wurden Stacheldrahtverhaue erreichtet; starke Verbände der Volks- und Grenzpolizei bezogen ihre Stellungen an der Sektorengrenze, um die Abriegelung des Verkehrs zischen Ost- und Westberlin durchzuführen. Gleichzeitig wurden Truppen der nationalen Volksarmee eingesetzt.

Diese Abriegelungsmaßnahmen wurden auf Grund des Beschlusses der Zonenmachthaber vom 12. August ergriffen. Mit ihrer Durchführung hat das Ulbricht-Regime gegenüber der gesamten Welt eine klare und unmissverständliche politische Bankrotterklärung einer sechzehnjährigen Gewaltherrschaft abgegeben. (Beifall bei der CDU/CSU und der FDP)

Mit diesen Maßnahmen hat das Ulbricht-Regime eingestehen müssen, daß es nicht vom freien Willen der in der Zone lebenden Deutschen getragen und gestützt wird.

0 Replies

Yes, Dagmaraka - your comment made me run off and check if all my memories were wrong.

The wall was built by the East Germans.

To keep people IN - because so many East Berliners were leaving.

The difference with the Israeli wall is it is to keep people OUT - or, rather control their entry.

These are rather different purposes.

If you are saying the history of the Berlin Wall is different from this, can you cite your reasons for saying this?

0 Replies

Well, we were not sent off from school, when the GDR-troops started to buil the wall (although some teachers wanted to do so, for "security reasons"), but could go either home (to listen to the news/watch it on tv or stay in the school hall and listen to the radio/watch it on tv there.

It was said in the GDR all over the years that the wall was only built to prevend the "capitalistic Westerners from coming in", that's correct.

You can see some films from the beginning of the building of the Berlin wall and more here.

(Since it's in German, I do hope, more than nimh can manage through those sites :wink: )

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

"I want more than a wall. I want hermetically sealling the country. "
Kind of like North Korea sealed itself of? There, and the silly me thought you were for the fence as a temporary solution.

Hermetically sealing and temporary are not mutually exclusive Dag.

And no, not like North Korea, North Korea is not faced with cross border terrorism like Israel, so it would be a decidedly different hermetical nature.

Israel would continue to have an open economy and be open to the nations that would not pose an immediate threat to her.

Quote:

You are wrong, Craven, on two of your three points.
the Wall was proposed by Adenauer and built by West Germany to keep the Easterners OUT. It WAS also a security measure against the remnants of the Red Army, that was still vastly present in East Germany, Czech Republic, Poland -everywhere in the immediate neighborhood of West Germany. From their perspective it was a totally rational move. Why again was it wrong from your perspective? For it sounds awfully similar to the Israeli justifications of their wall.

Nothing you said there illustrates being wrong on two points or whatever it was you claimed. Frankly, what you posted is closer to being revisionist history than anything else.

0 Replies

Ok, yes, my bad about the Berlin Wall. I remembered it that way from reading Adenauer's biography, years back. And went and read more about it after nimh corrected me. ALthough it is still true that Adenauer supported the wall and very few spoke against it. I wish I could find that book again, I was pretty sure Adenauer spoke of the wall ever since he came to the office. Can't claim it true now for it seems my own memory is failing me.
That doesn't change anything about my position on Israel's wall either though. Temporary or not - that don't make that much of a difference to me. When you build a wall to keep people out, that also means you want to keep them IN somewhere. Principle remains the same - physical separation. gotta go.

0 Replies

If the wall proves successful in severely reducing attacks on Israelis,...

and, due to this fact, Israelis' retaliatory attacks cease or severely drop in concert with reduced Palestinaian attacks,....

and, proper facilities are built on the Pal side, giving them all the amenities they 'lost' due to the construcion of the wall,....

and, focus on resolving the conflict does not suffer due to the wall--but is actually enhanced due to the lack of attacks from both sides...

Would the wall dissenters change their minds?

0 Replies

Lauding Sharon for his intrepid swim against whitewater currents!

He's meeting with Peres, trying to work out a power sharing arrangement with those, who are willing to give to find peace. They may create a more powerful "Peace party', it seems.

I think, in the least, he deserves credit for making huge concessions that are to his personal political detriment.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

That doesn't change anything about my position on Israel's wall either though. Temporary or not - that don't make that much of a difference to me. When you build a wall to keep people out, that also means you want to keep them IN somewhere. Principle remains the same - physical separation. gotta go.

Actually this is both a logical falsehood and false in application to this situation. I'll just keep it to situational falsehood for now.

The land border can be hermetically sealled without enthralling the populace. The Israelis are free to travel by sea and by air, it's just specific problematic border crossing that is being restricted.

And it's not even all the border you know, just the ones facing the source of the terrorist threats they face.

So with open air and sea travel and most of the boders behind the shield open, you have a pretty weak case for an imprisoned populace.

0 Replies

Peres should be prime minister Sofia. I bet the process would be well underway if he had absolute power.

Love the guy.

0 Replies

I could see that political shift pretty easily.

I've only heard on the news today that the two are trying to iron out portfolio sharing within their parties. This, in itself, seems to mark adeparture from politics as usual--though I have no knowledge of the history of Israeli politics... Do they routinely do this? Anyone? It seems this would infuriate Sharon's party. Based on my limited knowledge of this behavior--assigning members of the non-ruling party significant cabinet roles-- It does seem the bell is tolling wildly for political change in Israel...

Guess I should read up on recent Israeli political behavior.

0 Replies

Their political system makes for cross party coalitions to be more common (and their politics more volatile IMO) than ours.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

ALthough it is still true that Adenauer supported the wall and very few spoke against it. I wish I could find that book again, I was pretty sure Adenauer spoke of the wall ever since he came to the office.

Adenauer became chancellor on 15.09.1949 - why the hell should he have had the idea of a wall in those days?

Adenauer said on the evening of the 13th of August 1961:

Quote:

"Now, as always, we are closely bound to the Germans of the Russian zone and East Berlin.
"They are and remain our German brothers and sisters. The Federal Government remains firmly committed to the goal of German unity."

source: BBC: On this day in history

Few spoke against it? You didn't live here - but I did, in those days as well:

Quote:

Thousands of angry demonstrators quickly gathered on the West Berlin side of the divide. At one crossing point, protesters tried to trample down the barbed wire, only to be driven back by guards with bayonets.

same source as above, where you can find more links.

However, I agree that the reaction of the western allies was 'moderate'. And this, since the three essentials of the American policy regarding Berlin were not affected:
- presence of allied troops,
- free access to Berlin,
- the right of self-determination of the West Berliners.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

ALthough it is still true that Adenauer supported the wall and very few spoke against it.

The Berlin Wall infuriated Berliners. It was one of the few things that politicians of all colours in West-Germany agreed on: a scandal.

As for Adenauer, let me translate an excerpt of what he said about the building of the Wall in that speech I quoted above:

"Beginning in the early morning hours of 13 August, those in power in the Soviet-occupied zone have almost completely brought all traffic between the Soviet sector and the three Western sectors of Berlin to a halt. Along the sector border, barbed wire barriers were put up; strong units of the [East-German] police took up positions at the sector border to complete the sealing of traffic between East- and West-Berlin. Troops of the [East-German] army were deployed.

With these sealing measures, the Ulbricht regime has demonstrated to all the world a clear and unmistakeable declaration of political bankruptcy of a sixteen-year-old rule by violence. With these measures the Ulbricht regime has admitted that it is not beared and supported out of free will by the Germans who live in the zone."

0 Replies

Walter, by few I meant few from Adenauer's cabinet. Which, again, I only remember from reading his autobiography - memory of which is blurry, as i already admitted. No, I did not live there and I am sure that you know the facts better. There, I hope that cares of this whole thing.

0 Replies

I would really like to know the title of that book, Dagmar, since it really contradicts everything I know (and I've looked up roughly in the meanwhile quite some of Adenauer biographers/biographies).

From an article by Theo Sommer, published in Magazin Deutschland

Quote:

The Federal Republic's overriding state policy was, consequently, a result of this situation. Accordingly, the first "initiation" law passed by the newly-founded state was aimed at regaining sovereignty, the second at the country's integration in an overall European structure, the third at asserting itself in the hostile new world order, and the fourth at overcoming the division of Germany. Konrad Adenauer, Germany's first chancellor, made these four initiation laws the cornerstones of his foreign policy.[/[/b]U] They become mandatory for all his successors, too. Adenauer managed, piece by piece, to wrest sovereignty for the Federal Republic from the western allies. His aim was to make Germany an equal partner among free nations.

0 Replies

Well, I still have the notes somewhere at home - will try to fish it out tomorrow.

0 Replies

Sharon survives a vote of No Confidence today.

0 Replies

World Court Rules Israel's Barrier Illegal

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know