A non-violent approach to this war would have helped the Palestinians get much farther over time.
However, the parts of your post where you equate Israeli actions (you call them, just like the Syrian foreign ministry, “state terrorism”) to Palestinian terror are wishful thinking on your part. The comparison doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It might on the day that Israel targets Palestinian civilians and we can discuss it then, but until that day, it’s just hot air coming out of another FAR leftie dude who doesn’t realize that just because he condemns Palestinian terror, by the nature of his attack on Israeli actions as terrorism, he is essentially justifying any acts the Palestinians commit.

i’m not sure i see where i am way off. It takes Oofnik until March of 2005 to put up a post exclaiming how shocked he is that some of his fellow travellers might support Palestinian terror (implicitly if not explicitly)?
Where the heck has he been for the past 4.5 years besides rocking out to the beat of his echo chamber?
Whatever.

You see. Something is clouding your judgement. All of those flu germs cluttering up your sinuses and interfering with your brain. Shall I explain:
You are way off because this issue is not as cut and dried as you imply. You see/hear of a handful of people saying it’s “not my place to judge” and suddenly it is “dominant among leftists”. Is it really? If we could round up all these people you are pigeonholing as “leftists” would a mjority of them really say “it is not my place to judge”? And who are these leftists? Is anyone who criticizes Israel a leftist? Could you support Bush and criticize Israel and still be a leftist?
And what’s all this reference to “those with your progressive views who allowed the loonies to dominate the discussion”. Loonies, by their sheer looniness (and my apologies here to any loonies who I may offend) manage to dominate any highly charged “discussion” because they drown out the voice of reason with hatred (extremism) vengeance (they did it first) and idiocy (it’s not my place to judge). This inevitably leads to what we in the UK (I am British) refer to as “fisticuffs”, and could be why we are in the current quagmire which is the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Oofnik’s post was not, as you portray it, a statement of the bleeding obvious. It was a statement that reasonable people can and do criticize Israel for its handling of the peace process. But in doing so, they are not supporting or excusing Palestinian terror, as some people suggest. He is not expressing this idea as though he has just discovered it. And it is a view which is as welcome today as it will be next week, next month and for every year to come until Israeli’s can live in peace in Israel.

You see. Something is clouding your judgement. All of those flu germs cluttering up your sinuses and interfering with your brain. Shall I explain:
You see, not only are you british, but you are an a**hole. I’m not sure why you are choosing to attack me like that rather than focus on the discussion at hand without making sweeping generalizations (how do you know how much experience I have with the left to make a reasonable judgement about me or my position), but I think it says more about you than it does me.
This inevitably leads to what we in the UK (I am British) refer to as “fisticuffs”, and could be why we are in the current quagmire which is the Arab-Israeli conflict.
And your sophisticated analysis of the conflict speaks for itself. I’m off to the toilet for a more interesting experience than going round ‘n’ round with the likes of you, cheers.

Ms Black Jew wrote: “Where is evidence for an Israeli culture that encourages suicidal behavior as a means to political gain?”
“The Israeli historian Idith Zertal argues that the nexus of death and nationalism is essential to understanding Israeli society today. In her powerful new book, Death and the Nation (which will be published in an English translation this summer by Cambridge University Press under the title Israel’s Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood), she demonstrates how the catastrophes of Jewish history have been transformed into nationalist fables of heroism, victory and redemption. In debunking the official nationalist historiography, Zertal’s book follows in the footsteps of works such as Nachman Ben-Yehuda’s The Masada Myth and Yael Zerubavel’sRecovered Roots, both of which explored how ancient Jewish history was distorted to serve the needs of the Zionist movement. What sets Zertal’s book apart is her focus on death. She believes that an obsession with death and martyrdom has vitally shaped the way Israelis understand themselves and their state. One of her recurring themes is “ancient graves produce fresh graves.”
At the center of this culture of death is the remembrance of martyrs–Jews who, in Zionist ideology, had to die so that the state might be born. The central chapter in the construction of Israeli martyrology was, of course, the Holocaust, but it began well before, according to Zertal, who traces it to the cult surrounding Joseph Trumpeldor, the first hero of the Jews who settled in Palestine.”Never mind dying,” Trumpeldor is reported to have said shortly before his death in 1920. “It is good to die for our country.”
from Israel’s Culture of Martyrdom
by Baruch Kimmerling, The Nation

Oof,
“When I asked her how she can deal with such a relativist point of view”
How odd, because I was going to ask you the exact same question?
You remind me of the teens I work with who have to qualify that they hate their parents before they confess their love for them. Grow up man, sometimes evil is evil and it’s only occuring on one side.

JB: That’s just silly. Remembering a great injustice from our past is a form of “state sponsered terrorism”? And I suppose Trumpeldorianism is corrupting Israel’s youth!?? C’mon Brown, according to you, pretty much anything Israeli Jews do, excluding intermarriage of course, is tantamount to Islamic terrorism.

“I’ve had my fair share of interactions with those who describe themselves as Progressives”
Funny because I did my undergrad in Commerce and my Master’s in clinical counseling in the dept of Social Work. And, in general, there were few difference from the far Right Conservatives in Commerce and the far Left in Social Work. Although diffence of opinion, in general, was tolerated better within the faculty of Commerce than SW. Ironically, gender issues were far more balanced in Commerce than SW.

What caught my eye was this…
“At this point it is worth noting a different brand of “pro-Israel” propogandists who, unlike the apologists, strategically divert attention from the conflict by trying to show what a normal/cool/western place Israel is and how the ugly face of the conflict is not the real face of Israel.”
And what’s wrong with that? There is a lot more to Israel than the conflict, and it deserves to be highlighted. I find the “side note” quite humorous because it is posted right under a banner ad for Birthright Israel, which fits your description perfectly (although in my opinion, is a laudatory campaign and I wish I knew of it when I was younger).

“At this point it is worth noting a different brand of “pro-Israel” propogandists who, unlike the apologists, strategically divert attention from the conflict by trying to show what a normal/cool/western place Israel is and how the ugly face of the conflict is not the real face of Israel.”
Kinda like the anti-everything groups in Vancouver who want to convince the world that the only thing that exists in British Columbia is our heroin/crack problem in the Downtown Eastside. Yet unless your drive through those 7-9 blocks, Vancouver is a wonderful city with such beauty, oy vey, it’ll be a shame to leave (I’m off to Toronto in June).
I stick to my claim that Oofnik/Brown, for the most part, are sublimating their own inner struggles, revulsion…usually caused by poor early experiences in the Jewish community or shoddy Jewish education, into the more accepted and hip anti-israel tirades that one here’s from these types. If I was a betting man, I’d say that the childhoods of Oofnik/Brown were bereft of warm shabbos’ and engaging Torah talk.

Asaf-
Leftists as moral relativists. What a shock. Reminds me of Zell Miller, 32 years after McGovern, discovering that his party advocates American weakness.
“The only consistent attitude towards terrorism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to be against its use by both sides.”
Yes, and the only consistent attitude toward child molestation is that both Michael Jackson AND yourself not mess with the little boys. Both. Seriously.
“The support of the use of state terrorism is, of course, not an alien idea to “pro-Israel” apologists.”
My favorite part is the “of course”. “State terrorism”? Are we playing with definitions again?
“she will never call Palestinians to stop using violence (including suicide attacks) because it is not “her place” to judge.”
Yep, heard that one before. If you want to have some fun, next time someone says it’s “not their place to judge”, ask them what the rules are for when to judge and not to judge. The blank look you’ll get 98% of the time will reflect the blank mind of the person wasting your time. (The other 2% of the time, you’ll have an interesting conversation.)
“Now, don’t get me wrong: one of the biggest problems about commentary and analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that it ignores the power dynamics between a country supported by the only empire in the world, and a people under occupation.”
Empire? Is that a fact? And what are the ‘provinces’ of this “empire”? Try to make arguments, rather than invent “facts”.
And what’s missing from your analysis? Let’s see. How about…twenty-odd Arab and Muslim nations which surround Israel, desire its destruction, and (in the case of some) have already attacked Israel? Does that change your dynamic? No? How about a hostile Europe and UN? And let’s add that the support of the “Empire” is substantial but only partial. How does the old dynamic look now?
“I have to say that I was shocked to hear such arguments come out of the mouth of a supposed ‘progressive.’ ”
You were shocked? I don’t believe you. I will believe you were disgusted. At least that much.
“I would argue that non-violent refuseniks successfully calling for non-violent rsistance is the ultimate nightmare for people like Zvulun Orlev. That would mean the end of bloodshed and the end of the occupation.”
Non violent refuseniks? I assume you mean heroes who defied the Soviet Union – Israeli deserters would never be so presumptuous as to arrogate such a title to themselves, would they?
And before you paint right-wingers as evil warmongers, why don’t you address their arguments? Namely, even if the violence stops for a while, how do we know the stoppage isn’t a cynical ploy to get Israel out of the West Bank and renew the violence later on with an added territorial advantage? Does the Palestinian record of violation of agreements make this scenario more or less likely?

At this point it is worth noting a different brand of “pro-Israel” propogandists who, unlike the apologists, strategically divert attention from the conflict by trying to show what a normal/cool/western place Israel is and how the ugly face of the conflict is not the real face of Israel.”
Man what you said really hurts, Because Israel is a cool special place with a confict at least 2 me, maybe your self hatred blurs your perception, WE get enough bad press as it is, why not try to show the wonderful history, society, culture, etc Israel has to offer.. But I gues you need to hate something in order to gain entrance to the hippist clubs… It really pains me to see you apologists in action, so warped, no sense of the situation.. how many of you have ever been in the military, how many of you are from your suburbs, or touring Europe, and going to your Exspensive schools, while never working a day in your livess. eh I will end this post, I am beginning to ramble about my disdain for Yuppies…

that’s good to hear the refuseniks wrote a letter to the Palestinians admonishing them to take up non-violence … of course they have, and are brutally repressed by the israeli military — five dead in Biddu alone. so what good has the refuseniks’ advice done the Palestinians? The Palestinians sought non-violent, legal redress at the ICJ, and Israel has just announced the ICJ’s verdict is irrelevant and doesnt have to pay attention to it. what kind of message does that send Palestinians?

Why is it that all the posts are one-sided? They are just about all palestinian arab apologists. This is the first blog I have written to.
Somebody tell me, are all Jewish blogs run by people like this?

Asaf, you’re so off the mark. There may be fear involved for soldiers, but that is very different than being suicidal. The case of suicide bombers is not “more explicit,” it’s completely and entirely different, starting from their purpose and objectives and culminating in their actions. If you think “militarism thrives on putting soldiers’ lives at risk,” you don’t know the first thing about the Israeli army, or the US army for that matter.
Xisnotx, we have yet to see Palestinian non-violence in any serious or consistent form. That day at Biddu/Biddo was no different. There may have been intent to launch a non-violent protest that day, but it deteriorated rapidly, didn’t it?
And just in case you don’t know, the ICJ ruling is non-binding, and yet it did influence the Supreme Court of Israel and some of its rulings. In fact, Palestinians in the West Bank petitioned the Supreme Court and won. “Brutal repression” indeed.
I guess the message of the barrier to the Palestinians is: don’t send out terrorists to blow up Israeli civilians; don’t think you can launch an endless war and keep it on low flame while you wait for your birth rates and international propaganda machine to turn the tides in your favor; and don’t think that you are going to destroy what is beyond that barrier – the state of Israel.
The security fence/barrier is an imperfect attempt at a solution, but it is primarily a Palestinian creation. The last thing most Israelis on the Right, including Sharon, ever wanted, was a fence defining a de facto border that leaves Israelis on the other side. And yet, the Palestinians forced their hand with their violence. Do you think there would be a security barrier going up if the past 4 years had been relatively quiet as we’ve seen in the past month with the new PA leadership? No way. It would never have gotten any attention whatsoever. Let’s call that fence “The Arafat.”

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/539812.html

“I’m always amazed by people who describe themselves as peace activists, propose the surrender of one side as the definition of peace, and then scream bloody murder when the side they expect to surrender doesn’t.”
Actually thats what Israel defines as peace.

true in the case of suicide bombers its more explicit, but there are plenty of cases where soldiers know they are going on suicide missions. Now, dont confuse the moral value of these different missions with the fact that they are both suicidal. militarism thrives on soldiers’ lives put at risk. thats just the way it is.
This is almost too ridiculous to respond to. *The* difference between an Islamic suicide bomber and a “conventional” non-pathological combatant assigned to a very dangerous, life-threatening, mission is that the person who *is not* insane would prefer to live if possible despite the fact that he or she understands the danger of the particular mission, whereas the person who *is* insane would prefer to die. Not to mention the obvious fact that dangerous IDF missions are dangerous because they involve the targeting of dangerous people. The same cannot be said of Islamist ‘martyrdom operations’. Only a truly twisted, self-deluded individual could possibly misunderstand these simple differences. Might you have some personal investment in constructing such distorted rationalizations?

You dont seem to get it. In world war II joining some of the air fleets was practically suicidal, yet some people did it.
You are basically claiming that the suicide bombers have no will to live. I claim that they do. Are there things you are willing to die for? A person with no will to live commits suicide without killing people with him. obviously in the case of suicide bombers death is NOT the goal, but the means. As some militants claim – give us tanks and we’ll use tanks.

“Are there things you are willing to die for?”
Asaf, I didn’t want to get personal, but you asking this question seems sort of ironic and only serves to strengthen my earlier claim that your distortion of reality stems from a need to rationalize…to reconcile some deeper internal conflict.
“A person with no will to live commits suicide without killing people with him.”
Why do you think this makes sense?
“obviously in the case of suicide bombers death is NOT the goal, but the means.”
It’s not very obvious. Actually, if you scrutinize Islamic rhetoric, you’ll find that “to die a martyr’s death” may in fact be the goal. Whether death comes from an IDF rocket or a self-detonated bomb vest on a bus full of civilians is irrelevant when determing a martyr’s death.

Sausage- in your first post, you said you were an israel activist at a very anti-israel school. i go to berkeley- where did you go? just curious, not really trying to make any point.

“can’t even begin to understand that I need to explain to you ”
I’ve had similar discussions with teenagers who…get caught for shoplifting, resist arrest and then spit at a cop as they’re being cuffed and wonder why the cop roughed them up a bit. They then want to know why police are so violent? Why they are so oppressed? But these are teenagers. Asaf is not. He’s clearly…..
NUTS!!!!!!

Hey Asaf,
I know you didn’t plan it this way, but I can’t help but wonder how much of a shumck you feel like now that a few of your brothers and sisters are dead and about 20-30 are missing some limbs in Tel Aviv. But please, wax on about how suicide bombers are just soldiers without tanks. I’m sure you’re going to have a very receptive audience.

Zionista – This is a message board, not a thesis. Nothing here is anything else than one person’s opinion. As far as my view of what is dominant amongst the left, the real question is why you are coming at me with a 12 guage ad-hominem personal attack as you are. Have I touched a nerve? I think my statements have spoken for themselves, as have my experiences. Perhaps when those on the left don’t take 5 years to realize a good number of their fellow travellers are loons who support violence, you won’t need to attack me so defensively to defend your side. The Emporer Waers No Clothes! The Emporer Wears No Clothes!
xisnotx – You seem sincere. If you believe the ISM is working towards a peaceful 2 state solution, with the Palestinians living peacefully next to the Jewish state of Israel, God bless you. My experiences with their members has taught me differently. So has the piguim they refuse to condemn.
bearsforisrael – I did go to Berkeley. Go Bears.

I hate ya jewish ppl, DIE!

The terrorism is wrong, nevertheless I also find it obnoxious to chastize the Palestinians for not adopting the tactics of Gandhi and MLK when the Israelis don’t allow the Palestinians to have peaceful protests, and often don’t allow reporters or observers to cover their protests either! Shoudn’t we also be outraged that it is actually illegal to be MLK and Gandhi?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/539812.html>
Israel is failing the moral test
I do believe societies that repress these things can expect violence.

Salaam, dsad. Did you find this site through Rafahpundits?

xisnotx: “Israel is abiding by international law? This is news to me. Are the settlements legal?”
Depends. History doesn’t happen all at once, and the minute Jordan relinquished its claim on the West Bank (1989) and Egypt relinquished its claim on Gaza (1978), these became disputed territories, not occupied territories. Meanwhile, does ISM ever indicate specifically which territories are “occupied”? Often enough “occupation” can be rhetorical shorthand for Tel Aviv and Haifa as much as Ramallah and Bethlehem.

T_M and Zionista,
I don’t think basing our claim on “international law” or “the world” is very smart.
Tommorro the “world” can change their law. They can easily bring sanctions against Israel. I even expect that to happen at some point. Have you guys been following the United nations record vis a vis Israel?!
Thats not our claim.
Our claim is that the Jewish People were given this land by the creator. We had the land and were thrown off the land. Now we have returned. We owe no one anything.
People will respect that position. A “normal” person will not accept the fact that the “world” ie the united nations let us have it, because who gave them the right to take it away from the poor palistinians. We lose either way.
Be proud, without guilt and tell the truth! It is our irrespective of what anyone in the “world” says.

Ah no funerals don’t exactly count as protests, nor does Hamas violence, and if Israel shoots and arrests and otherwise breaks up 90 of a hundred protest you can make the slippery argument that they are numerous.
Also Sharon has admitted that the territory is occupied, so the Geneva conventions apply. Israel has no right what so ever to settle its citizens there. If it did it should be removed and or the Palestinians should get the right of return.

Asaf says, in response to
“but I can’t help but wonder how much of a shumck you feel like now that a few of your brothers and sisters are dead and about 20-30 are missing some limbs in Tel Aviv.”
the following:
“there’s one feeling I have and thats the worry for my sister who lives there. ”
Care to qualify or explain that remark? Because as it stands, it sure looks like you don’t give a damn about any Israelis except your sister. If this is what you actually believe, you won’t be able to complain later when people dismiss your views as being motivated by indifference to Israel.

Sadly, I didn’t know exactly what you meant. Considering some of the positions you take, it would be best to try to avoid ambiguity. And if I wanted to go down to the ad hominem or cheap shot level, I wouldn’t have invited you to clarify or qualify. It would have been easy enough to pounce.

The ICJ found the settlements, like the barrier, illegal. A violation of the Geneva Conventions. This is the highest legal body in the world, of which there is no appeal. The opinion was 14-1, and the sole vote not in favor, the American Justice Beurgenthal, did not dispute the territories are occupied. 150 countries agreed with this opinion. In 1979, the Israeli supreme court said: “This is a situation of belligerency and the status of [Israel] with respect to the occupied territory is that of an Occupying Power.” In June 2004, the court re-affirmed that “since 1967, Israel has been holding [the West Bank] in belligerent occupation.”
As for resolution 242, it was was not the intention of its framers for Israel to prejudge negotiations by seizing what territories it wished.
Even if Israel was not the occupier, do you really want to argue it has the right to seize what land it wants, build all-Jewish colonies, and keep the most fertile land and water resources while excluding the Arabs who live on that land? Is this the behavior of a democratic state? Or is this the behavior of a thief?

“As they stand, it sounds like your trying to understand and empathize with suicide bombers.”
You have a huge problem differentiating between the word “understand” and “empathize”. I would think that someone who wants to stop suicide bombing would be interested in understanding them. of course your lack of curiousity is not because you dont care but because it is an idelogical necessity- you would like to lump up every arab attack from the last two centuries and claim that they are no different, etc. etc. it helps avoid dealing with touchy subjects like occupation, because, hey, there were terrorsits attacks before 1967.

xisnotx, I sugegst you carefully reread the ICJ decision before you start basing your arguments on it. In order to reach the conclusion they did, the judges creatively reworded or ignored parts of at least three different international treaties.

Eyal: How?

Xisnotx,
The ICJ ruling is non-binding. Among the 14 judges who voted against the Israeli security barrier are a Chinese judge and a Russian judge. For some odd reason, Tibet and Chechnya are not on the ICJ’s current menu of upcoming matters. I wonder why? If you politicize an international court, you get exactly what happened here, zippo. Same goes for the support of your “150 countries,” as a cursory look at the politics of the UN proves.
Even if Israel was not the occupier, do you really want to argue it has the right to seize what land it wants, build all-Jewish colonies, and keep the most fertile land and water resources while excluding the Arabs who live on that land? Is this the behavior of a democratic state? Or is this the behavior of a thief?
Um, Israel is seizing the same as all the Palestinians who suddenly decide they control acres of olive groves that suddenly reach the fence of new settlements because they know the Supreme Court ruled that in instances where West Bank or Gaza land is privately owned, the Jewish settlements may not take it over. The Israelis were, at one time in the 70s, seizing private land for military purposes, but even that practice has ended because of the Elon Moreh case.
No, Israelis build their communities in the West Bank on barren hilltops that are not owned by anybody while the fertile land remains in the valleys with the Palestinians. Water resources are shared disproportionally in some cases, but at the same time part of the problem is that the Palestinians receive their support and water through either UNWRA or the PA. Sadly, neither of those organizations has proven effective over time, and, in fact, when the Palestinians had access and control of water sources (as in when the PA controlled Areas A), they managed those scarce resources dangerously.
But to answer your question more broadly, the actions of a thief are those of someone who takes something that belongs to others. The Israelis are not doing that because these territories are in dispute and have come into Israel’s possession in a defensive war. These lands haven’t had ownership since the Ottomans. If anything, the international community had committed to give this land to the Jews. Before you reject that, consider that the international community, at around the same time, also allowed most modern Arab nations to be formed – Lebanin, Syria, Jordan, Saudi, Iraq. Why do only Arabs get to have a place in the Middle East and declare their right to self determination? Why can’t Jews do likewise, considering their permanent place in the region over the past millenia?
I would go further and state that perhaps if the Arabs and Palestinians had met their obligations to 242 but Israel was not responding by negotiating fairly for a final settlement, you might have a case about theft. Even then, one would have to consider what their parameters are. I mean, in 1948, the Arabs killed or evicted all Jews who were in the areas they captured. They also destroyed the towns, neighborhoods or villages they gained from the Jews – the Jewish Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem being example number 1. So is it theft when Jews return to Hebron or the Old City?
Is this the behavior of a democratic state? Certainly. The territories are not part of Israel and unless annexed, cannot be claimed to be. The Druze of the Golan Heights, an area that was annexed, have the same rights as all Israelis. The West Bank and Gaza have not been annexed.
Finally, what would I want? I would want people like you to fight against the sickness of Palestinian society that leads them to hate Israelis, extoll “martyrs,” support violence against Israeli civilians, spread antisemitism (often in the guise of anti-Zionism), and continue to reject all forms of compromise if they do not include poison pills that can destroy Israel as a Jewish state. If that happens, then I will be glad to challenge any Israeli administration to fight in good faith to offer, more or less, what was on the table in the Taba talks and Clinton Plan of late 2000. Jews who wish to remain in the new state of Palestine should be able to do so and have the full protection of the Palestinian government. Despite issues of sovereignty, I would require that the new Palestinian state remain disarmed or face extreme sanctions.
As for resolution 242, you are wrong that it is not up to Israel to pre-determine NEGOTIATIONS. It is not up to Israel to determine FINAL OUTCOME. Big difference since the Israelis believe that the fence is movable. It was Barak who first conceived of the fence after Arafat launched a war because he didn’t like the outcome of Camp David. Barak envisioned Israel building a barrier that keeps 25% of the West Bank within Israel’s side temporarily. His idea was that this would be negotiable and leave leverage for the Israelis with respect to final negotiations when the Palestinians finally came around. The ICJ ruling on the fence botches a number of issues, not the least of which is their claim that Israel has no self-defence concerns since only state on state violence is relevant in this instance. So, if anyone is pre-determining negotiations, it is international bodies like the ICJ and the UN that seem to seek to sway the outcome in favor of the very belligerents who created this ongoing conflict in the first place.

T_M, well argued, but I’m not buying it. Unfortunately we have little common ground on which to discuss much of this, since you do not admit the most basic of things, that Israel is occupying the area beyond the Green Line. The Geneva conventions forbid Israel to settle its civilians in occupied territory.
A few things — It doesnt matter what the nationality of the judge is. The law is still the law.
Whether or not the OPT came into Israel’s hands in a “defensive war” or not is irrelevant. there is no such thing as legitimate acquisition of territory by force in international law.
There is nothing temporary about the barrier to the people whose lives are being destroyed by it. The barrier itself has destroyed thousands of acres of farmland, trees and crops, made attending to crops beyond it exceedingly difficult, leading to the impovrishing of thousands of farming families. whole villages are having their livelihoods taken away.
When Haim Ramon and Ben-Eleizer proposed the route of the fence along the Green Line in 2002, the security establishment said it would work effectively there. Moving it inside occupied territory has brought international opprobrium to Israel, exacerbated the enmity between the peoples, and will deprive a future Palestinian state of much of its agricultural and water rescources, making it unviable. An unviable Palestinian state is a danger to Israel.
I have no objection at all to Israel existing within its internationaliy recognized territory — inside the Green Line. I oppose its expanding illegally beyond it.
The vast majority of Palestinians I’ve spoken to say the same.
As per your request — there is nothing I can do to convince Palestinians to like Israelis as long as Israel continues to steal their land and resources. It is unsurprising that such behavior, and the defense of it, creates enmity.
http://www.btselem.org/english/Settlements/International_Law.asp

xisnotx, even if the ICJ properly analyzed the Geneva Convention, it was acting without proper jurisdiction. The ICJ is prohibited from making an adjudication without consent of the parties. Israel never gave consent. Furthermore, Israel was never represented at the ICJ. Consequently, there was nothing approaching due process in the case. These are two major procedural defects that make the ICJ decision without merit. In acting without jurisdiction and without due process, its legal decisions are void.

Zionista wrote: “If the world has no respect for Jewish national self-determination as you insist, then why does the EU remain Israel’s largest trade partner (for one example)?”
zionista you can’t be serious-to make money??
“And if Israel should be so hot to retain the territories, why has it not moved to annex them over them the last 38 years? ”
Again zionista are you serious in that question?- Because Israel is run worried about the world-they want to find favor with them not to mention Israels reliance on foreign money.
In terms of right and wrong? J is absolutely right! Who cares what a human court says. Yoday they say one thing tommorro they change their mind. Soon very soon the “holy international court” will deem israel illegitimate – then what are going to do zionista?

Eyal, that is an irony. But being Chinese does not render him incapable of interpreting the letter of the law as it applies to this situation.
Please post your analysis, I’d like to read it.

(I’m redoing this mostly from memory, so I hope I don’t miss anything)
First of all, procedural elements:
1) First of all, the Court created the appearance of bias (at the very least), by its refusal to recuse Judge Elaraby (and his refusal to recuse himself). The fact that one of the presiding judges in a court session to determine the legality of a certain issue had declared it to be illegal (or the equivalent in a criminal trial, that the judge had declared the defendant guilty) beforehand would have likely been enough to void the trial in most Western domestic law systems.
2) Reading the witness list for the Palestinian side, you’ll see a lengthy list of countries, most of which have nothing to do with the issue (e.g., Madagascar). However, the Court allowed their testimony (IMO, at least, anyone other than Israel, the Palestinians, Jordan, and possibly Egypt should have been limited to affidavits), as well as Palestinian testimony, but refused to hear testimony from Israeli terror victims.
3) The issue of jurisdiction has been mentioned above. The ICJ supposedly has jurisdiction only when two states consent to appear before it. Technically, this wasn’t irrelevant in this case, since the Court was purportedly giving an advisory opinion on a point of international law (its second function). However, looking at the reactions before, during, and after the trial, including the Court’s opinion and the judges’ separate opinions, it seems obvious this was a successful attempt to effectively pass a “resolution” against Israel in an end-run around the Security Council – and that the Court was aware of this (see, for example, paragraphs 12-13 of Judge Higgins’ separate opinion).
4) The status of Palestine – throughout the ruling, as well as in various procedural matters, the Palestinians’ status was inconsistent. The Court basically considered them as having the rights of a country, but not the obligations (for example, by allowing them to testify, or indeed by even hearing the case in the first place – see also below).
On to the ruling itself (in no particular order):
1) Most seriously, in paragraph 139, the Court determined that Israel could not invoke the right of self-defense under Article 512 of the UN Charter, on the grounds that the Palestinians do not form a state. This is absurd on several levels. First of all, Article 51 (which paragraph 139 quotes) reads “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self‑defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security”. Nothing in that requires the attacker to be a state (or a member of the UN, for that matter). Second of all, as I noted above, the Court did consider the Palestinians to be sufficiently a state to hear the case as well as their testimony. Third, by ruling this, they undercut any element of military necessity to the barrier (see below also). Fourth, nothing in their ruling says Article 51 doesn’t apply to building the barrier – it just says Article 51 does not apply. IOW, this disallows any Israeli military actions beyond the Green Line. This ruling also has much wider implications – it means that no state has a right to self defense against carried out from the territory of a third second state which denies supporting that party. See paragraph 34 of Judge Higgins’ and paragraph 6 of Judge Buergenthal’s separate opinions.
2) Various provisions in the laws of war can be suspended in the case of military necessity. This is addressed in paragraph 140. The Court stated “In the light of the material before it, the Court is not convinced that the construction of the wall along the route chosen was the only means to safeguard the interests of Israel against the peril which it has invoked as justification for that construction”. However, the Court did not explain why it was not convinced.
3) In addition, the Court ruled on the barrier without taking into account developments since the passing of UNGAR ES-10/14. Namely, the reduction in successful terrorist attacks due to the barrier, and the fact that the route of the barrier was significantly changed in the interim. Both of these fact bear directly on paragraph 140.
4) In paragraphs 114-137, the Court discusses various violations of international law and hardships for the Palestinians caused by the fence. Nowhere is that section is terrorism mentioned, except for paragraph 116 which mentions it as an Israeli “claim”. For that matter, throughout the ruling, terrorism against Israel is mentioned only in passing (see also paragraphs 3 & 7 of Judge Buergenthal’s separate opinion). This is akin to trying a man for murder, and then ignoring his claims that it was in self-defense. Some have argued that the Court should not have addressed terrorism because the issue before it was the legality of the barrier, and terrorism is irrelevant to that. But if that were so, the Court should not have ruled on the settlements’ legality or illegality (as it did in paragraph 120), since that is even less relevant to the narrow issue of the barrier.
5) While on the issue of hardships, the ruling was a bit misleading in paragraph 84, where it stated that approximately 237,000 Palestinians would end up west of the barrier without mentioning most of them were concentrated in Jerusalem (this isn’t a legal problem, but more of an appearance thing).
5) The term barrier – the Court deliberated between addressing the barrier as a “barrier”, as a “fence”, or as a “wall”. In the end, they chose the latter – the most prejudicial term – despite the availability of the far more inclusive term “barrier”.
6) In determining the precise status of the Territories, the legal significance of the Green Line which demarcates them is surely relevant. Article VI of the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement of 1949, which established the Green Line, states in paragraph 9 that “The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.” IOW, the Green Line is explicitly not a border. But while paragraph 72 of the ICJ ruling mentions this, nowhere does the ruling address its significance.
7) The applicability of GC4 – Article II of GC4 states
“In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof”.
In paragraph 95, the ruling determines that this means that GC4 applies in any situation where there is a conflict between two signatories, regardless of whether the territory in question belongs to one of them. This is, frankly, a stretch. Also, the Court never addresses Article IV of GC4, which states:
“Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are. “
IOW, the Court ruling that GC4 applies creates a paradox which can only be resolved in two fashions; either the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was legitimate, in which case Israel has precedent on its side, or the absurd conclusion that GC4 applies to the territory but not to the people living on it.
8) The Court failed to address Israel’s response that it took measures to avoid various violations of international law the ruling accused it of (see paragraph 8 of Judge Buergenthal’s separate opinion).
9) Both Judge Buergenthal’s and Judge Owada’s separate opinion state the Court did not have all the information it needed (though the latter states he still agrees with the ruling)

T_M
Feel free (drop me an email if you want a better-edited .doc copy)