International Court of Justice: Fence violates Int'l law, must be dismantled
Aluf Benn of Ha’aretz writes:
The International Court of Justice will rule on Friday that the separation fence contravenes international law, that it must be dismantled, and that compensation must be paid to the Palestinian owners of property confiscated for its construction, according to documents obtained by Haaretz.
The decision will be officially made public at 4 P.M. Friday under the heading, “Legal implications of the construction of the barrier in Palestinian occupied territory.”
The court has ruled that on the basis of the material available to it, “[it] is not convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was necessary to attain its security objectives.” Fourteen votes favored the decision and the sole opponent was the American Judge, Thomas Buerghenthal.
[…] Most of the justices believed that in building the fence, Israel violated international humanitarian law, by infringing on Palestinians’ freedom of movement, freedom to seek employment, education and health. Israel violated international treaties it had signed which deal with these topics, the ruling states.
Must America always be so blatantly on the wrong side these days?
[Ed.’s mandatory alternate take: It is hypocritical “that a Chinese judge calls the fence illegal, when his own regime has occupied a country, murdered 1 million of its inhabitants, transferred in millions of colonists to dilute and displace the natives, and committed the worst cultural eradication since the holocaust.” — Jay Michaelson]
“Must America always be so blatantly on the wrong side these days?”
Are you so well versed in the procedural and substantive issues of international law that you know that america is on the “wrong” side?
I think what you mean is “unpopular” side.
It just so happens that many countries other than the U.S. submitted briefs in support of israel saying that the court had no jurisdiction in the matter.
“Are you so well versed in the procedural and substantive issues of international law that you know that america is on the “wrong” side? “
I have some exposure to it, yet I don’t claim to be a lawyer. Right or Wrong is a moral judgment. Are you saying only lawyers can express a valid opinion ?
“I think what you mean is “unpopular” side. “
Well, it is that too, as a matter of fact.
“It just so happens that many countries other than the U.S. submitted briefs in support of israel saying that the court had no jurisdiction in the matter.”
That’s another issue entirely.
Whether the ICJ has jurisdiction or not does not change the fundamental legality or illegality of the path taken by the fence/wall.
Yeman to Babylonian. Certain morals have nothing to do with the validity of Legal Opinions. How simple can it get: “I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits.” (MLK) Israel would have had lots of sympathy if it built a wall within the green line. Using the occasion to sneak yet another greedy land-grabbing mini manouvers is as stupid as it is childish.
Michael wrote: “Israel would have had lots of sympathy if it built a wall within the green line.”
I agree completely
At first I thought your closing remark was made in a cynical vein. The security fence has demonstrably saved countless Israeli lives. (See, e.g, http://tinylink.com/?wOA6zvvWcB) It has, in fact, made living easier for many Palestinians who find that Israel’s improved security brings calm to their towns as well.
It’s not worth commenting on the substance of the decision until it is published officially and in its entirety, but what leads you to believe that such a decision would be “right”?
Also, what would be the point of building the fence between my house and the guy across the street on the other side of the green line (I live in Jerusalem). He’s not trying to bomb me. That line is an outdated armistice line, not an international border.
Josh H. wrote: “ The security fence has demonstrably saved countless Israeli lives. ”
First, if killing all the Palestinians would demonstrably save Israeli lives would that make it right ?
Secondly, can you show that building the fence on the green line would not have saved “countless Israeli lives” ?
Josh H continued: “what leads you to believe that such a decision would be ‘right’ ”
How about this passage:
“Most of the justices believed that in building the fence, Israel violated international humanitarian law, by infringing on Palestinians’ freedom of movement, freedom to seek employment, education and health. Israel violated international treaties it had signed which deal with these topics, the ruling states. “
Babylonian, nobody but you is entertaining the thought of genocide. That kind of radicalization isn’t constructive because it can easily be turned around: if making one Palestinian late for work would demonstrably save dozens of Israeli lives, would that be right? Does that mean that you now agree that the fence is right? There’s always a tradeoff, and when dozens of ordinary Israelis were being blown to pieces every month, erecting a fence to keep the bombers out seems reasonable.
What’s the hangup with the green line? It’s a cease-fire line from 3 wars ago. The fence was built to protect Israelis, and not all Israelis live on the western side of the green line. Is this about politics or about human rights? Make up your mind.
Bab wrote:
“Right or Wrong is a moral judgment. Are you saying only lawyers can express a valid opinion ?”
The court is only commenting on the legality of the issue, not the morality. So if you dont know the law, then you shouldnt express an opinion on the matter (the legal aspect).
“if killing all the Palestinians would demonstrably save Israeli lives would that make it right ?”
We are discussing property for lives, not lives for lives. You clearly value proprety greater than human life.
Right or Wrong is a moral judgment. Are you saying only lawyers can express a valid opinion ? No, I think he meant that the ICJ is a legal forum, not a moral one — and that it was this distinction which motivated the stance of the U.S. (and of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Russia, the U.K., etc.).
As I understand it the argument was that this was not an appropriate use of the ICJ, essentially because it amounted to using the ICJ as a political weapon, and especially because not only were negotiations the proper tool, but even domestic solutions had not been exhausted — in this case, the Israeli courts. (Headheeb had a good summary of this argument here; see what you think).
Sorry Babylonian,
you’re just another example of the typical leftist who thinks that killing all Palestinians is AN answer, but also thinks that it’s not practical. I on the other of the political spectrum, think it’s a very sick thought in the first place.
JohnBrown,
In high school, did you dream of being on with the ‘cool’ clique? Or maybe you were and now resent it, so now you’re a typical apologetic embarrased about the America’s popularity in the world and its ‘superiority complex’?
Personally, I’d rather be ‘right’ then unpopular? As anyone who’s gone thorugh “American’ high school knows, being ‘popular’ usually means losing individuality and needing to do whatever the rest of the group does, wears, acts, etc… even though it might be ‘wrong’ and ‘immoral’.
Do us a favour and think for yourself rather than what the ‘world’ is telling you to think.
Shabbat shalom.
Why is every contributor to Jewschool from the loony Left?
GREAT NEWS!!!
GREAT NEWS!!!
GREAT NEWS!!!
Rachel Corrie wannabe being shipped back to America.
http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=21420
Josh H wrote: “ Babylonian, nobody but you is entertaining the thought of genocide. ”
Uhm, it’s not leftists who have bumper stickers saying “No Arabs, no Terror” is it
And I’m not “entertaining the thought” of genocide I was trying to make a point. And I think the reason you dodged answering a simple ‘yes or no’ question is you know I was about to make a good point too.
Jimbo wrote: “ We are discussing property for lives, not lives for lives. ”
Speak for yourself. I haven’t see how taking even more Palestinian land saves anyones life.
You haven’t proved that putting the fence well over the green line has saved additional lives than if it were built on the green line.
Jimbo continued: “You clearly value proprety greater than human life.”
Sorry, that’s wishful thinking on your part. I think human lives could be saved without stealing, without the right wing’s favorite euphemism – “transfer”
josh wrote: [string of neurotic ad hominems]
doesn’t even deserve a reply
Josh H. wrote: ” The security fence has demonstrably saved countless Israeli lives. ”
Babylonian responded: “First, if killing all the Palestinians would demonstrably save Israeli lives would that make it right ?”
When someone has to argue like this, it reveals a lack of any substantive argument at all.
Josh H.: “…when dozens of ordinary Israelis were being blown to pieces every month, erecting a fence to keep the bombers out seems reasonable.”
Interesting point, one that is consistently lost in discussions like this, and deserves to be chanted like a mantra in international media. It should tell us all something that it is so seldom asked why the ICJ failed to get involved while Jews were being blown to bits, which made the wall a necessary alternative to military strikes that endanger Palestinian non-combatants in the first place.
“Speak for yourself. I haven’t see how taking even more Palestinian land saves anyone’s life. ”
While will never know 100% if the fence is helping reduce successful terror attacks. we can, however, make reasonable inferences. The israeli govt said building a wall will help prevent attacks in israel, the wall is partially complete and successful terror attacks has decreased substantially. In addition, the israel army has documented several instances where terrorists were caught because the wall caused them to take a longer rout into israel.
My above claim is that since the wall has began, terror has gone down (which was the walls purpose), therefore, it is likely that the wall is working.
You on the other hand claim that the wall has hurts the Palestinians health and education. Do you even know that the education of Palestinians have been affected by the wall? Do you have any evidence whatsoever? Youre very quick to reject the idea that the wall has reduced terror, even when statistics indicate it can be reasonably inferred. When it comes to the Palestinians, however, you jump at the claim that its hurting their education and health, without any evidence whatsoever.
Josh, the statistics of the lowering of suicide bombings which corellates to the time the fence started to built dont show anything.
When the fence was just being built, that means they started actually moving trucks around and digging the ground. thus, the the fact that suicide attacks rates have been lowered does not have (or MAY not have) anything to do with the wall.
If Israel really cared about security, it would have indeed built the wall on the green line. Instead, it left palestinian villages to the west of the wall, and jewish settlements to its east. well, not a surprise in a country where settlements were a national project for the last 37 years.
Babiloniyan’s point about killing all arabs is an important point – the moral legitimacy the wall got is that it is necessary in order to save lives. we are willing to hurt the palestinians for our security – the thousands of dead palestinian civilians are the price the army “regretably pays” for our security. But the question is – are there no other alternatives to the wall (or thousands of dead civilians for that matter), i.e. to giving Israel security without hurting the palestinians? that is the important question. for the sake of the argument lets say the wall is indeed imporving israel’s security (at least in the short run)- if there are indeed no other options, then the wall is legitimate. but of course the wall is an evil which has many many alternatives – one of which include to evacuate the settlements, build a wall on the green line, etc.
Judging our security by statistics of a few monthes is not wise. I will not be the one pointing at all the fence supporters the day a mega-terrorist attack will take place in israel. I will simply cry for the cruel stupidity of our generals, who calimed to have won the war on terror already 4 (who’s counting) times since the beginning of the uprising.
“[Effie] Eitam told me that he believes there are innocent men among the Palestinians, but that they are colletively guilty. “We will have to kill them all,” he said. “I know it’s not very diplomatic.”
from Among the Settlers by Jeffrey Goldberg – The New Yorker – May 31st, 2004
“Last week, Israel’s High Court of Justice ordered the government to reroute a small portion of the separation barrier it is building between Jews and Palestinians on the grounds that it disproportionately harmed several Palestinian villages and violated “fundamental rights” of the people living in its path.”
[…]
“As Chief Justice Aharon Barak wrote in the court’s opinion: “Only a separation fence built on a base of law will grant security to the state and its citizens. Only a separation route based on the path of law will lead the state to the security so yearned for.”
-from “The Wall Is a World Issue Too” – Los Angeles Times
Seems like Israel’s high courts agree with the ICJ on a fundamental level..
Hey, if we sealed all Palestinians in their homes using re-enforced concrete, that would also (most likely) curb suicide bombers; But, that argument says nothing of the morality of the measure.
Israel is supposed to be about good, holy ethics, not about results at any moral cost.
.rob adams
Asaf, statistics show that terrorism has dropped precipitously since construction of the fence began. Is the drop in terrorism only because of the fence? No, military operations have also played an important part. But as other people have noted, there is clear evidence from several sources that the fence has contributed to the reduction in attacks. There is no silver bullet, but as a whole, Israel’s strategy is working.
Babylonian, the Israeli High Court of Justice ruling proves that Israel is capable of dealing with human rights issues without outside interference. Contrary to what you say, the High Court accepted the legality of the fence in concept, but took issue with specific sections that it ruled hurt Palestinians to an unfair degree. These sections will be amended by Israel.
Alright, lets say that the ICJ’s rulings hold some water. And lets postulate for a moment that the UN has the ability to pass a resolution that places sanctions on Israel. Obviously, and it is obvious, the US would then proceed to boycott the UN and we would have us another League of Nations fiasco.
We could still postulate that the ICJ’s rulings held some water. But, as the BBC’s reporter emoted, this is just a parrot victory for the PLO. Israel is not compelled to abide by any ruling passed. And what can the PLO do about it? “Suicide squad… ATTACK! Oh wait, there seems to be a wall in our way.”
The fact of the matter is, and Ehud Olmert stated this best, “Terror built the wall, and terror will unbuild it.” The number of suicide bombers has fallen in number from 60-plus in the first half of 2002 to 17 in the first half of 2003, and six so far this year.* Six. And the wall isn’t even finished yet. I anxiously await the day when the need to have such a wall disappears.
Through it all, Israel is portrayed as the bad guy. When Arafat decided to neglect the Declaration of Principles estabished at Camp David in ’93, It was Israel’s fault. In fact, the number of Israeli deaths doubled in ’94 and ’95. Where was the wall then? “Oh, it’s just a little terror, it’s still good, it’s still good.”
When I played baseball as a kid, my coach used to tell us that a “chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link.” The Palestinians’ credibility is only as strong as their ability to control their so-called Martyrs. Pardon me, but those who forget such a bloody history as this, are condemned to repeat it.
*[Numbers sourced from “(2004). Who’s winning the fight?. The Economist, 38.”]
Asaf wrote: If Israel really cared about security, it would have indeed built the wall on the green line.
That just doesn’t make sense. Many of us — most of us? all of us? — agree that the Green Line constitutes Israel’s de facto boundary, and that for that reason the barrier should have built on the Green Line.
But the fact remains that these settlements do indeed exist. We may not like it. But I do understand that the Israeli government, whose opinion differs than ours, wanted to protect these settlers, rather than saying: fuck ’em.
To make the call to protect settlers, Israel had to segment off portions of Palestinian territory. That’s one of the reasons the settlements are a bad idea: it practically prevents Israel from legally protecting its population, because it has illegally transferred portions of its civilian population on occupied Palestinian territory.
The barrier route that was taken before the ICJ — which, as it happens, is not the real route of the barrier: which is why the ICJ had no business dealing with it — is illegal imho. But let’s not be naive and say that Israel had no interest in protecting its citizens. Clearly it did; and clearly some of those citizens were settlers. That’s the problem.
So build the fence on the green line, and if the settlers feel like being protected, they can move inside the fence
Otherwise they’d be on their own
So build the fence on the green line, and if the settlers feel like being protected, they can move inside the fence: well, yeah, that’s the point. It’s easy for us to say “fuck ’em”; it’s hard to believe that the Sharon government would do the same. The barrier was illegal; it was built for security; these things jibe just fine — the problem is that the settlers are there in the first place.
I wish there was an alternative to the fence. The fence offends my aesthetic sensibility. It’s physically ugly and it is a sad testament to our inability to make peace. I think pretty much everyone agrees the fence is effective with respect to preventing the occurence of suicide bombings (at least so far). Those who are in dissent feel that the fence should have been placed along the Green Line. Personally, I have faith in the wisdom of the power’s that be with respect to the placement of the fence. If they feel that the current placement best protects Israel’s citizens then so be it. I am not going to second guess those who seek to protect both Israel’s population and the men and women serving in the IDF who’s asses are on the line.
Besides, are you friggin serious? You want Israel to put a fence across Jerusalem? Give suicide bombers possible access to the Old City? To the Kotel? To Rammot? You have seriously GOT to be kidding. Those unallocated portions of British Mandate Palestine will never be anything but an integral part of the state of Israel. The ICOJ, The PA, The UN and all can whine bitch and complain all they like, but that’s Israel’s sovereign imperative. I’d like to see an ICOJ ruling on Konnigsburg, or Sudan or something really pressing and patently offensive. Until then, I can only assume that the ICOJ is being used as a pawn in a game that has more to do with politics than it does with Justice.
There’s no way anyone with any intelligence and/or decency could justify preventing the movement of innocent people to seek prompt medical attention or education. If we build a wall that keeps Palestinians from such resources, we’re really only breeding more situations where impoverished, uneducated kids decide that the only solution for the future of their people is personal martyrdom, thus strapping on the bomb that kills more innocent people. When will we learn that? But, oh yeah, a concrete wall would stop that from happening, right? Think again. The Palestinians are developing more technologically advance weaponry all the time with their explosives experts. Walls don’t keep out terrorists. Education, jobs, and making peace will.
“Walls don’t keep out terrorists. Education, jobs, and making peace will.”
There were many many terror attacks against israel way before israel took the west bank and gaza.
You have no such proof for your liberal proregana. By in large, the terrorists have come from the most educated element of Palestinian society. Furthermore, many studies have been published (by liberal institutions) that clearly state that there is zero correlation between socioeconomic status and becoming a terrorist.
Until you come up with some proof for your idealistic assertions, Israel will use what is currently working: Military actions and the fence.
Wow. Jilian Redford! Hope you’re having a great summer and if ever you need a place to stay for Passover, you’re always welcome at my house – we’re Sephardic Jews, the food’s awesome and the Seder reading is rollicking, often going from Hebrew, to Arabic with both English and French commentary. We’re in Canada though, but I’m still serious. No one will rag on you for your politics either, even though we totally disagree.
Jilian Redford wrote:
There’s no way anyone with any intelligence and/or decency could justify preventing the movement of innocent people to seek prompt medical attention or education.
I like to think I am a decent person. However, your mobility rights end where my right to self defense begins. You want to blame the Israelis? OK. That’s cool. But let’s not forget the Palestinian leadership that sanctions the use of ambulances to smuggle weapons and terrorists, or allows operations whereby school children are used as canon fodder.
Jilian continues:
If we build a wall that keeps Palestinians from such resources, we’re really only breeding more situations where impoverished, uneducated kids decide that the only solution for the future of their people is personal martyrdom, thus strapping on the bomb that kills more innocent people.
No one denies that the Palestinians’ situation is bleak. But please! Who is to blame for that? Please mention all parties involved when answering that question. Please also discuss rejected Peace offers that had they been accepted would have placed the innocent Palestinian population in a far different position today.
Jilian opines:
But, oh yeah, a concrete wall would stop that from happening, right? Think again. The Palestinians are developing more technologically advance [sic] weaponry all the time with their explosives experts.
Most of the wall is just a fence. As for Palestinian technical prowess, well, I think I’ll be placing my bets with the IDF. Despite the fact that Palestinian rockets are improving, they pale in comparison to what the other side has and they are still mostly inaccurate and ineffective.
Jilian concludes:
Walls don’t keep out terrorists. Education, jobs, and making peace will.
I’m all about that. But peace requires two parties. Where is our partner? Who shall we make peace with? Until we can do that, I have no problem with whatever is reasonable to secure the safety and bodily integrity of Israelis. Charity starts at home after all.
Ahhh, ck_dave, my Jewschool arch enemy. Thanks for the invite buddy. If there’s a remote possibility that I’ll end up in Canada around Passover, I’ll be there. But to be honest, I hate cold weather. And as an Arkansan, by cold I mean anything less than 70 degrees fahrenheit.
Now on to business. Who’s to blame for the bleak situation of the Palestinians? Without ignoring Arafat’s ridiculous excuse of a ‘leadership’, it’s mostly Israel! Could you argue that the Palestinians would be in the same situation today if the modern state of Israel had never existed? Although I do believe in the existance of the Jewish State, you have to admit that the way we’ve treated the Palestinians from the beginnings of Zionism has been underhanded and irresponsible. People shipped off to refugee camps and not allowed to live as free people, occupied by a foreign government–that’s pretty bleak and I can’t think of anyone else to blame for it. What would happen if another country tried to invade America and take it as theirs because they have a biblical claim to the land? First, we’d call them f-ing crazy, then there would be a war and we’d use everything we could think of to wipe them out. And your admission that Israel is far more advanced in weaponry only supports my point. The Palestinians use such crappy bombs because they have nothing left to use. And if you’re so confident in Israel’s ability to maintain its own security, then why use a wall that blatently bleeds with ulterior motives? Was the wall between West and East Germany alright? Should we just put a wall between every dispute around the world? Does any sane person really believe it’s an answer to disagreement? No, only Israel. If it happened anywhere else in the world, it would be deemed completely appalling. And fortunately, it’s now been deemed inappopropriate in Israel as well. And where’s Israel’s partner???? Have you ever heard of the United States? Maybe even Great Britan? Obviously the Palestinians don’t have such influential powers on their side. So what’s their course of action? What do you recommend they do? And obviously, Jimbo, I don’t know if you get any news channels where you live, but military action and the wall aren’t working. I’ll send you a newspaper or something if you’re hard up.
And with that, I’m off on Vacation. Talk to you again soon.
p.s. Thought you’d like to see my latest media coverage. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040712&s=kaplan
thanks for the link Jilian – great stuff!
You people seem to ignore the fact that Israel has an enemy, and that enemy is trying
to perpetrate another holocaust. In fact, a case can be made that suicide bombings are
a form of genocide. After all, the whole point of a suicide bombing is to kill as many
Jews as possible, just as it was the point of the Holocaust of WWII. The only difference between the Nazis and the Arab enemy is that the Arabs don’t have military and technological means to perpetrate a holocaust. The representatives of Arab nations used openly to say in the UN that their goal is to finish Hitler’s job. However, after the 1967 war, there has been a shift in their tactics. They realized that it is going to be very difficult of them, if not impossible, to destroy Israel militarily. At that point they decided to resort to propaganda and terrorism as a means of accomplishing their goal. The invention of the so called Palestinian people is a great example of that propaganda campaign. In fact, one of the senior members admitted that the Palestinian cause is only designed to serve propaganda purposes: “Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel … “
— Zuheir Muhsin, late Military Department head
of the PLO and member of its Executive
Council, Dutch daily Trouw, March 1977
The terrorism Israel is facing is nothing new. We can trace it back as far as the 1920s, to a series of murderous pogroms, the bloodiest of which was the Hebron massacre of 1929. The Arab revolt which, in reality was the first intifada happened in the 1930s and took the lives of thousands of people, both Jews and Arabs. All this happened before Israel came into existence as a state, and way before the so called occupation of the “West Bank†and Gaza. Therefore, the acts of genocide that Israel is subjected to have nothing to do with Arab desperation, Arab poverty or the “harsh†measures that Israel allegedly takes.
Now, let’s move to the subject at hand. The fence Israel is building was designed to protect Israelis against acts of genocide that are being perpetrated by Arab terrorists. The so called international court was established by western Europeans who are slavishly dependant on Arab oil and who have militant Muslim minorities in their midst. Keeping this in mind, we must conclude that its ruling regarding the fence has been predetermined and must be totally disregarded by anyone who understands the situation and who considers him/herself to be a moral person. Israel must take whatever measures are necessary to combat the fascist forces that are trying to bring about her demise. The sad reality of war is that innocent people suffer on both sides. There have been and there will be situations where Israel has no choice but to hurt innocent Arabs by taking measures against murderers who live among them. The blame for the suffering ultimately rests with the murderers without whom none of the suffering would be necessary.
Jilian Redford: “Who’s to blame for the bleak situation of the Palestinians? Without ignoring Arafat’s ridiculous excuse of a ‘leadership’, it’s mostly Israel! …People shipped off to refugee camps and not allowed to live as free people, occupied by a foreign government–that’s pretty bleak and I can’t think of anyone else to blame for it.”
For nearly twenty years after the establishment of Israel Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt Gaza, and it’s still “mostly Israel’s fault.”
Asaf: “But the question is – are there no other alternatives to the wall (or thousands of dead civilians for that matter), i.e. to giving Israel security without hurting the palestinians? that is the important question.”
Can’t it also be fair to ask whether there is really no other alternative to armed struggle by the Palestinians to achieve their national self-determination? This is their war. It’s too bad they’re suffering, but perhaps they should stop it, return to negotiations, finally take yes for an answer and get on with their national life.
Its a WAR people!!!! Doesnt war violate international agreements?
Anyway, international law needs to be changed in order to reflect the new reality of terrorism. That the court ruled against israel just underscores the need to realign the rules of the game to the 21st century reality. The ruling simply shows how out of touch the justices are. With the exception of the US judge, who seems to understand the rules of the game. Mind you I do not give the Egyptian judge the benifit of the doubt that he is applying an old set of rules to a new game. I think he knows exactly what he is doing. But it is obvious that the rules of war, set out in the geneva convention and adopted as international law, needs to be updated, or we will find ourselves, if we have not already, with no rules of the game at all.
Peace
Jilian… I am so NOT your enemy. Also it’s not so cold on Passover up here and you might be able to benefit from the expansion of your horizons. If the weather is still an issue then you may want to consider Passover on my family’s moshav in Israel. Same good food, same rollicking Haggadah reading but none of the cold weather.
Jilian asked:
Could you argue that the Palestinians would be in the same situation today if the modern state of Israel had never existed?
Clearly their situation would have been different. Currently the West Bank and Gaza have an infant Mortality rate that is lower than Yemen, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria, Iran and Lebanon (according to the CIA World Factbook). According to the same source Life expectancy is higher than that of Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen. So had modern Israel never existed, would their situation have been better? That’s clearly debatable.
Jilian considers:
I can’t think of anyone else to blame for it.
Hmmm. I can think of a few others who might share the blame… For instance, as you’ve noted, the current “leadership,” such that it is. And then there’s the Arab world and the past leadership who have consistently failed to come to terms with and accept the very existence of the State of Israel and have callously exploited and perpetuated the plight of the Palestinians for their own purposes. I might suggest reading up a bit more on the topic.
Jilian asks:
What would happen if another country tried to invade America and take it as theirs because they have a biblical claim to the land? First, we’d call them f-ing crazy, then there would be a war and we’d use everything we could think of to wipe them out.
You may want to talk to a Native American about that. So if I hear you correctly, you’d support their use of suicide bombers and/or “anything they could think of” to wipe YOU and yours out?
You said that the Palestinians have nothing left to use. Well, uh, how about recognizing Israel’s right to exist and deciding that living in Peace is more important than some pie in the sky delusional scenario whereby Israel just suddenly disappears?
Jilian asks:
military action and the wall aren’t working.
The fence IS working Jilian. At least in so far as it functions to protect Israel’s civilian population from suicide bombers. I already witnessed the effects – the streets of Jerusalem are regaining their liveliness, there hasn’t been a successful suicide bombing in months etc. etc. As far as you implication that the fence is a mere land grab, well, Israel’s given up much more in the interest of peace – look at what they gave up in the Sinai. There is no reason to believe that the Israelis would dismantle or re-route the fence once a comprehensive peace is arranged. And that peace must involve the Palestionians. The notion that the US or the UK can stand in their place is kinda silly.
Jilian writes:
If [building a security fence in disputed territory] happened anywhere else in the world, it would be deemed completely appalling.
How about India’s fence in the disputed area of Kashmir? Or the Saudi Arabian barrier inside a border zone with Yemen? Or a Turkish barrier in land claimed by Syria? (see Unilaterally Constructed Barriers In Contested Areas – http://tinylink.com/?7asELMe2La) Are those being decried throughout the world?
I deal with the whole ICJ fence opinion in more detail at http://tinylink.com/?GBDMaNVeMi – feel free to drop by and have a say.
Avi:
“Judge Thomas Buergenthal acknowledged in his dissenting opinion that some or even all of Israel’s barrier might violate international law”
Reuters
Babylonian:
Do suicide bombings violate the international law? And if they do, how come this so called court never discussed them?
I assume you’re Jewish, and if you are, let me ask you this, what is more important Jewish lives or this ruling, even if the fence violates the international law?
“Judge Thomas Buergenthal acknowledged in his dissenting opinion that some or even all of Israel’s barrier might violate international law”
Reuters … and went right on to conclude that, in his opinion, the ICJ had issued a ruling without considering all of the necessary evidence.
(As Brown Babylonian’s article has it: “The nature of these … attacks and their impact on Israel and its population are never really seriously examined by the court,” Buergenthal wrote. “Without this examination the findings made are not legally well founded.”)
Buergenthal was the lone dissenting judge. Attempts to spin his judgement as non-dissenting are unlikely to be very convincing, I think.
Babylonian,
You missed my point. I am not even claiming that the fence does not violate international law. I am saying that the time has come to change the law to reflect the new realities of the 21st century. The law was not written with terrorism in mind. Treaties and conventions that worked 50 years ago do not work today. The bad guys know about the treaty and hide behind the rules. This is not the point of international law. It is agaist a geneva convention to fire on an ambulance in a war zone. It is also against international law to use an ambulance to carry combatants to a battlefield. If an army fires on an ambulance used as a battle taxi who has violated the law? Both sides? I think not, only the first side. Any argument to the contrary is absurd.
Peace
Sheikh Yahudi wrote:
“Do suicide bombings violate the international law? And if they do, how come this so called court never discussed them?”
If the suicide bombings target non-combatant civilians then yes they violate international law
If they target soldiers or combatants then they might very well be legal
For the Court to rule on a matter, someone has to petition the court to consider it. That’s why the court ruled on the wall – they were asked to by the Palestinians.
If the Israeli government cared about International law, it might try to use the court to its advantage, but apparently it doesn’t care about international law, seeing as how it ignores UN resolutions all the time.
Sheik continued…
“I assume you’re Jewish, and if you are, let me ask you this, what is more important Jewish lives or this ruling, even if the fence violates the international law?”
First of all, I don’t think Jewish lives are more important than any other kind of human lives.
Secondly, I think your choice between Jewish lives or the ruling is a false dilemma. There’s no reason that Israel can’t protect its citizens and do so within the boundaries of international law.
If the suicide bombings target non-combatant civilians then yes they violate international law / If they target soldiers or combatants then they might very well be legal: that’s a bit misleading. Attacks targetting “combatants” are admitted under international law only where each side — the attackants, the “combatants” being attacked — is a legitimate party to the conflict.
Parties to the conflict are either states, or non-state groups recognised under international law as a legitimate party to the conflict. In the context of Palestine, that’s the PA. None of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, arguably Fatah, and certainly Fatah splinters like the Aqsa Brigades, are recognised as parties to the conflict, nor (obviously) are they states.
So, at best, only suicide bombers officially sent by the PA as a Palestinian military force would be legal. But the PA tends not to officially authorise suicide bombings. In fact, it tends to disclaim them. As a result, it is hard to believe that Palestinian suicide bombings would be legal. Indeed, the PA has tended to officially condemn them. I think it makes sense, therefore, to side against whatever actions the PA takes to foster illegal suicide bombing — and against Brown Babylonian’s argument to the same effect — and instead stand with the official rhetoric the PA adopts on the advice of its Ivy-League-trained legal strategy unit. There’s a concise Web page on this topic here.
More surprisingly, Brown Babylonian also responds to a question about saving Jewish lives with this: First of all, I don’t think Jewish lives are more important than any other kind of human lives. / Secondly, I think your choice between Jewish lives or the ruling is a false dilemma. But the false dilemmas he claims to abhor in the second point seems like a pretty good characterisation of his first point: this isn’t about Jewish lives versus other kinds of human lives. Brown Babylonian put forward the same false dilemma earlier ( if killing all the Palestinians would demonstrably save Israeli lives would that make it right ? ) and was rightly dressed down for it.
Finally, Brown Babylonian concluded that there’s no reason that Israel can’t protect its citizens and do so within the boundaries of international law. That’s a bit hard to believe, though; the implication is that, though Israel is perfectly capable of protecting its citizens, Israel just doesn’t feel like it — or, even more cynically, that Israel would rather sacrifice the lives of its citizens than follow international law.
I’m just not buying it. My argument has been that Israel can’t protect the lives of its citizen without violating international law, because it has placed its citizens in Palestinian territory. The obvious conclusion to my argument is that the only way for Israel to respect this judgement, or any other judgement, would be to remove the settlements.
The interesting thing about the ICJ’s judgement is that it seems to have recognised the Green Line as the political boundary to Israel. That seems significant. On the other hand, I note that the decision talked about a “wall”. Of the 720 km barrier, only about 9 km are in fact a wall: not even Electronic Intifada mistakes the entire barrier for a wall. Does that mean that the ICJ’s judgement only pertains to the wall — a discontinuous 9 km portion of the barrier?
The oddest thing about the lively and passionate members of this discussion is a tendency by most (not all) to present their arguments in the format of : OOOh, but look at them, their ashloch (sorry) is bigger…†and leave at that any need to deal with the fact people will continue to die until we find a solution. That solution is by now, to anyone who follows both sides (and you have to dig beneath mass media), and whether we like it or not, will mean the Palestinians will get their lands back to the 67 lines (but no more), possibly with minute changes of 2-3% exchanges; and that East Jerusalem if not to be their official capital, will carry some form of international status. The Palestinians on their side will have to relinquish the Right of Return in anything more substantial than symbolic form (and for compensation, guaranteed to be cheaper than the costs of the conflict). Debating if there are reasons for compromise, who is right, who is wrong and why is like pushing wind. It is too late for that, however much the weight of 2,000 or even 5,000 years of history might carry reasons in your eyes. Bar eliminating millions of people (now, where did I come across that before), there is no way to ignore the problem, higher walls and wishful thinking are futile. Compromise or perish. No, not physical annihilation – I doubt the state of Israel will fall down for lack of military prowess to hold its posts, but the nation of Israel, the Jewish Spirit of compassion and ethics, not to mention an already fabled illusion for democracy and freedom will cease to exist. So some fascists will manage to prove they can hold on to their ideas by force, will that make them right? I hold no illusions about the fact some of the Palestinian leadership would be just as murderously daft as the worse human history can present, if sadly not remember, had the shoe was on the other foot. But it is not anymore (the shoe, or should I say the boot): Israel in the 21st century, is not under acute existential threat and therefore not the victim here; however painful the conflict might be for us, we suffer less than them and blaming our gross mistreatment of millions on the base of history is psychologically gratifying but does not bring about growth. “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created itâ€. (Einstein). Could it be that the present conflict give us Jews a chance to better human beings than a thousands prayers for the death of Amalek?
‘Pro-Israel’ sources are working hard to portray the majority opinion in the ICJ’s recent Wall decision as biased and/or anti-semitic, in part by contrasting Judge Buergenthal’s dissenting declaration. In order to do this, however, they are forced to wildly distort Buergenthal’s positions, which are devastating to the Israeli position. This presents us with an
opportunity to turn the Right’s endorsement of Buergenthal against them, to the extent that we can communicate a more accurate portrait of Buergenthal’s
opinion. Hopefully the following will help interested folks in capitalizing on this opportunity:
First of all, some more grist for the ‘credibility’ mill: Buergenthal is a survivor of Auschwitz and Sachsenhausen. He is a member of the US
Holocaust Memorial Council, and was the Chair of that organization’s Committee on Conscience from ’97-’99, and is Vice-Chairman of the Claims Tribunal for Dormant Accounts in Switzerland. Buergenthal is also a self-identified Reform Jew.
In order to argue an a priori anti-Israel bias, sources have pointed out that only Buergenthal supported an Israeli challenge to Judge Elaraby’s presence on the Court, based on statements critical of Israel’s position
that were made prior to the request for an advisory opinion. They neglect to mention that Buergenthal’s concern was limited to “the appearance of bias” and that he had “no doubts whatsoever about the personal integrity of Judge Elaraby, for whom (he has) the highest regard, not only as a valued colleage but also a good friend.”
Some sources are stressing Judge Buergenthal’s argument that the Court did not have access to adequate information about the wall and should have
declined to issue an opinion for that reason. They omit that Buergenthal acknowledged this shortcoming was due to Israel’s refusal “to produce the requisite information.” Unfortunately, there is no legal requirement to cooperate with the proceedings for an advisory opinion.
The strongest critique of the ICJ’s opinion is the Court’s (poorly reasoned) finding that Israel’s right to self-defense (per the UN charter) is inapplicable to the case at hand. Buergenthal’s dissent is cited to
support this critique, but with minimal accompanying information, and for damn good reason. Here is the relevant quote from his dissent:
“Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention also does not admit for exceptions on grounds of military or security exigencies. It provides that ‘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 poulation 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.” {The weakness, here, is that Buergenthal doesn’t specifically include East Jerusalem, but neither does he exclude it, so it is arguably covered as part of the West Bank.}
The other popular critique is that the Court did not adequately address the Israeli claim that the wall was solely intended to provide security for its citizens, or to evaluate the proportionality of the harm caused to the
Palestinians versus the security benefits to the Israelis. Buergenthal is cited as criticizing the Court on this account, which is true, to a point. What isn’t mentioned is the context in which he places this criticism:
“My negative votes…should not be seen as reflecting my view that the construction of the wall by Israel on the Occupied Palestinian Terriotry does not raise serious questions as a matter of international law. I
believe it does, and there is much in the Opinion with which I agree…It may well be, and I am prepared to assume it, that on a thorough analysis of all relvant facts, a finding could well be made that some or even all segments of the wall being constructed by Israel on the Occupied Palestinian Territory violate international law…I am not suggesting that (an investigation into Israel’s right of self-defence, military necessity and
security needs) would relieve Israel of the charge that the wall it is building violates international law, either in whole or in part, only that without this examination the findings made are not legally well founded.”
A number of sources have also cited Buergenthal to support the claim that the Court’s opinion lacks credibility. This is done in such a way as to strongly imply that the lack of credibilty is a result of anti-Israel bias, and is reflected in a decision that is unjustly critical of Israel.
Buergenthal’s actual statement on the Court’s credibility is wildly at odds with this presentation:
“In my view, the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people would have been better served had the Court taken these considerations into account,
for that would have given the Opinion the credibility I believe it lacks.”
Here, as in the rest of his dissent, Buergenthal’s concerns have nothing to do with the Court’s conclusions, but rather with the way in which they
were reached. Even there, his biggest concern is that what he views as an essentially just opinion will carry less weight than he would like.
Pro-Israel’ sources are working hard to portray the majority opinion in the ICJ’s recent Wall decision as biased and/or anti-semitic, in part by contrasting Judge Buergenthal’s dissenting declaration. In order to do this, however, they are forced to wildly distort Buergenthal’s positions, which are devastating to the Israeli position. This presents us with an
opportunity to turn the Right’s endorsement of Buergenthal against them…
Apart from the coded stereotypes — the old “pro-Israel” canard which it tries to tie to “the Right”: I am (like most Jews) not right-wing, support some Israeli policies, oppose others, and have no idea what is meant by “pro-Israel” — there are a whole series of inaccuracies here. (On the other hand, if your goal was to communicate a more accurate portrait of Buergenthal’s opinion, I think you forgot to encourage people to actually read the dissent. Or, for that matter, to link to it. It, and the opinions of the other judges, are here
The strongest critique of the ICJ’s opinion is the Court’s (poorly reasoned) finding that Israel’s right to self-defense (per the UN charter) is inapplicable to the case at hand. Buergenthal’s dissent is cited to support this critique, but with minimal accompanying information, and for damn good reason.
Really? He was not ambiguous on this point. From Brown Babylonian’s article: The nature of these … attacks and their impact on Israel and its population are never really seriously examined by the court,” Buergenthal wrote. “Without this examination the findings made are not legally well founded.”.
That particular quote comes from paragraph 3 of the dissent. So, where Brown Babylonian writes Buergenthal’s concerns have nothing to do with the Court’s conclusions, but rather with the way in which they
were reached, he misunderstands both legal reasoning and logic more broadly. Buergenthal felt that the Court had jumped to conclusions. Because the Court had not thought it through, the Court was not entitled to conclude as it had.
That’s why Buergenthal dissented: that is, did not sign on to the decision that the other 14 judges reached. At paragraph 7: Lacking is an examination of the facts that might show why the alleged defences of military exigencies, national security or public order are not applicable to the wall as a whole or to the individual segments of its route. The Court says that it “is not convinced†but it fails to demonstrate why it is not convinced, and that is why these conclusions are not convincing. As I wrote earlier, Buergenthal was the lone dissenting judge. Attempts to spin his judgement as non-dissenting are unlikely to be very convincing, I think.
That, quite obviously, doesn’t mean that the security barrier — this includes the 9 km “wall” that Brown Babylonian is interested in, as well as the other 710-odd kilometres — is justified. It may even be illegal under international law. But both the procedural and substantive critiques of the ICH here are, I believe, correct:
– Procedurally, not all domestic remedies had been existed — in fact, the Israeli Supreme Court was considering the case even as the ICJ was and, as it happened, chose to change the barrier’s route.
– Substantively, the problem is the settlements, not the barrier itself. As long as the settlements are there illegally, actions to protect these people are bound to be illegal too. Yank the barrier away, and all you’re left with is a bunch of dead Jews, angry constituents, and way more conflict. Address the settlements, and snaking (illegally, probably) through Palestinian territories is no longer necessary.
Finally, on a number of sources have also cited Buergenthal to support the claim that the Court’s opinion lacks credibility. Quite the contrary. Those who feel the ICJ had no credibility in this matter — such as the governments of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Russia, the U.S., and the U.K. — felt this way long before the judgement ever came out.
Those who quote Buergenthal’s opinion aren’t trying to discredit the court; quoting a judgement in the case would, on the contrary, support the idea that the ICH was credible. They’re quoting him because they agree with him.
That’s allowed, last time I checked.
I have to say that mobius’s quote of mochaelson is realllly low. what is that trying to prove? that the chinese judge has lost legitimacy to judge because of his country? next israeli professors are being boycotted I am sure you will protest together with me agaisnt that.
hypocritical it would be if the chinese took part in the crimes described.
I have to say that mobius’s quote of mochaelson is realllly low. I agree. Especially given that the judges are specifically supposed to not represent the views of their governments, ie be independent.