Mr. Sharon, Tear Down This Wall

[Black Baron]

Sharon will abide our court of justice, i do not understand from where author of the article put that up.
Now let me explain why we build it outside 67 borders. We build it to protect our citizens that live outside 67 borders. We can't move them out, and we can't keep there military forces constantly. So the fence is the only way of dealing with terrorist threat. As you see we build the fence to defend large anclaves of the settlements, and not around every single "caravan" (Temprorary house of the settlers).

Regarding the poor old man that was killed. Woe to us! pfui. This was inevetable. With all the respect and sorrow, if they caught terrorists in all the opportunities that we gave them, we could have had peace loooooooong time ago.

[Timber Loftis]

On the other hand...

Today's NY Times
July 13, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Why Israel Needs a Fence
By BENJAMIN NETANYAHU

JERUSALEM — While the advisory finding by the International Court of Justice last week that Israel's barrier in the West Bank is illegal may be cheered by the terrorists who would kill Israeli civilians, it does not change the fact that none of the arguments against the security fence have any merit.

First, Israel is not building the fence on territory that under international law can be properly called "Palestinian land." The fence is being built in disputed territories that Israel won in a defensive war in 1967 from a Jordanian occupation that was never recognized by the international community. Israel and the Palestinians both claim ownership of this land. According to Security Council Resolution 242, this dispute is to be resolved by a negotiated peace that provides Israel with secure and recognized boundaries.

Second, the fence is not a permanent political border but a temporary security barrier. A fence can always be moved. Recently, Israel removed 12 miles of the fence to ease Palestinian daily life. And last month, Israel's Supreme Court ordered the government to reroute 20 more miles of the fence for that same purpose. In fact, the indefensible line on which many have argued the fence should run — that which existed between Israel and the Arab lands before the 1967 war — is the only line that would have nothing to do with security and everything to do with politics. A line that is genuinely based on security would include as many Jews as possible and as few Palestinians as possible within the fence.

That is precisely what Israel's security fence does. By running into less than 12 percent of the West Bank, the fence will include about 80 percent of Jews and only 1 percent of Palestinians who live within the disputed territories. The fence thus will block attempts by terrorists based in Palestinian cities to reach major Israeli population centers.

Third, despite what some have argued, fences have proven highly effective against terrorism. Of the hundreds of suicide bombings that have taken place in Israel, only one has originated from the Gaza area, where Hamas and Islamic Jihad are headquartered. Why? Because Gaza is surrounded by a security fence. Even though it is not complete, the West Bank security fence has already drastically reduced the number of suicide attacks.

The obstacle to peace is not the fence but Palestinian leaders who, unlike past leaders like Anwar Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan, have yet to abandon terrorism and the illegitimate goal of destroying Israel. Should Israel reach a compromise with a future Palestinian leadership committed to peace that requires adjustments to the fence, those changes will be made. And if that peace proves genuine and lasting, there will be no reason for a fence at all.

Instead of placing Palestinian terrorists and those who send them on trial, the United Nations-sponsored international court placed the Jewish state in the dock, on the charge that Israel is harming the Palestinians' quality of life. But saving lives is more important than preserving the quality of life. Quality of life is always amenable to improvement. Death is permanent. The Palestinians complain that their children are late to school because of the fence. But too many of our children never get to school — they are blown to pieces by terrorists who pass into Israel where there is still no fence.

In the last four years, Palestinian terrorists have attacked Israel's buses, cafes, discos and pizza shops, murdering 1,000 of our citizens. Despite this unprecedented savagery, the court's 60-page opinion mentions terrorism only twice, and only in citations of Israel's own position on the fence. Because the court's decision makes a mockery of Israel's right to defend itself, the government of Israel will ignore it. Israel will never sacrifice Jewish life on the debased altar of "international justice."


Benjamin Netanyahu is Israel's finance minister and a former prime minister.

[Black Baron]

What can i say? Good Work Bibi!

[Oblivion437]

What can I say? Ancient laws of combat...

You attack me, and I win...

I take your head, your home, and your woman...

Barbarian? Maybe...

But civilized in its own right, certainly moreso than cowering like an injured herbivore just waiting to die by the hands of aggressors.

[Timber Loftis]

Black Baron, you'll just LOVE this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/13/le...ier/index.html
____________________________________________
[SNIP -- A good discussion of the Israel court holding]

The ICJ opinion and the Israeli court opinion

Unlike the Israeli Supreme Court, the ICJ denounced the chosen path for a very large portion of the entire wall -- not just the 25-mile subsection. Yet, the two rulings resembled each other in several fundamental ways. And on these common points, the ICJ was near unanimous, with only one of the 15 judges dissenting.

Both found that construction of the barrier on the specific route chosen was not the only means to safeguard Israelis. Both found that that the wall, along the route chosen, infringes a number of rights of Palestinians, and the infringement cannot be justified on the grounds of national security. Both found, accordingly, that the barrier therefore violates certain international and humanitarian laws. And both concluded that Israel must compensate Palestinians who lost land or property as a result of the barrier.

Nonetheless, the ICJ opinion was troubling in a number of respects -- because it evidenced a politically driven, unfair hostility to Israel.

First, the ICJ chose not to consider the Israeli Supreme Court's earlier decision -- though it had the right and the ability to do so.

Second, it dismissed Israel's claim to a right to self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter despite numerous armed attacks -- and seemed to even consider the defensive role of the barrier irrelevant.

Third, it ignored the fact that Israeli citizens who are killed by suicide bombers are also having a right violated: their fundamental right to life.

Fourth, it gratuitously ruled against the legality of the Israeli settlers on the West Bank, whose status was not relevant to the dispute.

For these reasons, one of the concurring judge's separate opinion criticized the ICJ for not presenting a balanced assessment of the "immensely complex" law, history and politics of the Israel-Palestine question. She also expressed the view that the Court should have taken the opportunity to say "in the clearest terms" that protecting civilians remains an obligation of humanitarian law "not only for the occupier but equally for those seeking to liberate themselves" from occupation.

As that judge indicated, it is wrong for an international legal body to ignore blatant violations of international law such as those terrorists wreak.

The ICJ enters the political and abandons the legal

After making these findings, the ICJ moved into a more political realm. Among other points, it called on all States to see to it that any impediment to the Palestinians' right of self determination is brought to an end.

The ICJ also called on the U.N. General Assembly and Security Council to consider what further action is required to bring an end to the existence of the barrier, which it deemed illegal. As a result, a number of Arab states promised that this week they will ask the General Assembly to urge the destruction of the barrier and impose other sanctions against Israel -- which although not yet specified would likely be similar to those against apartheid-era South Africa.

But Israel is no South Africa. Again, it is important to remember Israel's own Supreme Court has reached essentially the same legal ruling that the ICJ has rendered and has demanded compliance in no uncertain terms. Moreover, there is every sign that the Sharon Administration will indeed comply, and there are also signs that the Court may take up the larger question of the legality of the wall as a whole -- a question in which its President is intensely interested. In this context, the ICJ's pushing for further U.N. sanctions is not a legal remedy, but a political attack.

The American judge, along with his counterpart from the Netherlands, were the only two who rejected these additional, political ICJ charges. They did the right thing: This additional, intensely-political posturing, and this call for far-reaching action by the General Assembly and Security Council, were inappropriate for a court that is supposed to be an independent tribunal.

World opinion is generally critical of Israel's efforts to defend itself from suicide bomber attacks. Whether that opinion is right is a matter of political debate. But that is not a debate into which the ICJ -- supposedly a legal body -- should have entered. The ICJ's opinion improperly and harmfully converted a political hostility into a purportedly legal precedent.

[Morgeruat]

thought this sums it up nicely, enjoy.

[Davros]

From one side of the argument it does Morgeruat - that it does. Mind you, I prefer to keep both eyes open .

[Morgeruat]

full story here


The three apparently planned to launch an attack in a petrol station in the northern Jordan valley- Beit She'an area. The suicide bomber was to have entered Israel from a Jordan Valley area where the security fence has yet to be completed

[ 07-27-2004, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]