91 replies to this topic

[Ogami]

World Court Condemns Israel Barrier, Says Must Go
http://news.myway.co...47|reuters.html

Quote

The World Court strongly condemned Israel's West Bank barrier Friday, saying it had illegally imposed hardship on thousands of Palestinians and should be torn down. The court said in a nonbinding ruling hailed by Palestinians and rejected by Israel that the barrier violated international humanitarian law. It called on the U.N. Security Council and General Assembly to stop its construction.

So when the Israelis say they don't want to die, the World Court declares that a desire to live is illegal.

These are the same people that Kerry and Edwards say we need to turn over our War on Terror policy to.

In a not so distant future, this same World Court will be admonishing Americans that we should just lay down and die for Al Queda. We wouldn't want to infringe on their right of expression or some other brainless claptrap.

The more we see of the "International Community", the more I prefer Bush's "coalition of the willing".

-Ogami

[Aric]

Hi Ogami.  I think you might be blowing this way out of context, and I say that generously, since your point about the court telling the US to die for terrorism is about the most nonsensical conclusion that could be drawn from this ruling.  The court isn't disputing Israel's right to protect itself, it's pointing out the wall is being used to unlawfully annex land, not to mention inflict the hardships they describe on Palestinians.  Israel could have followed the border as the line for the wall, but they didn't.  It wasn't for security in the sense that Israel proper couldn't be protected, it was West Bank Jewish settlements they wanted to protect, and the world already calls that illegal, so the whole exercise is exposed as illegal.  Big deal, we knew this all along, it's not like that will actually stop the Israelis.  It's going to take something a tad more forceful than international condemnation to stop them.

Aric

Edited by Aric, 09 July 2004 - 11:44 PM.

[MuseZack]

What Aric said.   If Israel wants to build a big-ass wall, they're welcome to do so-- on their own land.  There's nothing preventing them from building a wall along the Green Line-- except all of the settlements they've seeded in the West Bank because some religious nuts think the Bible deeds it to them.  The World Court rightly recognized that states don't have the right to unilaterally annex their neighbors' territory.


Or if they really want to annex the West Bank, then fine.  Do it.  Just make sure to give everybody who lives there citizenship and the right to vote.  Like that's gonna happen.

[Mr.Calgary]

Hello Ogami, a quick post....

The World Court is as useless as the UN.

A head judge from China!     Lets get the Tibet case in front of this judge and we'll see what he has to say.

The Palestinians have no cause for complaint.

Do their school textbooks still not include Israel on the map?

[Kevin Street]

Ogami, what do you mean by the phrase "our war" in the subtitle? If it's not too personal a question, are you Israeli?

Edited by Kevin Street, 10 July 2004 - 01:35 PM.

[Beldame]

www.bbc.co.uk

[The fact remains that Israel has to face numerous indiscriminate and deadly acts of violence against its civilian population. It has the right, and indeed the duty, to respond in order to protect the life of its citizens. The measures taken are bound nonetheless to remain in conformity with applicable international law.

The court, from the material available to it, is not convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was necessary to attain its security objectives. The construction of such a wall accordingly constitutes breaches by Israel of various of its obligations under the applicable international humanitarian law and human rights instruments.]

quote from the court's judgement. Far from saying a desire to live is illegal, the court recognised Israel's right to protect it's citizens. However it also recognised that the Palestinians have rights too and the particular course Israel has chosen for the wall breached their rights. As Aric and Zack have already pointed out, if they had stuck to building it on their own land instead of extending it into Palestinian land in order to protect illegal Jewish settlements, there would have been no case.

[Ogami]

Aric wrote:

Hi Ogami. I think you might be blowing this way out of context, and I say that generously, since your point about the court telling the US to die for terrorism is about the most nonsensical conclusion that could be drawn from this ruling.

Where was the World Court urging a cessation or forced halt to suicide bombings, Aric? We all know the answer to that.

I've seen a lot of rhetoric over the years over America's "intransigence" in refusing to acknowledge the authority of any UN or EU tribunal over us. This has usually been presented in terms of unenlightened Americans refusing to recognize their intellectual betters in world opinion. This is a stance I approve of, and hope to see continue throughout my adult lifetime, by the way. The current president doesn't acknowledge these snooty European snobs as his intellectual or moral betters, and neither do I.

These effete World Court intellectuals ignore real outrages of barbarity by third world dictators, by arab states pledged to the extermination of every Jew, and instead focus on how Israel is 'criminal' for daring to arm itself in the face of genocidal intent.

That sort of cultured European attitude has been the case for longer than my lifetime of course. It only has become noticable to a lot more people since these World Court clowns decided to turn their attention towards America's 'atrocities' as well. If they had their way, they'd be hauling Bush up on war crime charges because Abu Ghraib terrorists were threatened with... horrors... an unmuzzled police dog. No!

Yet this same World Court would probably look at the mountain Saddam Hussein made of mass graves, and yawn. Or they'd just blame it on post-colonial stress or something. Oops, I rambled on, let's go back to what you're actually saying.

The court isn't disputing Israel's right to protect itself, it's pointing out the wall is being used to unlawfully annex land,

Uh, so when Israel has been repeatedly attacked and invaded on all fronts by its peaceful arab neighbors, where was a World Court declaring that illegal? Israelis have every right to be suspicious of racist Europeans who want them disarmed, while no such requirement is ever suggested for their neighbors.

not to mention inflict the hardships they describe on Palestinians.

The Israelis have made the desert bloom, with hard work, with farming, with industry, and with grim determination. Name for me one Palestinian industry. One Palestinian national product. One Palestinian university dedicated to bettering the lives of its people through engineering, medicine, or culture. Instead we know what Palestinians teach in their schools, and their universities. They celebrate a culture of death, and until they get new leadership, they will remain a culture of death.

It's going to take something a tad more forceful than international condemnation to stop them.

The Israelis don't need stopped. There are over 500,000 arabs who never left Israel, who are represented in the Knesset, and who do not nurse hatred as their daily bread. The refugees await the day when Syria or Egypt (or formerly Iraq) would drive Israel into the sea and exterminate every Jew. You make peace with such people with great caution.

And how to make peace when the Palestinians simply wait and hope the World Court or someone similar will come in and settle the matter for them? Such has always been the case with a people that have not the courage to take their own destinies in their own hands.

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 10 July 2004 - 11:31 AM.

[Ogami]

MuseZack wrote:

The World Court rightly recognized that states don't have the right to unilaterally annex their neighbors' territory.

Someone get this man a history book showing that Israel's current territory was won through war. Where was a similiar injuncture against Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon 'unilaterally annexing' Israel?

Ah, we don't count that because they get different rules, apparently.

-Ogami

[MuseZack]

^^^

You're flailing at straw men instead of addressing the actual issue.  Like any nation on Earth, Israel's perfectly within its rights to build a wall...on its own borders.  Instead, they've built it deep within the West Bank to annex Jewish settlements.  And international law is quite clear on the subject of annexation of territory seized in military conflict.

Edited to add:  and you're muddying the waters here, either deliberately or through ignorance.  The West Bank and Gaza were seized by Israel in 1967, not 1948, when Israel's establishment was internationally recognized.  



Oh, and one more thing.  Israel's own Supreme Court has ruled that 40 km of the barrier's route is illegal.  http://www.iht.com/a...les/527316.html

Why does the Israeli Supreme Court hate Israel?

Edited by MuseZack, 10 July 2004 - 11:46 AM.

[Ogami]

Mr. Calgary wrote:

A head judge from China!  Lets get the Tibet case in front of this judge and we'll see what he has to say.

This has got to make a confusing situation for World Foreign Policy experts in Hollywood. Will Richard Gere protest the World Court because of China's treatment of Tibet? Or will he take the easy out and side with them because they bash America and Israel? That's an easy choice, even for Hollywood liberals. Tibet would come a distant second.

The Palestinians have no cause for complaint. Do their school textbooks still not include Israel on the map?

Well said. And one can recall the Palestinians dancing on the rooftops when Saddam lobbed Scuds during the 1991 Gulf War. And one can certainly recall the exultation and supreme JOY across Palestine after 9/11. They were happy that the hated Americans had finally been punished for supporting Israel, or something. Yassir Arafat put a stop to the dancing in the streets, he knew how this would play in the west. (Of course it didn't matter, only FoxNews bothered to show the footage of celebrating Palestinians on 9/11.)

-Ogami

[Ogami]

Kevin Street wrote:

Ogami, what do you mean by the prhase "our war" in the subtitle? If it's not too personal a question, are you Israeli?

Nope, it's an intellectual and moral support of Israel's right to exist. The same as I support Bush's stated policies in the war on terror. Not of blind sheeplike faith in my leadership, as the left snidely asserts at every turn. But because our principles and actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are firmly guided by a grasp of world history and human nature. Humans are born free, it's a right every human starts with. Only despots and states can take that right away.

And Israel is far more representative and democratic than their despotic neighbors. One only has to compare the Israeli press to the Arab press to judge which side to root for. Go to Haaretz, the Israelis are wracked with self-recrimination and doubt at their stance against the Palestinians:

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/

Only a Democracy is so strong to question their morality on an unrelenting basis. Compare this to Al-Jazeera or any Egyptian or Syrian newspaper, and I sleep very well at night rooting for Israel. (Note I say 'question' their morality, which is not what we get from the Michael Moore types.)

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 10 July 2004 - 11:46 AM.

[Chakotay]

Okay, so the Israelis have the right to defend themselves. Fine. So how about building the fence/wall whatever INSIDE their own country, instead of inside the Palestinian Territories.

It's kind of like the US building an anti immigrant wall inside Mexico - shouldn't be happening.

Neither should those Israeli settlements in Palestine.

If the UN is to mean anything, they have to start backing up their resolutions against Israel with actions. Despite the US's history of supporting Israel regardless.

[Ogami]

Beldame wrote:

quote from the court's judgement. Far from saying a desire to live is illegal, the court recognised Israel's right to protect it's citizens. However it also recognised that the Palestinians have rights too and the particular course Israel has chosen for the wall breached their rights.

Beldame, my natural inclination would be to oppose any such wall. By separating yourself from the 'other', you weaken yourself and set the situation for more conflict down the road.

We all have that natural inclination, watching that situation from afar.

What you must ask yourself, Beldame, is how you would react were suicide bombings being carried out on a daily basis in your town. The people doing it live in the next town over. You can't just go over there and shoot everybody, you need to co-exist to make peace work. So what do you do? Just watch as your neighbors, children, and friends are blown to bits before your eyes?

The World Court rules from the safe position of not being faced with that proposition. Don't make the same mistake, it's easy to condemn Israel with arrogant moral superiority, as these Europeans have done, without being there.

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 10 July 2004 - 11:50 AM.

[Corwin]

MuseZack, on Jul 10 2004, 10:33 AM, said:

You're flailing at straw men instead of addressing the actual issue.  Like any nation on Earth, Israel's perfectly within its rights to build a wall...on its own borders.  Instead, they've built it deep within the West Bank to annex Jewish settlements.  And international law is quite clear on the subject of annexation of territory seized in military conflict.

But does international law allow for annexation of territory resulting from a war that Israel didn't start?

Corwin

[MuseZack]

Ogami, on Jul 10 2004, 04:36 PM, said:

Mr. Calgary wrote:

A head judge from China!  Lets get the Tibet case in front of this judge and we'll see what he has to say.

This has got to make a confusing situation for World Foreign Policy experts in Hollywood. Will Richard Gere protest the World Court because of China's treatment of Tibet? Or will he take the easy out and side with them because they bash America and Israel? That's an easy choice, even for Hollywood liberals. Tibet would come a distant second.

Ogami, your ignorance about "Hollywood liberals" is quite hilarious  Hollywood as a community is about as pro-Israel as you can get outside of an AIPAC meeting.


Someday it would be nice if you engaged with the opinions that liberals and leftists actually hold, instead of the straw man caricatures you enjoy demolishing.

[Beldame]

Ogami, please will you remember that there are a number of us Europeans posting here. Your attitude and language is starting to become very offensive.  Please tone it down and make your points without name calling.

[MuseZack]

Corwin, on Jul 10 2004, 04:49 PM, said:

MuseZack, on Jul 10 2004, 10:33 AM, said:

You're flailing at straw men instead of addressing the actual issue.  Like any nation on Earth, Israel's perfectly within its rights to build a wall...on its own borders.  Instead, they've built it deep within the West Bank to annex Jewish settlements.  And international law is quite clear on the subject of annexation of territory seized in military conflict.

But does international law allow for annexation of territory resulting from a war that Israel didn't start?

Corwin

If you're referring to the Six Day War of 1967, in the technical sense of the word Israel did start it, even while the surrounding Arab states were making belligerent moves.  It's the classic example of a pre-emptive war.

[Ogami]

MuseZack wrote:

You're flailing at straw men instead of addressing the actual issue. Like any nation on Earth, Israel's perfectly within its rights to build a wall...on its own borders. Instead, they've built it deep within the West Bank to annex Jewish settlements.

We agree on concept but not execution. The arab states insist on a peace plan that requires Israel to withdraw to its founding borders in the 1940s. Then there will be 'peace', it is claimed.

Ongoing suicide bombings are not an indication of goodwill, build the wall as long as the homicide bombings (the true term) continue. Tear it down when the Palestinians choose leaders of peace. It's a difficult choice, I don't like the wall. But I wouldn't like getting my behind blown to bits every week like Israelis are told they have to put up with. Like hell.

-Ogami

[Ogami]

MuseZack wrote:

Ogami, your ignorance about "Hollywood liberals" is quite hilarious Hollywood as a community is about as pro-Israel as you can get outside of an AIPAC meeting.

Only if you're in the Kabbalah like Madonna. But I was wrong and apologize for thinking unclearly. I was thinking more of anti-israeli journalists types like Peter Jennings, Ted Turner and Helen Thomas. Birds of a feather, they'll have better luck being invited to a Hollywood party than a conservative.

Someday it would be nice if you engaged with the opinions that liberals and leftists actually hold, instead of the straw man caricatures you enjoy demolishing.

And someday it would be nice for people like yourself to debate and discuss Bush the man and his actual policies rather than imagined conspiracies from the Deans and Moores and Streisands and the rest of those Hollywood types.

I'll meet you halfway when that happens. (Not that I ever expect you to admit you're wrong on anything as I do above.)

-Ogami

[Ogami]

Beldame wrote:

Ogami, please will you remember that there are a number of us Europeans posting here. Your attitude and language is starting to become very offensive. Please tone it down and make your points without name calling.

The World Court, Jacques Chirac, the German leader, the International Criminal Court, these organizations and individuals have a very clear purpose and stance. I am coming out as opposed to such a stance, and welcome any Europeans who feel that the World Court is arrogant and elitist and condescending towards whom they believe are their intellectual and moral inferiors.

It is their arrogance and feigned power which I find offensive, and so do many others.

-Ogami