Posted 18 July 2004 - 12:43 AM
Hi Mr. Calgary. You do realise that post was essentially meaningless, right, you didn't refute my position, you didn't defend your claim that I am wrong, in error, or lied. Worse yet, you didn't even try, well, thanks for nothing, Mr. Calgary, that was really helpful and informative. Let me help you out, then, Mr. Calgary, why not show me where the court denies Israel's right to exist, to defend itself. Show me why Israel's wall had to encroach into the West Bank instead of staying inside Israel's territory.
And referring to your point about Palestine's original mandate, as I said before, it really doesn't matter anymore, just like it didn't matter that Israel didn't exist prior to its creation, but just like the creation of Israel, there will be the creation of Palestine.
Hi Ogami. I can certainly believe that there is an anti-Israel sentiment in many countries in the world, but you're jumping at the wrong target, the court didn't condone suicide bombings, they didn't deny Israel's right to exist, they said Israel's wall is a land grab. You're overreaching, you're assigning far more to this than the court did.
While I don't doubt Israel is fighting for its right to exist, let's establish some context here, this court case isn't going to affect Israel's security. Even if Israel were to follow the ruling, and the ruling of their own courts, they lose not an ounce of security for the Israeli people. The only outrage will likely come from the illegal settlers.
Actually, Ogami, while I don't doubt that the UN has many nations that are against Israel, and have passed motions against it, I'm fairly certain this is one of the first times the court has ever heard a case involving Israel. Perhaps you can explain how the court has been an instrument of this will? It's actually good the Palestinians are advancing their agenda in the UN and the courts, it's certainly better than on the streets, with a suicide bomb ready to kill civilians.
Perhaps I didn't explain myself fully, Ogami. The reconstruction efforts in Germany and Japan were much better planned, well executed. It's a dream to think that Iraq will blossom like Germany and Japan did, following reconstruction. As well, let's not forget, Germany and Japan were carpet bombed and devastated. It was also a half century ago, modern technology has made it much easier to feed and rebuild, it should take much longer to rebuild Germany and Japan, both with populations in the 70-90 million range, than Iraq and their 24 million or so. Iraq is still far from a success. Was there insurgents in Germany and Japan? Did the US face constant attacks? As I said, it's a long way from being a success, not that it can't be, but for now, it's still a mess, and it didn't have to be. Your weight of international history is misapplied. There is no comparison.
I'm curious, Ogami, you be the judge. Let's try it with India and Pakistan. India, with about a two-thirds of Kashmir, decides a wall is needed to prevent Pakistani supported militants and terrorists from entering Indian controlled territory. India's wall encroaches into Pakistan's side of control, a definite land grab, designed to give India the high ground in the mountainous areas along the line of control. Pakistan, not wanting to launch nuclear war, takes the case to court. Remember that the control of Kashmir is not fully decided, the UN suggested that they have a referendum or something like that, India never bothered. So, Ogami, what would you rule on the question of this wall?
As I said, Ogami, whether or not Israel is unfairly treated by the world community or not does not in any way diminish the facts of this case. It in no way influences the facts of this case. You can believe that it does, and who knows, maybe some judges are against Israel, but that doesn't change the fact that the evidence of this case led the court to an obvious conclusion. You can consider it a sham, but answer me this, Ogami, why did Israel build the wall in the West Bank instead of along the border? It's the same question the judges asked, and the answer is obvious. Land grab, simple as that. That's why they had to rule against Israel, don't believe for a second there would have ever been a trial if Israel had kept the wall in their territory, just as it has been mentioned before.
Certainly, Ogami, but that isn't the point, the court ruled on a legal matter, simple as that.
Indeed, Ogami, but that doesn't change the fact that the wall is creating new hardships on the Palestinian people. Remember that the wall is surrounding towns, preventing people from work, and the like. This has everything to do with the Israeli policy on the wall, which is why the court ruled as they did.
How do you know, Ogami, did you find a poll, did you conduct one yourself? If it's the leadership at fault, why blame the innocent people, why would you want the Israelis to inflict further hardships with their wall? Bush and Sharon already demanded new leadership to negotiate with, they got their wish, then promptly undermined him and allowed him to fail. That was hardly productive, not to mention a great message to the Palestinians. Personally, I don't see how the conflict will be resolved, but I know this, the ruling is a moral victory for the Palestinians, whose suffering was recognised, a loss to the Israelis, whose land grab was recognised for what it is, but in the end, it means nothing. Nobody will enforce the ruling against Israel, but hopefully, Israel's own court will force their government to reduce the suffering of innocent Palestinians.