Israel's barrier faces court test

[Dreamer128]

Hearings have begun in The Hague into the legality of Israel's controversial West Bank barrier.

The United Nations General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice to consider the issue.

Israel says the wall is needed to keep out suicide bombers, and it is boycotting the three-day hearing.

The hearings come a day after a Palestinian suicide bomber killed eight people and injured dozens in an explosion on a packed Jerusalem bus.

Palestinian representatives will make a three-hour submission to the court after judges have set out the terms of the hearings.

The Palestinians say the Israeli barrier amounts to a land grab because in some areas it dips deep into the West Bank territory occupied by Israel. It disrupts the lives of tens of thousands of Palestinians, effectively cutting off some towns and villages, correspondents say.

Fierce contest

The permanent Palestinian observer to the UN, Nasser al-Kidwa, is making the opening statement to the court.

He earlier told the BBC that the barrier went against international law. He also said Israel could have avoided accusations of stealing land if it had confined the barrier to its own territory.
But Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Daniel Shek said the barrier had been a last resort.

"The real problem is that the Palestinians have done absolutely nothing to stop these perpetrators [of attacks on Israelis]," he told the BBC.

Thousands of protesters have gathered in The Hague for demonstrations for and against the barrier which Israel says its needs to stop attackers entering its communities.

Palestinians were also expected to protest at home.

They were spurred on by Yasser Arafat, who in a televised speech urged them to "make their voices heard against this wall of expansion and annexation".

The final ruling from the ICJ will be a non-binding, advisory opinion. But correspondents say this will be one of the most politically charged cases to come before the courts.

Israel, the US and the European Union all say the court does not have jurisdiction to rule on the case.

The Israelis, while not sending a legal team, have flown in a bus that was destroyed by a suicide bomber in Jerusalem on 29 January. It had to be cut in half to fit on the aeroplane and has been reassembled in the Netherlands, where it has been put on display outside the court.

Rush-hour bomb

Sunday's suicide bomb happened during the height of Jerusalem's rush hour. The militant al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which is loosely associated with Mr Arafat's Fatah faction, said it carried out the attack.

Israeli officials said the blast proved the need for its barrier, which remains under construction and has not been completed in Jerusalem.


"If there was a fence around Jerusalem there would not have been an attack today," said Justice Minister Tommy Lapid.

Israel began dismantling a small section of the barrier on Sunday, reuniting a Palestinian village, Baka al-Sharqiya, with the rest of the West Bank after a year of isolation.

Israel is re-routing that section of the barrier, and plans to press ahead with building the rest of it. When finished, it will be 700km (440 miles) long.

Hundreds of Israelis have been killed in suicide bombings since the Palestinian uprising began more than three years ago.

More than 2,700 Palestinians have been killed during the same period.

[Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk]

[ 02-23-2004, 05:15 AM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

[Black Baron]

Ah the trial. One really nice piece of work, if you appreciate the humor.

And our accusers are:

Saudia.
Madagaskar.
Cuba.
S-Africa.
Indonesia.
Egypt.
Jordan.
Palestinians.
Iran.
Algiria.
And one more country that i forgot.

Apart that we build the fence (that less of 10 percent of it are these monstrous blocks of stone, the rest is barbed wire and normal electronic fences), on some parts beyond the 67 border, their statement is a joke.

Notice-even Europe (that is usually pro palestinian, or at the very least too liberal. There are of course nice exceptions.), does not accuse us of anything. well, except the fact that somewhere, the fence is not where it should be.

So our accusers are a bunch of antisemitists, or countries simply forced to accuse us of everything. Like egypt, while not antisemitic in general, it is simply pro palestinian, so it cant help it.

And of course we have a very neutral judge, al arabi or whatishisrealname, that accused us of genocide.

And we have a trial. A fair trial, in a court that does not have the authority to do it.

See the joke?

[Timber Loftis]

Apart that we build the fence (that less of 10 percent of it are these monstrous blocks of stone, the rest is barbed wire and normal electronic fences), on some parts beyond the 67 border, their statement is a joke.

Yes, well, that's quite an import "apart" now isn't it? Annexation of territory is what it is, and is prohibited. As it was in 1967 and every year since then.

The Palestinians say the Israeli barrier amounts to a land grab because in some areas it dips deep into the West Bank territory occupied by Israel. It disrupts the lives of tens of thousands of Palestinians, effectively cutting off some towns and villages, correspondents say

This charge is answered by Israel repeatedly with the following:

Israel says the wall is needed to keep out suicide bombers, and it is boycotting the three-day hearing.

Well, no shit, Dick Tracy, but the need for a wall does not address the point at hand, which is WHERE the wall is located -- i.e. on non-Israeli land, in violation of intenational law, in an attempt to annex territory, in contradiction of not only the letter of the UN Treaty but also the very underlying principle of the UN itself.

WE DON'T ALLOW THE TAKING OF TERRITORY BY FORCE ANYMORE. GET IT, ISRAEL? We haven't allowed it since before Israel existed as a country.

Israel began dismantling a small section of the barrier on Sunday, reuniting a Palestinian village, Baka al-Sharqiya, with the rest of the West Bank after a year of isolation.

Well, it's about damned time. I'd say kudos to Israel, but I hate to pat someone on the back for doing what the law required them to do.

The final ruling from the ICJ will be a non-binding, advisory opinion. But correspondents say this will be one of the most politically charged cases to come before the courts.

The fact that a nonbinding advisory opinion is as politically charged as the ICJ gets these days is a clear indication that it has been utterly impotent for decades. Basically, since countries began withdrawing from compulsory jurisdiction (which is why, btw, the court has no jurisdiction vs. Israel without Israel's consent) in the 1980's the court has been nothing more than a dog and pony show. It needs viagara or it needs to be taken out to pasture and shot.

They were spurred on by Yasser Arafat, who in a televised speech urged them to "make their voices heard against this wall of expansion and annexation".

If anyone ever deserved a quick bullet to the temple, it's this wizened troublemaker.

Israel, the US and the European Union all say the court does not have jurisdiction to rule on the case.

And they are quite right, which is why the whole thing is nothing more than a mastubatory exercise.

[Barry the Sprout]

Black Baron, being pro-palestinian doesn't equate to being anti-semitic. Being anti-Isreali even does not equate to being anti-semitic. Only if you are against the fence because of it having been proposed by Jewish people are you anti-semitic in this instance. Whilst I understand there is a large amount of anti-semitism still left to deal with in the world I really think that thats not why these people don't like the fence. They don't like it because, as Timber says, it annexes territory and destroys communities. Being anti that is not being anti-semitic.

[Black Baron]

Never said that Being pro pali=Anti israel. or antisemitic.
What i wanted to say, was that even europe understands that we are right. It does not mean that it is a judophobical continent.

By the way, USA prohibits annexion of teritories, only where it suits her, as any normal and powerful country should do. (i do not joke).
Some of the usa land belonged to mexico.
Kaliningrad belonged to germany.
Some islands in the far east that are now under russia's control, belonged to the japanese.

All of it was waaaaay long before israel was born. [img]smile.gif[/img]

It does not mean that we should leave the matters as they are, obviously we must withdraw.

But how?

The evacuation will cost us all of our year's budget.

Unless a nonreturnable loan will be offered (by saudia for example and egypt. We can claim repayment from the loss of jewish property there. When jews went to israel, there property was confiscated. So if we will nullify these claims, it will be fine with me) , by some country that likes palis so much, this situation is a stalemate.

ooooooops.

[Timber Loftis]

As I said, annexing territory is not a fair way of gaining land NOW. The USA's manifest destiny, the French and British and Dutch colonies, the Russian/Japanese land issues -- all these came before the UN was established and virutally all nations agreed to honor each other's national sovereignty and territory boundaries.

Under modern bedrock internation law, it is a violation of sovereignty to attempt to take the land of another nation. This is the SINGLE reason the UN sanctioned the Gulf War -- Saddam broke this primary rule of international law when he invaded Kuwait. The incursion by Israel onto Palestinian lands is no different.

[Alson]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: WE DON'T ALLOW THE TAKING OF TERRITORY BY FORCE ANYMORE. GET IT, ISRAEL? We haven't allowed it since before Israel existed as a country.

Prohibiting the annexation of territory by force is an excellent idea. Surely it'll help to make the world a safer place, especially for communities without the resources to defend themselves. However, I'm not sure if this conception can truly be applied retroactively. If memory serves, you're an attorney, Timber, are you not? You should know then.

You claim that "we haven't allowed it since before Israel existed as a country". Presumably, by saying "we" you mean "the enlightened world". May I ask, then, since when annexation of territory by force is prohibited? It sure wasn't prohibited when the French conquered Algeria, or when the Japanese conquered parts of of Korea. Claiming that annexation of territory by force is prohibited only since the UN was established--around 1945, if I remember correctly--is a tad unfair, I hope you'll agree. (Unfair, in a "Boy, good thing I deprived them of their lands in 1944, otherwise I would've been in trouble! Phew!" kind of way).

Anyhow, don't get me wrong - I catch your drift, and I agree with the ideals it seems (to me) to strive for. However, in fairness' sake, do take both sides into consideration. A little exercise in roleplaying, just not the kind that you may have in mind (and I ain't talking about Baldur's Gate [img]tongue.gif[/img] ).

[Seraph]

WE DON'T ALLOW THE TAKING OF TERRITORY BY FORCE ANYMORE.

I'll inform Tibet of the good news.

[Timber Loftis]

I didn't say everyone played by the rules, you know. And yes, it may be unfair for the countries that failed to run amuck annexing territory prior to the creation of the UN, but, hey, everyone who's a member of the UN AGREED to the deal, you see.

Moreover, how any of this wraps back to help justify Israel's annexation of territory is still beyond me, since it was the negotiations and treaties wrapping up WWII that gave Israel its very existence as a nation.