AWOL Kahanist Soldier Lynched After Killing 4 On Egged Bus

AFP reports,

An Israeli settler-soldier who shot dead three passengers on a bus in an argument over the imminent pullout from the Gaza Strip was lynched in the aftermath of the shooting, police said.
The 19-year-old soldier, who came from the hardline settlement of Kfar Tapouakh in the northern West Bank, opened fire on the passengers during the row on a journey between the northern Galilee town of Shfaram and the coastal city of Haifa.
Five other passengers were also injured, three of them seriously, police said.

The BBC states that the soldier was wrestled to the ground by other passengers, and A7 notes that the bus driver was amongst those killed. Reuters also adds that the gunman was in uniform at the time, and had recently deserted his unit, refusing to participate in the disengagement.
Kfar Tapuach, the soldier’s town of residence, is an illegal settlement and a bastion of the militant right-wing Kahanist movement.
[Update] Full coverage from Haaretz. They’re calling it a planned terror attack and say the attacker was killed by a mob which stormed onto the bus in the wake of the attack.
[Update] No one wanted to give Edan Natan Zaada a funeral. Rishon Letzion rejected him. Kfar Tapuach rejected him. And the IDF refused to give him a military funeral. The Kachniks are claiming he was Shabak. Ironic this went down on Jabotinsky’s 65th Yahrzeit. More Motzei Shabbat.
[Update] JTA reports, “Prime Minister Ariel Sharon asked the National Insurance Institute on Friday to designate the attack in the town of Shfaram […] as terrorism. The designation allows the insurance agency to grant the victims’ families monthly financial allotments for the rest of their lives.”

42 thoughts on “AWOL Kahanist Soldier Lynched After Killing 4 On Egged Bus

  1. 1) I may disagree with their editorial page, but Ha’aretz reported more accurately than you, Moby: the guy was a recent BT who recently moved to Tapuach. So: a long-term kachnick in the throes of what looks like the more unstable sort of BT scenario. Not the typical settler – even for a “hotbed of militancy” like Tapuach.
    2) What would be the reaction if we Israelis had lynched every Pali murderer who attacked us? Would the headline be
    “Palistinian Shoots Three Israelis”
    “Jewish Commuters Lynch Palistinian”
    – take a look at the headlines describing the killing of a Palistinian kid by “friendly” Palestinian fire.
    Would we have had intifadahs I, II, and III if we’d lynched them when they were just stabbing us, instead of blowing themselves to smithereens?
    3) Very interesting to read the lefties in the comments section calling for the demolition of this guy’s house. Guess he didn’t make it onto the A-list of Noble Savages. Humanitarian concern for me, but not for thee.

  2. wait, ben-david, do you think this guys house should be demolished? just wondering.
    what makes those people “lefties”?

  3. also, what does being a recent bt and recent resident of tapuach have to do with anything? and what does recent mean? a year? a week? the guy was an idealogue enough to pick up to tapuach and go awol from the army. and an idealogue enough to kill a bunch of arabs. also, you can be a kahanist without being religious and without living in tapuach. i have plenty of secular israeli friends with giant jdl posters hanging over their beds. i have friends like that in brooklyn too.

  4. at the very least, if he is new to the club, he obviously picked up on their stated goals and agenda very quickly and decided to waste no time rising to the challenge.

  5. something tells me the pull-out from Gaza is going to be real ugly – and imagine if/when Israel decides it has to pull out of the West Bank? I can’t see that going down without a full-on civil war

  6. It seems pretty obvious that he was yet another shabak plant, conveniently undermining any settler credibility at, hmm, just the right time. Only two months of planning needed. Unfortunate the arabs lynched him.

  7. John Brown, what do you think this is all about? Ariel Sharon is LOVING what the settlers are doing, because he knows he is saving the west bank, and throwing away gaza strip as a distraction for the world. the settlers are playing along with this same game, knowing that john brown and millions of people are thinking the same thing – what will happen when we “disengage” from the west bank?
    perhaps that day wont come thanks to the disengagement. then again, as much as sharon is a genious, he DID have to come up with the disengagement in the first place. in other words – israeli-palestinian conflict is more surreal than real. who knows what lies ahead in the next two years.

  8. I was beginning to miss posts like this.
    Him and his family lived in Rishon Letzion. The same place where Ami Popper came from.
    Mob, getting emotional doesn’t mean you have to lie. Tapuach is not an illegal settlement. It was founded and built about 27 years ago on a barren hilltop and is registered with all the relevant government agencies. If it is illegal, than you are inferring that the Israeli government which approved Tapuach is illegal or illegitimate.
    Am I backing this guy up? Not on your life. But let’s get facts straight before you, JB, and AST start the civil war by inciting against us settlers with unconfirmed information.

  9. josh – I’ve been saying all along that I’ll believe it when I see it
    “You should never believe a word he says. He has never uttered a word of truth except by mistake. His aims have not changed, only his tactics have. Don’t look at what he says, look at what he does.”
    — Uri Avnery, leader of Israeli Peace movement Gush Shalom, speaking of Ariel Sharon

  10. i have a friend whose a galatz journalist and he was assigned to follow a unit during the disengagement. it will be interesting no matter what.

  11. Josh, Gaza will be evacuated – we will not stop that. We can minimize damage to the rights of Jews living in Judea and Samaria if those of us who support settlers pursue a calm dialogue and demonstrate how a contiguous and secure Israel can be preserved without mass seizures of people’s property. I was pleased that the Yesha council and Sharon along with others quickly condemned this Kach terrorist. Such condemnation preserves the right as a legitimate party representing non-extremist views.

  12. an interesting thing about the haaretz coverage is the talkback section – in particular the insistence by some that opening this article to feedback is inappropriate (notice the first comment, but also many later comments).

  13. some interesting comments found across the web:
    ” Jewish martyr begins the war against Amalek. It is so sad that he only managed to eliminate 4 of them and that he lost his own life. ”
    ‘Chayyim’ in Kahane.org forum post (the soldier was a Kahanist)
    Yekutiel Ben-Ya acov, the founder of the Jewish Legion, a far-right defense group based in Tapuah, said: “We will be stepping up our efforts to do everything in our power to stop the disengagement, which was his will and testament. And we will demand justice for Eden.”
    Margot Dudkevitch, Jerusalem Post
    Yekutial Ben Yaacov, founder of the Jewish Legion in Zada’s hometown of Kfar Tapuach, told WND “Zada is the first casualty of the sadistic Gaza plan. He tried with all his heart and soul to convince the authorities not to draft him at this time so he wouldn’t have to play a role in the disengagement. Had he not been enlisted, had they not forced him to be scheduled to uproot Jews, there wouldn’t be any deaths.”
    Aaron Klein, WorldNet Daily
    “Who is the real killer here? Who forced Eden to join the IDF and to violate his conscience? Who armed him, in spite of his repeated warnings? How many other Edens are out there who are torn and tormented over the role they are being forced to play in the disengagement? {…} Somebody needs to listen to the soldiers and to hear their pain. It is very easy to threaten jail terms to soldiers who refuse to serve now and it is easy to condemn Eden. Even Eden’s neighbors in Tapuach are distancing themselves from him.”
    Editorial in ‘Voice of Judea’

  14. Josh, Tapuach, like any settlement, including those in E. Jerusalem, are all equally illegal according to international law, every respectable human rights organization, etc. Only within the Israeli context is there a difference between “legal” and “illegal” settlements.
    check out this promotional video of Tapuach: http://themelioscrat.com/docs/
    Jeffrey Goldberg on Tapuach: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/

  15. Hey, Mobius, you’re a fan of collective punishment, right? Feb 2. on your blog you wrote: “It’s amazing isn’t it? They’ll stop destroying the homes of people who deserve it — those who commit acts of aggression against Israeli civillians –”
    So, why are you out there calling for Eden’s family home in Rishon Lezion to be destroyed, or whatever house he was living in Tapuach?

  16. we read somewhere else (News.Yahoo.com) that the victims were Israeli Arabs, which if true would be a hell of an omission in the posting. Kind of goes a long way to explain it.

  17. This is what happens when people’s back are against the wall.
    He should not have been put in the position of being forced to drag Jews out of their homes so that he went AWOL. He felt the arabs were to blame and this drove him to this.
    Unfortunately Israel is to blame – they disenfranchise people and push them against the wall.
    Its better if this wouldn’t happen.

  18. …But its not organized – its what happens when people are squeezed against the wall. Does the mother bear not attack when she and her cubs are threatened with a wall behind them?

  19. Joe Schmo, dont you read what you write?
    If the explaination for this attak is the fact that israel disenfranchises people and pushes them against a wall and forces people in a position of being forced to drag Jews out of their home – why cant this explaination (KAL VACHOMER) apply to cause of violence from palestinians, whose situation comparably is 20 times worse?

  20. Asaf, because the arabs begin the violence because they want Jewish land. Arabs have not been bombed they begin we defend.
    We are attacked constantly and as a result we strike back.
    That is the difference.
    Like you Asaf I don’t want either side killed but they contest the land. So we have to look at whose land it is and since it is Jewish land and they won’t accept that- they have to go.

  21. So just to clarify Asaf, I understand the idea of them feeling its their land- I do. That is why I expect them to continue killing and bombing and since they feel that Tel Aviv also is theirs I expect the killing and bombing to continue and continue.
    I am not like the likud (or even labor) who say “why are the arabs upset -life is good for them… I understand that they have self-pride I understand just like you undestand.
    That is why I also understand that two peoples who both demand the land as their own cannot both live there.
    Since it is Jewish land – they must go.

  22. Let’s say what 99.9% of all jews, across the political/religious spectrum are saying: the shooter was a terrorist who committed murder and committed pure evil. end of report. nothing else should be added, no buts, no justifications. to do so is the muslim way, not ours.

  23. Incidentally, the house-wrecking was a strategy to punish the families of suicide bombers. The reasoning was that you can’t really punish suicide bombers since, well, they execute themselves — but that they might care about their families. This guy was not a suicide bomber, so the house-destroying thing isn’t really relevant.
    Except as an eye-for-an-eye rhetorical point, of course. If you’re into that kind of thing.
    Unfortunately Israel is to blame – they disenfranchise people and push them against the wall.
    Yeah, yeah. Root cause. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. We’ve heard it before. It’s stupid.

  24. http://www.nfc.co.il/archive/0
    Head Rabbi of Tel Aviv Hevra Kadisha (burial society): No reason to bury Zada ‘outside the fence’.
    Interesting short Q&A in hebrew only. Sorry I can’t translate at this time, except to paraphrase that the Rabbi explains why he shouldn’t be buried ‘outside the fence’ which is a term used to describe Jews who commit suicide who while still buried inside the Jewish cemetary, are interned a cerain distance away from other deceased, but not outside the walls as ignorantly (and commonly) perceived.
    posted to jewlick and elsewhere.

  25. Yisrael,
    wait and see.
    And you can stop with the imaginary ‘I’m pro-settler but also pro-disengagement’. Once one family is uprooted, the rest of us 260 000, including greater Jerusalem are not far behind. You can’t claim that one inch of Yesha is kosher if another inch is not.
    Yesha settlements illegal? Are you an expert on international law or do you just surf a lot? I don’t claim to be an expert either, but the fact remains that Samaria, Judea, and Gaza never belonged to ANY sovreign entity, hence, it hasn’t been conquered.
    I’m seriously leaning in your direction. All the current specualtion is hot air and deflects from the actual massacre and subsequent lynch while being handcuffed.
    It’s too easy to slander the religious, the settlers, the kahanists, the shabak, the army, the ignorant leftist media with their ignorant mouths, etc… BUT there should be a seriously inquiry about why the army/police botched big time after getting warned about an AWOL hothead with a gun (while it worries about arresting juvenile roadblockers), who he was with the day of and before the massacre (with kahanists or the shabak or the same who might have provoked him), and why he went to a druze town, most of whose residents are rabid anti-expulsion and anti-Palestinian for that matter.

  26. Josh,
    No, I just surf a lot. According to last year’s ICJ ruling, the settlements are illegal under international law. You can’t move your own citizens into occupied territory. The Israeli High Court has ruled on more than one occasion that the territories are under a state of “belligerent occupation.” Find me one respected international body that disagrees. It is only Israel that views any settlements as legal, and no other country recognizes the annexation of E. Jerusalem. That Bush seems to expect that realities on the ground have to be taken into account, does not mean the US govt recognizes settlements as legal.
    “Under international law, all settlement building in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem is considered illegal, though Israel disputes this.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mid
    Quotations on the Illegality of Israeli Settlements
    A. The International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
    78. 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.
    120. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.
    B. Human Rights Watch, Israel: Bush Should Lay Down the Law on Settlements, April 11, 2005
    Israel’s policy of encouraging, financing, establishing, and expanding Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories violates two main principles of international humanitarian law, or the laws of war. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a party, states are prohibited from transferring civilians from the occupying power’s territory into the occupied territory, and from creating permanent changes in the occupied territory that are not for the benefit of the occupied population.
    “Israel is not only violating international law in expanding its settlements, but also its commitments under the road map to freeze them,” said Whitson. “Israel must evacuate its settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in order to uphold its responsibilities as an occupying power.”
    C. Amnesty International, Israel/Occupied Territories, Removing Unlawful Settlements in the Occupied Territories: Time to Act, March 23, 2005
    However, the evacuation of some 8,000 Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip and from some very sparsely populated settlements in the West Bank must not be allowed to be used by Israel as an opportunity to expand other settlements in the West Bank, where some 400,000 Israelis live in violation of international law.
    The international community has long recognized the unlawfulness of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories. UN Security Council Resolution 465 (of 1 March 1980) called on Israel “… to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem”.
    However, the international community failed to take any measure to implement this resolution. Most Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories were built after this resolution was passed, with the greatest expansion having taken place in the past decade. The establishment and expansion of settlements and related infrastructure in the West Bank is continuing on a daily basis, contrary to Israel’s commitment under the UN-sponsored 2003 Roadmap peace plan. This week the Israeli government confirmed its plan to built 3,500 new settlement houses in the East Jerusalem area of the West Bank.
    As well as violating international humanitarian law per se, the implementation of Israel’s settlement policy in the Occupied Territories violates fundamental human rights provisions, including the prohibition of discrimination.
    D. B’Tselem, Land Expropriation and Settlements
    Since 1967, Israel has established in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip 152 settlements that have been recognized by the Interior Ministry. In addition, dozens of outposts of varying size have been established. Some of these outposts are settlements for all intents and purposes, but the Interior Ministry has not recognized them as such….
    In that the very establishment of the settlements is illegal, and in light of the human rights violations resulting from the existence of the settlements, B’Tselem demands that Israel evacuate the settlements. The action must be done in a way that respects the settlers’ human rights, including the payment of compensation.
    East Jerusalem, B’Tselem
    East Jerusalem is occupied territory. Therefore, it is subject, as is the rest of the West Bank, to the provisions of international humanitarian law that relate to occupied territory. The annexation of East Jerusalem breaches international law, which prohibits unilateral annexation. For this reason, the international community, including the United States, does not recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem.
    E. The United States Government
    “Our position on settlements, I think, has been very consistent, very clear. The secretary expressed it not too long ago. He said settlement activity has severely undermined Palestinian trust and hope, preempts and prejudges the outcome of negotiations, and in doing so, cripples chances for real peace and prosperity. The U.S. has long opposed settlement activity and, consistent with the report of the Mitchell Committee, settlement activity must stop.” Mr. Richard Boucher, U.S. Department of State’s Daily Press Briefing — November 25, 2002
    “U.S. Policy toward the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is unequivocal and has long been a matter of public record. We consider it to be contrary to international law and an impediment to the successful conclusion of the Middle East peace process Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention is, in my judgment, and has been in judgment of each of the legal advisors of the State Department for many, many years, to be. . .that [settlements] are illegal and that [the Convention] applies to the territories.” Secretary of State Cyrus Vance before House Ctee. on Foreign Affairs — March 21, 1980
    “Substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the convention and cannot be considered to have prejudged the outcome of future negotiations between the parties on the locations of the borders of states by the Middle East. Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by my government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and its neighbors.” William Scranton, US Ambassador to the United Nations, UN Security Council — March 23, 1976
    F. The Israeli Supreme Court, As Cited by the PLO Negotiation Affairs Department
    As early as 1979, the Israeli Supreme Court stated: “This is a situation of belligerency and the status of [Israel] with respect to the occupied territory is that of an Occupying Power.” http://www.nad-plo.org/view_ar…>[9] In 2002, the Israeli Supreme Court held yet again that the West Bank and Gaza Strip “are subject to a belligerent occupation by the State of Israel.” g In June, 2004, the Israeli Supreme Court reaffirmed that “since 1967, Israel has been holding [the West Bank] in belligerent occupation.”[11]
    [9] 606 Il. H.C. 78, Ayub, et al. v. Minister of Defense, et al. (The Beth Case); 610 Il. H.C. 78, Matawa et al. v. Minister of Defense, et al. (The Bekaot Case), reprinted in Antoine Bouvier and Marco Sassoli, How Does Law Protect in War? Cases, Documents and Teaching Materials on Contemporary Practice in International Humanitarian Law, International Committee of the Red Cross, pps. 812-817, Geneva, 1999, hereinafter â?úICRC 1999.â?ù
    [10] Adjuri v. IDF Commander, 7015 Il. H.C. 02, 7019 Il. H.C. 02 (2002).
    [11] Beit Sourik Village Council v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank, 2056 Il. H.C. 04 at 1 (2004).

  27. According to the ICJ ruling, Israel also doesn’t have the right to defend itself against Palestinian terror. That doesn’t lead me to have confidence in the rest of the ruling’s determinations.
    As for this guy; he was a terrorist, pure and simple. Anything about how he was “pushed against a wall” is besides the point.

  28. Even the American Justice and Holocaust survivor Thomas Buergenthal of the ICJ did not dispute that the settlements are illegal. Are you arguing that the settlements are legal, Eyal? I’d like to see your arguments.
    The Court considered the issue of Israel’s security needs and the threat of terrorism in some depth and length in its 56 page opinion – and it concluded that if Israel wanted to build the Wall, it could do so entirely legally – on its own side of the Green Line.
    However, it could not do so on illegally occupied territory.
    Indeed it specifically excluded the small section of the Wall built in Israel from its judgment.
    However, Holocaust survivor Buergenthal was much more honest than those who shouted “kangaroo court.” His dissenting opinion was in its own way equally devastating for Israel’s case.
    In it, he said,
    “there is much in the Opinion with which I agree,” and “I share the Court’s conclusion that international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, and international human rights law are applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory and must there be faithfully complied with by Israel,”
    Even more explicitly, he says,
    “Paragraph 6 of Article of the Fourth Geneva Convention also does not admit for exceptions on grounds of military or security exigencies.
    It provides that ‘the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.’
    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.”
    Further weakening accusations of inbuilt bias, just before the hearings, Howard Meyer, the authoritative historian of the World Court pointed out that the lead counsel designated for Israel if it appeared before the Courtwould “be Dr. Shabtai Rosenne, an Israeli diplomat and long time observer of the I.C.J.
    As student of the Court he has written more books about its procedures and its rulings than anyone.
    In 1989, four years after the U.S. walked out of the Courthouse in Nicaragua ‘s case, Rosenne wrote in an introduction to a new edition of one of his works on the Court that it had “rendered important services in the evolution of international law through the United Nations and in the peaceful settlement of disputes, more in the last decade than in the first thirty years of its existence….it has performed a major service to the international community as a whole because the need to bring international law into line with present-day requirements is real and urgent.’”

  29. are the settlements illegal? the test of that isn’t determined by fringe anti semitic groups such as icj, amnesty, etc. Post WWII, does Russia now incorporate land previously owned by Poland? Do Russia and Poland now incorporate land previously owned by Germany? It is well established international law that territory concquered during a justified war belongs to the conqueror, and therefor Israel if it wishes can incorporate any portion of the west bank into Israel proper. Of course, icj, human rights watch and others who want to pander to the 1 billion muslims want to change the rules for the one jewish state in the world – Sharon is drawing the boundries of the new Israel – sans Gaza but with much of the West Bank. Live with it world!

  30. avi green wrote: “are the settlements illegal?
    the test of that isn’t determined by fringe anti semitic groups such as icj, amnesty, etc.
    Oh so now the Israeli high court, even the Holocaust survivor on the ICJ, the US government (which is basically Israel’s only supporter), Human rights watch Israel and B’Tselem are all ‘fringe anti-semitic groups’ in your mind.. do you realize how ridiculous you sound? Ever heard of the story of the boy who cried wolf?
    It is well established international law that territory concquered during a justified war belongs to the conqueror, and therefor Israel if it wishes can incorporate any portion of the west bank into Israel proper. “
    Uh, no the law says exactly the opposite. Of course you couldn’t cite any modern examples becasue your WWII example predates the 1949 Geneva convention.

  31. just googled the 1949 geneva convention, didn’t find a word about change of borders, if its there would someone like to site a specific provision? and as to settlements, bush has specifically said that he expects israel to retain some west bank land (and settlements), since thats official us policy the us obviously supports at least partial annexation of the west bank. as to various anti jewish groups such as amnesty, human rights watch, and israeli groups (yes there are antisemitic jews/groups, peace now, noam chompsky, adam shapiro, finklestein, etc) they have the moral authority of a toad. As much of the west bank as we want is ours. live with it.

  32. forgot to mention the internation red cross as an additional antisemitic organization – they won’t let the jewish red cross into the organization. and the un has certainly been antisemitic – the zionism = racism statement, more recently durbin of a couple of years ago. lets face facts there are about a billion muslims and 30 to 40 majority muslim countries v. 14 million jews and one jewish state. anyone expecting morality to out weight real- politic has been living in the us for too long, where we really do try to have a moralistic sense of foreign policy (and thats why america is the most pro-israeli country in the world)

  33. J Brown wrote “Uh, no the law says exactly the opposite. Of course you couldn’t cite any modern examples becasue your WWII example predates the 1949 Geneva convention.”
    –unreal, after 1949 new rules…special for us Jews. Examples you want? What happened in these last few years to test this new ‘rule?’ People only keep rules when convenient for them.
    When you got a rule universally kept for 200 years through real conflicts where one country wanted land on another- if the rule still stands then you can quote it until then don’t bother us with nonsense.
    xisnotx, You want to know about the illegality of ‘settlements?’ You gave me sources of international law now I’ll give you sources from the real law:
    Numbers: “33,53 And ye shall drive out the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein; for unto you have I given the land to possess it. 33,54 And ye shall inherit the land by lot according to your families–to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer thou shalt give the less inheritance; wheresoever the lot falleth to any man, that shall be his; according to the tribes of your fathers shall ye inherit. 33,55 But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then shall those that ye let remain of them be as thorns in your eyes, and as pricks in your sides, and they shall harass you in the land wherein ye dwell. 33,56 And it shall come to pass, that as I thought to do unto them, so will I do unto you.”
    This is why we are suffering. we refuse to follow THE REAL LAW but instead choose to fear the nations.

  34. I gave my reasons for against the ICJ decision in detail at http://www.jewschool.com/2005/… (4th post from the bottom). Point 7 addresses the applicability of the GC. How Burgenthal could make a decision on whether the barrier was “disproportionate” is beyond me, since the ICJ decision held that A) Israel has no right of self defense against Palestinian terrorism (and it didn’t limit that to “beyond the Green Line”) and B) it dismissed Israeli claims of necessity without discussion.

  35. Eyal — You’ve made some interesting arguments challenging the ICJ. But you have said nothing compelling about why the barrier HAD to be built in occupied territory.
    Let’s cut through the legal stuff. Do you believe that the fence would have worked at least equally well on the Green Line? What was the point of building it in occupied territory — you mentioned that the court did not take into account that the fence has saved lives. Why could it not have saved those lives if it were built on the Green Line? The fence would have saved more lives if it had been built faster, and not held up in court challenges, protests, and ending up far longer than the Green Line itself. Building the fence away from the Green Line in its current location is a political act — security became secondary. Remember that when Haim Ramon and Ben-Eliezer first proposed this fence, on the Green Line, the security establishment said it would work. Now Ramon admits the location of the fence in Jerusalem is also based on demographic concerns, and in a case brought before the High Court for the town of Azun, the state didnt even bother saying the fence had to be there for security reasons — the new reason is that it “would be very expensive to move.”
    North and south of the settlements of Alfe Menashe & Zufin, Israel is busy filling in the “seam zone” between the fence and the Green Line w/ more settlement. Zufin plans to expand by over a thousand units, and Palestinian farmland in Jayyus is being expropriated for this purpose. What kind of security sense does it make to build Israeli habitation CLOSER to the fence and the Palestinians beyond, within Qassam range? Where is the “necessity” in that? Clearly it was land-grabbing that came first in the planning of this fence, security second.
    As for the argument Israel has to protect its citizens beyond the Green Line, I agree; but it can do that by evacuating them to within the Green Line.

  36. I’ll give you 3 reasons:
    1) As said, Israel is required to grant protection to all its citizens. You can see, right now, how long it takes to pull people just out of Gaza – and a full unilateral withdrawal from all the Territories would be a bad thing for a variety of reasons. Until their is some sort of decision, they must be protected.
    2) In particular, you have the problem of Jerusalem (where most of the deviations from the Line occur). A barrier built on the Green Line would cut staright through the center of the city. Now, there are several promblems with that. First of all, that means the Jewish neighborhoods to the east of the barrier (e.g., the Jewish Quarter) would be outside its protection. Second, it would cut off the access of all those who live in East Jerusalem from the western part of the city. Note that when the barrier was placed in such a way that 55,000 Palestinians would wind up to the east of it, there were protests that it would cut them off from municipal, state, and economic services. Putting the barrier on the Line would cut off even more of them.
    3) There are places were the topographical realities don’t allow placing the barrier on the Line. For example, there is a place (I forget the name) on a hilltop, west of the Line, which came under fire from a neighboring hilltop east of the Line. In such cases, the barrier is built as a wall, to prevent shooting. However, the Line is in the valley between the hills. Placing it there would be totally ineffective. There are other places where you just can’t build it on the Line. And moving the route of the barrier west has obvious problems – there are places where Israeli communities are right alongside the Line, and moving the barrier west would leave them outside its protection

  37. 1) So? protect them with soldiers. Israel is not building the fence around all of the “communities,” anyway. How many are outside the fence — 60,000? Don’t they have to be protected too? A little while back I remember Mofaz even floated the idea of surrounding 40 isolated settlements with individual fences.
    It may be “bad thing,” it may be difficult, but the settlers are living there in violation of international law and convention, so Israel can’t argue it gets to build a fence in occupied territory just cause it’s made a big mess that’s hard to get out of –not legally. Israel is allowed to build only temporary structures for security in occupied territory — which is why it says the barrier is temporary and up for “renewal” every five years. The ICJ did not buy that the fence is “temporary.” It is not temporary to the Palestinians whose land is destroyed by it, who cannot reach thier schools, their hospitals.
    2) Again, the Jerusalem “neighborhoods” you refer to are built in violation of international law and convention.
    I agree it is difficult to figure out where to place a wall in Jerusalem, legal questions aside.
    As for those 55,000 Palestinians, are their municipal, state, and economic services on the other side of the Green Line? Where it is being built, the wall already cuts off tens of thousands of Jerusalem Palestinians from their land and relatives and schools in the rest of the West Bank, and vice versa. Also, if it is so important to disengage from the Palestinians, why is Israel entrapping thousands of them on the western side of the wall in Jerusalem? Cut off from family, livelihood, and land in the West Bank, don’t you think they have the potential to become MORE of a security problem?
    3) Those communities you cite are settlements, illegal under international law. No law stops Israel from moving the settlers back inside the Green Line. As for your firing line example, in the valley where Jayyus’ farmland is, cut off by the fence, Israel is building 1,000+ housing units. Jayyus is on a hill ABOVE that valley. It will be easy to shoot those housing units from the hill. And the village is peaceful now, but after Israel has taken all its farmland and the people have nothing left to lose, dont you think they may start shooting at those new houses sitting where their farmland used to be? Much of the Palestianians’ most arable farmland and water sources are now in the “seam zone,” obviously for the purpose of annexing them to Israel.
    The fence is built four miles from the Green Line in Jayyus, with all the village’s arable farmland and all seven wells now on the western side of the wall. What is the security reason for that? Where is the “topographical reality?”

  38. does anyone think that calling the colour black “white” will make it so? evidently those who use the words illegal settlements believe so, since without looking at the whole picture they continue to mimic the antisemites of the world and refer to “illegal settlements” and “occupied territory”. I dont give a shit what public opinion or biased “international” opinion currently claims, afair reading of history shows that there has never been a state of palestine since the original jewish state, worst case from the israeli perspective is that the lands are disputed, and we can do what we want with the west bank – incorporate it into israel, rule it as a “territory” (e.g. the way America rules Guam), or anything else. So face it anti semitic world (and its jewish fellow travelors), theres not going to be one set of rules for israel and another for everyone else — we will live by the rules applicable to all states, and do what the israeli government wants with the west bank!

  39. 1) Their illegality or legality is besides the point. I should also point out that nothing in the GC that I’ve found prohibits the building of defensive structures in occupied teritory, so the point is moot; especially, as you yourself say, if it’s temporary. I don’t give a damn that “The ICJ did not buy that the fence is ‘temporary'”, for the reasons I gave above.
    2) see above. You complain about 55,000 Palestinians being cut off from services, and then demand a route that would cut off even more of them. I should also note that the neighborhoods you’re so dismissive of include the Jewish Quarter, which has been Jewish for millenia, not to mention the Hebrew Univeristy campus, which has been Israeli territory since 1948.
    3) Assuming that’s so, this wouldn’t be the first time that Israel’s government behaved in a schizoid manner. Also, while the barrier may run 4 miles from Jayuss, as near as I can [a make out*, it runs less than a quarter mile from several Israeli settlements. And the entire argument is besides the point – whether may argument is true in Jayuss or not does not say it’s ntrue everywhere.
    http://www.btselem.org /Download/Separation_Ba rrier_Map_Eng.pdf

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.