'This is like apartheid': ANC veterans visit West Bank

[bemildred]

Veterans of the anti-apartheid struggle said last night that the segregation endured by Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied territories was in some respects worse than that imposed on the black majority under white rule in South Africa.

Members of a 23-strong human-rights team of prominent South Africans cited the impact of the Israeli military's separation barrier, checkpoints, the permit system for Palestinian travel, and the extent to which Palestinians are barred from using roads in the West Bank.

After a five-day visit to Israel and the Occupied Territories, some delegates expressed shock and dismay at conditions in the Israeli-controlled heart of Hebron. Uniquely among West Bank cities, 800 settlers now live there and segregation has seen the closure of nearly 3,000 Palestinian businesses and housing units. Palestinian cars (and in some sections pedestrians) are prohibited from using the once busy streets.

"Even with the system of permits, even with the limits of movement to South Africa, we never had as much restriction on movement as I see for the people here," said ANC parliamentarian Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge. "There are areas in which people would live their whole lifetime without visiting because it's impossible."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/this-is-like-apartheid-anc-veterans-visit-west-bank-865063.html

[dipsydoodle]

1. Read and inwardly digest

as they used to say in school.

I hope a lot of people take note of this especially as it comes for those in position to pass fair and unbiased comment.

edit : Error: You can't recommend threads from this forum - but at least I tried.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. History gives an even more chilling comparison

See the Wikipedia article, Jewish ghettos in Europe

Some people are just incapable of learning from the past.

[dipsydoodle]

3. There are some inaccuracies

in that article.

For the UK they list :
East End of London
Golders Green, London
South Tottenham, London
Stamford Hill, London

I'm sure that will be news to the Jewish people who live in those areas of London especially Golders green or Goldberg Green as it is affectionately known.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. That one is odd, I'll admit

But then, I've never contributed to the article. :hi:

Tracing the links, it looks like Golders Green is a predominantly Jewish neighborhood but has never been a ghetto; it was the hamlet for a manor estate until being absorbed by Greater London around 1900.

Nonetheless, I hope you got my point: Jews have long been kept segregated from the general population, often in squalor, for no other "crime" than being Jewish. There is more than a millennium of history where if a Christian wanted property owned by a Jew he could simply take it and force the former owner out. To pick one of far too many examples, the Jewish residents of York were driven out of the city in 1190 because a local nobleman owed a lot of money to a Jewish banker. They took refuge in Clifford's Tower where they were besieged by a mob for several days; they ended up taking their own lives than face the violence the mob offered.

And yet, for decades, Palestinians in Israel have been treated exactly like Jews have been treated by Christian Europe. It is beyond my comprehension.

[pelsar]

6. beyond your comprehension....because

there is no comparison.....

i'm curious if you know about israeli muslim arabs who can buy property, travel where ever they feel like just like the christian citizens and Buddhist and jewish citizens of israel?

and then there are the Occupied Palestinians non citizens of israel who (in the past) traveled freely throughout israel until their "comrades" decided that blowing up israeli busses via sucide bombers was a good idea....and israel, after trying various non succesful ideas, decided that its citizens lives were worth more than the freedom of travel for the Palestenian non citizens-and the bombs stopped
____


so the real question is:are those facts relevant?....or is the idea mainly to show how evil israel is for being occupying part of the Palestinian future state? even if it involves making up stuff?

[notfullofit]

7. Israel had to

learn the hard way that restriction of movement for some is necessary for the protection of their citizens.

[azurnoir]

9. Who's citizens ?

The West Banks? This is not about Israeli citizens in Israel, this is about how an occupying force force treats the people of area it is occupying, to protect the occupier's citizens who are colonizing or more politely "settling" the territory.

[Vegasaurus]

10. There's a wall and checkpoints

because suicide bombers were in an out of Israeli cafes and buses, blowing people up.

These horrific acts happened IN ISRAEL, not the territories.

There are walls preventing suicide bombers from going into Israel and killing Israeli citizens.

those are the facts.

Stop blowing up Israelis and there will be fewer restrictions.

Everyone understands this, except the militants. Pity.

[azurnoir]

11. Maybe you failed to notice

but this thread is not about what is happening in Israel, no matter how hard it is spun, it is about the West Bank unless of course your claiming that the West Bank is part of Israel.

[pelsar]

12. its also about history...and what happened in israel

a short history....before oslo:

no walls, freedom of movement

post oslo.... suicide bombers in israel .... originating in the westbank

wall goes up/checkpoints increase....few if any successful suicide bombers....
_______

no wall/checkpoints= lots of dead israelis in israel......no freedom of movement for the Palestinians
_____

the only way to spin it and pretend the checkpoints etc are so evil is to pretend that they dont prevent successful suicide bombers....but the short history of the area has shown that they do work...

or do you disagree? (can you answer the question?.....will you claim the the combo checkpoints and wall dont stop the bombers?....will you check the stats before making such a claim?)

[azurnoir]

14. Once again

Israel can have all the checkpoints and walls it wants on it's side of the border, this about what goes on in the West Bank not Israel.

Unless you are also claiming the West Bank is part of Israel

[pelsar]

16. thats what you dont get...

the bombers have to be stopped BEFORE they get to israel....and its takes several "layers" of security....that has also been shown by history....

we like stopping them in their own homes, in their own neighborhoods way before they get a chance to kill israelis.....it works better that way for israelis.....
________

when they stop.......we leave, the other way around doesnt work (gaza and lebanon being examples)

[Vegasaurus]

18. Without the checkpoints and walls

the terrorists get into Israel.

It's really that simple.

The terrorists try to blow up everything, including their own food and fuel.

Since they are so relentless in their efforts to blow up Israelis, they have to be stopped before the border.

Sad truths.

PErhaps the Palestinian terrorists will one day find a new vocation.

[azurnoir]

19. Really

Since they are so relentless in their efforts to blow up Israelis, they have to be stopped before the border.

then why is Israel negotiating with these terrorists?

Israel has the right to security within its own borders

And considering your opinion then you must also support the idea of stationing troops inside of Mexico to stop the illegal immigration from there, but of course you will claim otherwise

[pelsar]

20. can i assume you prefer the "gaza" scenario?

there israel stays within the 67 border for the most part...and gets mortars and kassams and can do little to stop them except for minor invasions and using means that does a lot of damage......missiles, tanks, artillary. Daily terrorizim for the israelis

or there is the lebanon scenario where israel is constantly shot at..until it gets to be too much and then invades.....

or there is version 3: the westbank. Where israel occupies it, patrols it, has controlled raids, arrests people and the israelis near the borders of the westbank (most of the israeli population) gets to live in peace without daily threats.....
-------

i guess from your posts and the limited options available you preference is to bring the "gaza" scenario over to the westbank.....letting the kassam and mortar crews much larger targets (intl airport, jerusalem, Netanya, etc..)

[azurnoir]

21. Oh yeah the Gaza scenario

you mean the one where Hamas is at present arresting those responsible for the Kassam attacks. On that thought if the truce holds and Hamas finally gains control then it kind makes that excuse obsolete.

Although feel free to assume what ever you want.

[pelsar]

44. how many mortars and kassams so far?

Hamas like Hizballa are i suspect playing for time.....
incase you didnt notice both up north and in gaza there are periods of quiet then hizballa (and hamas) decides to attack every so often. I guess for some that is considered acceptable......

and of course when the do attack..and israel responds, the usual chorus is something to the effect that israel is guilty of something or other.
______

in the meantime...no kassams, zero, no mortars come out of the westbank......no successful attacks on israel pre 67 borders - ZERO-thats the way it should be..

[azurnoir]

48. So what your admitting

is that Israel will continue to stand figuratively speaking on the necks of Palestinians, for security.

So why then the pretense of peace negotiations?

[pelsar]

56. just the Palestinians have to prove themselves first.....

nothing less than that.....it may not be fair, but thats the situation. Until they can give israel confidence that we wont have having kassams and mortars on our cities from the westbank,theyre probably not going to get much.

and to show my point.....if kassams started from the westbank after an israeli pullout.....would you back an israeli re-invasion, including checkpoints, raids etc or would you prefer that the kassams land on the larger israeli cities and israel realistically just take them and do nothing to stop them?

as far as i can tell any negotiations now is nothing more than show...with the Palestenianians split in two with neither being able to make any changes and olmert up to his neck in investigations......neither has the ability to actually make a serious political change.

[eyl]

80. Do you really think

illegal immigrants==terrorists?

[Dick Dastardly]

24. It can have checkpoints and security apparatus in the WB too

per res 242. Final borders are to be negotiated


Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) states in What Weight to Conquest

"The facts of the June 1967 'Six Day War' demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR's use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of UNEF.

"It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated.

"The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest."



"(a) a state acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense;
"(b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense;
"(c) Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.
"... as between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt."

http://books.google.com/books?id=AnJIfuDAtp4C&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=Stephen+M.+Schwebel+What+Weight+to+Conquest&source=web&ots=jY2v3nCEqO&sig=oyfmp4yyP0QdCmfr1FPsp7fMTMM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA206,M1

http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521462843

Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, pg. 13, qtd. in Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:

Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.



• Journal of Palestine Studies, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring - Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:

Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?

A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” The can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2536020
http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/jps.1976.5.3-4.00p0412j



Arthur J. Goldberg,5 the U.S. Ambassador to the UN in 1967 a professor of law at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago, and was appointed in 1962 to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1965 he was named U.S. representative to the United Nations. Judge Goldberg was a key draftee of UN Resolution 242
“The notable omissions in language used to refer to withdrawal are the words the, all, and the June 5, 1967, lines.

In other words, there is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from the (or all the) territories occupied by it on and after _June 5, 1967. Instead, the resolution stipulates withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal. And it can be inferred from the incorporation of the words secure and recognized boundaries that the territorial adjustments to be made by the parties in their peace settlements could encompass less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories

Goldberg, “U.N. Resolution 242: Origin, Meaning, and Significance.” National Committee on American Foreign Policy.
http://www.mefacts.com/cache/html/arab-countries/10159.htm



Eugene Rostow, a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, 1966-1969. He helped draft Resolution 242.

The New York Times, “Don’t strong-arm Israel,” Feb. 19, 1991:

Security Council Resolution 242, approved after the 1967 war, stipulates not only that Israel and its neighboring states should make peace with each other but should establish “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” Until that condition is met, Israel is entitled to administer the territories it captured – the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip – and then withdraw from some but not necessarily all of the land to “secure and recognized boundaries free of threats or acts of force.”






Proceedings of the 64th annual meeting of the American Society of International Law, 1970, pgs 894-96:

the question remained, “To what boundaries should Israel withdraw?” On this issue, the American position was sharply drawn, and rested on a critical provision of the Armistice Agreements of 1949. Those agreements provided in each case that the Armistice Demarcation Line “is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims or positions of either party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.” ... These paragraphs, which were put into the agreements at Arab insistence, were the legal foundation for the controversies over the wording of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Security Council Resolution 242, of November 22, 1967. ...

The agreement required by paragraph 3 of the resolution, the Security Council said, should establish “secure and recognized boundaries” between Israel and its neighbors “free from threats or acts of force,” to replace the Armistice Demarcation Lines established in 1949, and the cease-fire lines of June, 1967. The Israeli armed forces should withdraw to such lines, as part of a comprehensive agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in the resolution, and in a condition of peace.

On this point, the American position has been the same under both the Johnson and the Nixon Administrations. The new and definitive political boundaries should not represent “the weight of conquest,” both Administrations have said; on the other hand, under the policy and language of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, and of the Security Council Resolution of November 22, 1967, they need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines. ...

This is the legal significance of the omission of the word “the” from paragraph 1 (I) of the resolution, which calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces “from territories occupied in the recent conflict,” and not “from the territories occupied in the recent conflict.” Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word “the” failed in the Security Council. It is therefore not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the Cease-Fire Resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation Lines.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2199210

http://www.asil.org/
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2199210
http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/242drafters.asp

[Violet_Crumble]

28. International law states that it is illegal for Israel to construct a wall in occupied territory...

You have read the ICJ judgement, haven't you?

[Dick Dastardly]

75. Sure have

It was political, eroneous, lacking all the facts and most of all non binding without legal force.

[Violet_Crumble]

76. Yr opinion is totally irrelevant. The fact is that the wall is illegal...

Not all of it, but the parts that are built in the West Bank are. Whether or not it's binding (meaning force will be used to reverse what was found illegal) is irrelevant as well. Legal judgements carry legal force for the reason that they're legal judgements. Yr getting legal force confused with the use of force to enforce a judgement, an area where the international community has fallen down when it comes to international law. The ruling was on whether the construction of the wall in the West Bank was illegal and the court's judgement was that it was....

[Dick Dastardly]

79. Not my opinion but those of the experts I posted and many others. On the otherhand it seems you

think your opinion is irrefutable and should be accepted without question

It was a politicized decision that did not include important facts such as terrorism or Israel giving a defense. It was reffered in a one sided way by the GA. The ICJ had no jurisdiction to hear the case and it did not issue an opinion that carried legal force, only advisory. You are the one getting confused, it is not an enforceable legal judgement it is only an advisory opinion and not enforceable or meant to be.

This does a good job on the absurd ruling
http://www.conferenceofpresidents.org/clintonletter.pdf

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110005366

[Violet_Crumble]

81. It's not opinion when I say the wall is illegal where it's built in the West Bank...

That is a FACT. Apparently you don't think the ICJ justices are experts (though you'd be going on about their credentials if it was something you agreed with), they actually are experts in matters such as this. When it comes to whether something's illegal or not, yr opinion isn't worth jack shit. People don't get to pick and choose what is legal or not depending on their own partisan views on something is...

I'll deal with some of yr claims now:

It was referred in a one sided way by the GA.

How the Court works is that contentious cases are brought to them by individual states, and advisory opinions are referred to them by the UN when there is a legal question they want answered. There's nothing one-sided about that. It's how the Court is supposed to function...

Advisory proceedings before the Court are open solely to five organs of the United Nations and to 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations family.

The United Nations General Assembly and Security Council may request advisory opinions on “any legal question”. Other United Nations organs and specialized agencies which have been authorized to seek advisory opinions can only do so with respect to “legal questions arising within the scope of their activities”.

http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=6


The ICJ had no jurisdiction to hear the case and it did not issue an opinion that carried legal force, only advisory.

The Court addressed this issue in its ruling.

'The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has today rendered its Advisory Opinion in the case concerning the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (request for advisory opinion).

In its Opinion, the Court finds unanimously that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by the United Nations General Assembly and decides by fourteen votes to one to comply with that request.'

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6&case=131&k=5a

Why are you still repeating that 'legal force' thing? I explained in the post you replied to the difference between legal force (ie the power to decide whether something is legal or not) and binding force (in the area of international law, that's the enforcement part). Was there something there you didn't understand? Of course advisory rulings hold legal force and are part of what makes up international law. The Court has a legal question referred to it and it rules on it...

Here's the findings of the ICJ. I'd post a link to the entire ruling but the ICJ has restructured its site and now all I can find there is the ruling in French...

The Court responds to the question as follows:

- “A. By fourteen votes to one,

The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law”;

- “B. By fourteen votes to one,

Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion”;

- “C. By fourteen votes to one,

Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem”;


- “D. By thirteen votes to two,

All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention”;

- “E. By fourteen votes to one,

The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated régime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.”

Reasoning of the Court

The Advisory Opinion is divided into three parts: jurisdiction and judicial propriety; legality of the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; legal consequences of the breaches found.

Jurisdiction of the Court and judicial propriety

The Court states that when it is seised of a request for an advisory opinion, it must first consider whether it has jurisdiction to give that opinion. It finds that the General Assembly, which requested the opinion by resolution ES‑10/14 of 8 December 2003, is authorized to do so by Article 96, paragraph 1, of the Charter.

The Court, as it has sometimes done in the past, then gives certain indications as to the relationship between the question on which the advisory opinion is requested and the activities of the General Assembly. It finds that the General Assembly, in requesting an advisory opinion from the Court, did not exceed its competence, as qualified by Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Charter, which provides that, while the Security Council is exercising its functions in respect of any dispute or situation, the Assembly must not make any recommendation with regard thereto unless the Security Council so requests.

The Court further refers to the fact that the General Assembly adopted resolution ES‑10/14 during its Tenth Emergency Special Session, convened pursuant to resolution 377A (V), which provides that if the Security Council fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the General Assembly may consider the matter immediately with a view to making recommendations to Member States. The Court finds that the conditions laid down by that resolution were met when the Tenth Emergency Special Session was convened; that was in particular true when the General Assembly decided to request an opinion, as the Security Council was at that time unable to adopt a resolution concerning the construction of the wall as a result of the negative vote of a permanent member.

The Court then rejects the argument that an opinion could not be given in the present case on the ground that the question posed in the request is not a legal one.

Having established its jurisdiction, the Court considers the propriety of giving the requested opinion. It recalls that the lack of consent by a State to its contentious jurisdiction has no bearing on its jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion. It adds that the giving of an opinion would not have the effect, in the present case, of circumventing the principle of consent to judicial settlement, given that the question on which the General Assembly requested an opinion is located in a much broader frame of reference than that of the bilateral dispute between Israel and Palestine, and that it is of direct concern to the United Nations. Nor does the Court accept the contention that it should decline to give the advisory opinion requested because its opinion could impede a political, negotiated solution to the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict. It further finds it has before it sufficient information and evidence to enable it to give its opinion, and emphasizes that it is for the General Assembly to assess the usefulness of that opinion. The Court concludes from the foregoing that there is no compelling reason precluding it from giving the requested opinion.

Legality of the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Before addressing the legal consequences of the construction of the wall (the term which the General Assembly has chosen to use and which is also used in the Opinion, since the other expressions sometimes employed are no more accurate if understood in the physical sense), the Court considers whether or not the construction of the wall is contrary to international law.

The Court determines the rules and principles of international law which are relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly. The Court begins by citing, with reference to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and to General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), the principles of the prohibition of the threat or use of force and the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, as reflected in customary international law. It further cites the principle of self‑determination of peoples, as enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed by resolution 2625 (XXV). As regards international humanitarian law, the Court refers to the provisions of the Hague Regulation of 1907, which have become part of customary law, as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, applicable in those Palestinian territories which before the armed conflict of 1967 lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict. The Court further notes that certain human rights instruments (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) are applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The Court ascertains whether the construction of the wall has violated the above‑mentioned rules and principles. It first observes that the route of the wall as fixed by the Israeli Government includes within the “Closed Area” (between the wall and the “Green Line”) some 80 percent of the settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Recalling that the Security Council described Israel’s policy of establishing settlements in that territory as a “flagrant violation” of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Court finds that those settlements have been established in breach of international law. It further considers certain fears expressed to it that the route of the wall will prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine; it considers that the construction of the wall and its associated régime “create a ‘fait accompli’ on the ground that could well become permanent, in which case, . . . would be tantamount to de facto annexation”. The Court notes that the route chosen for the wall gives expression in loco to the illegal measures taken by Israel, and deplored by the Security Council, with regard to Jerusalem and the settlements, and that it entails further alterations to the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It finds that the “construction , along with measures taken previously, . . . severely impedes the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self‑determination, and is therefore a breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right”.

The Court then considers the information furnished to it regarding the impact of the construction of the wall on the daily life of the inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (destruction or requisition of private property, restrictions on freedom of movement, confiscation of agricultural land, cutting‑off of access to primary water sources, etc.). It finds that the construction of the wall and its associated régime are contrary to the relevant provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and of the Fourth Geneva Convention; that they impede the liberty of movement of the inhabitants of the territory as guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and that they also impede the exercise by the persons concerned of the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living as proclaimed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Lastly, the Court finds that this construction and its associated régime, coupled with the establishment of settlements, are tending to alter the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and thereby contravene the Fourth Geneva Convention and the relevant Security Council resolutions.

The Court observes that certain humanitarian law and human rights instruments include qualifying clauses or provisions for derogation which may be invoked by States parties, inter alia where military exigencies or the needs of national security or public order so require. It states that it is not convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was necessary to attain its security objectives and, holding that none of such clauses are applicable, finds that the construction of the wall constitutes “breaches by Israel of various of its obligations under the applicable international humanitarian law and human rights instruments”.

In conclusion, the Court considers that Israel cannot rely on a right of self‑defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall. The Court accordingly finds that the construction of the wall and its associated régime are contrary to international law.

Legal consequences of the violations found

The Court draws a distinction between the legal consequences of these violations for Israel and those for other States.

In regard to the former, the Court finds that Israel must respect the right of the Palestinian people to self‑determination and its obligations under humanitarian law and human rights law. Israel must also put an end to the violation of its international obligations flowing from the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and must accordingly cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall, dismantle forthwith those parts of that structure situated within the Occupied Palestinian Territory and forthwith repeal or render ineffective all legislative and regulatory acts adopted with a view to construction of the wall and establishment of its associated régime, except in so far as such acts may continue to be relevant for compliance by Israel with its obligations in regard to reparation. Israel must further make reparation for all damage suffered by all natural or legal persons affected by the wall’s construction.

As regards the legal consequences for other States, the Court finds that all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction. The Court further finds that it is for all States, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to see to it that any impediment, resulting from the construction of the wall, in the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self‑determination is brought to an end. In addition, all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention are under an obligation, while respecting the Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention.

Finally, the Court is of the view that the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and its associated régime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.

The Court concludes by stating that the construction of the wall must be placed in a more general context. In this regard, the Court notes that Israel and Palestine are “under an obligation scrupulously to observe the rules of international humanitarian law”. In the Court’s view, the tragic situation in the region can be brought to an end only through implementation in good faith of all relevant Security Council resolutions. The Court further draws the attention of the General Assembly to the “need for . . . efforts to be encouraged with a view to achieving as soon as possible, on the basis of international law, a negotiated solution to the outstanding problems and the establishment of a Palestinian State, existing side by side with Israel and its other neighbours, with peace and security for all in the region”.

Composition of the Court

The Court was composed as follows: Judge Shi, President; Judge Ranjeva, Vice‑President; Judges Guillaume, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra‑Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al‑Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby, Owada, Simma and Tomka; Registrar Couvreur.

Judges Koroma, Higgins, Kooijmans and Al‑Khasawneh append separate opinions to the Advisory Opinion. Judge Buergenthal appends a declaration. Judges Elaraby and Owada append separate opinions.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6&case=131&k=5a

[azurnoir]

50. Really unnecessary

be if you feel the need to post what is already known......

Yeah it is legal, and the omission of the word the so that Israel could use the letter of the law to hold on to the West Bank and its water table forever has been discussed ad nauseum, how ever if this Israel's intent it does explain the oppression of the Palestinians doesn't it, Israel will never have peace

The concept that your missing here is not legality, but moral and ethical, not to mention what is in Israel's best interest in the long run

[dipsydoodle]

8. You encouraged me to read up on it.

First of all - yes there seems no doubt that some awful things happened hundreds of years ago : sins of the past.

It would seem that Golders Green, aka NW11 , bloomed after the Northern Line was built early 1900's. That tube line is overground from Golders Green heading north through Hendon and Mill Hill to Edgware where I grew up. The subsequent spread to the other places and Edgware was also probably due to that rail line and ease of transport to other family memebers. My understanding then and even now was that there was nothing insidious about the concentrations - simply a need to walk to the Synagogue on Saturdays. Here's some notes on Edgware : http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=22460 Mid '50s the main Synagogue was alleged to be the largest in Europe.

The Reform Synagogue up the road in Stonegrove was one of life's mysteries to me at the time because nobody walked there - they all drove unless they were locals. I always knew what was occuring Saturday mornings as I delivered meat for a butcher using a trade pedal bike with a basket on the front.

We were a complete mixed bunch at school - all just friends and I don't recall any antagonism whatsoever. Forty or so years later date it was explained to me exactly why I got on so well with the mothers of my Jewish friends - I was far more polite to them than their sons.......lol.

I searched property values in Golders Green - first one I found was £2.7 million / c. US$5.4 million. :)

[azurnoir]

5. Straight from the mouths of those who

experienced apartheid first hand in South Africa.

Thank you for posting

[ProgressiveMuslim]

13. Isn't it interesting how when commenting on *this* apartheid, those voices have no moral authority?

[azurnoir]

15. What is even more interesting

is how what goes on in Israel is being referenced as if.......

[Sezu]

17. Actually straight from the mouths of a extreme radical

left faction which has demonstrated its hate of Israel for years and uses the apartheid card even on its political foes. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see the claim is hyperbolic and used ideologically rather than rationally. The ANC seeks solidarity with the many muslims in its base and that accounts for its hyperbole as well. This is all politics driven rather than truth driven.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see what yr saying is mere kneejerking...

You do realise that the ANC is the governing party in South Africa? There's nothing extremely radical about them. Can you give some examples of this hatred of Israel you claim the ANC has demonstrated for years? It's just that I kind of suspect the mere mention of apartheid is enough to get people labelled as hating Israel...

Also, when playing the Muslim card like that, it would have helped if you'd looked at the demographics of South Africa first. Then you would have realised that only a tiny percentage of South Africans are Muslim and that bringing religion into it was a silly move.

There's nothing of a hyperbolic nature in what was said in the article. And y'know, given a choice between what some American with no experience of apartheid and South Africans who suffered under apartheid have to say on the issue, well you just don't carry the same weight. I'm just curious about how you can read that article and not have problem with what's going on in Hebron...

[Sezu]

23. Obviously your education about the ANC and its

politics needs some real updating.

http://z-word.com/z-word-essays/franchising-%25E2%2580%259Capartheid%25E2%2580%259D%253A-why-south-africans-push-the-analogy.html">Franchising “Apartheid”: Why South Africans Push the Analogy

[Violet_Crumble]

25. I didn't realise yr idea of education was believing everything on some blog..

Now, which bit did I get wrong The ANC is the governing party in South Africa and not extremists? That yr claim that the ANC is trying to appeal to the many Muslims that make up it's base is crap considering the tiny percentage (I think it's just under 2%) of Muslims there are in South Africa? That yr claim that the ANC has long demonstrated a hatred of Israel is bullshit? So far you haven't dispelled any of them..

A question. How can you have read the OP and not find anything wrong with what's going on in Hebron?

[notfullofit]

26. South Africa and Hamas

snip...

When it comes to Israel, the South African government seems to employ a schizophrenic foreign policy. At times it portrays itself as a potential honest broker, wanting to share its successful experience in conflict resolution and contribute to fulfilling the hopes of moderates everywhere - to establish two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.

But the South African government has also on numerous occasions exhibited a more sinister Middle East foreign policy agenda by warmly embracing the enemies of the Jewish people and expressing rabid anti-Zionist positions.

snip...

In an anti-Zionist propaganda blitz, reminiscent of the former Soviet Union (where he in fact underwent military training,) Kasrils has used his ministries' official websites (previously, Kasrils was the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry,) international conferences, state visits, the ANC journal Umrabulo and of course the media to demonize the Jewish state. He has called Israelis baby killers, likened IDF actions in the Territories to those of the Nazis, declared Israel worse than apartheid and charged the "Zionist regime" with committing a creeping genocide against the Palestinian people.

It would be a mistake to view Kasrils as the only radical anti-Israel element within the South African government. His virulent rhetoric has been ably matched by Willy Madisha, president of the ANC's coalition partner COSATU. Last year at an international trade union conference in London, for example, he described South Africa's apartheid policies as "a Sunday picnic" in comparison to Israel's "brutal" treatment of the Palestinians. He has on other occasions denounced Israel as an "evil state" and called for an anti-apartheid type sanctions campaign to bring it to its knees.

Unconditional support for Israel's enemies

Despite the hopes of many in the Jewish community that this is just rhetoric designed to placate radical Islamist and hardcore leftist groups in South Africa, the government has shown time and again its willingness to back up these anti-Israel words with anti-Israel actions.

much more...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3405940,00.html

[Violet_Crumble]

27. Have you got any facts rather than an opinion piece by someome with an agenda? n/t

[notfullofit]

29. South Africa's Betrayal

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
by JAMES KIRCHICK
Wednesday, August 8, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT


Last September, not long after the Israeli-Hezbollah war, South Africa's minister of intelligence, Ronnie Kasrils, praised the Islamist group committed to Israel's destruction. The Iran News Agency, albeit prone to exaggeration, reported that Mr. Kasrils "lauded great victories of the Lebanese Hezbollah against the Zionist forces" and "stressed that the successful Lebanese resistance proved the vulnerability of the Israeli army." The comment received no attention in the South African media; nor, for that matter, did the international press seem particularly interested. And yet, the scandalous comment occurred immediately after the South African government had warmly received the visiting Iranian foreign minister and expressed support for Iran's campaign for uranium enrichment--in spite of the passing of a United Nations Security Council deadline that same week regarding the suspension of Iran's nuclear program.

This stance toward Iran is cause for concern on its own. Unfortunately, it is also illustrative of a much broader and more chilling trend in South Africa's postapartheid foreign policy: one that cozies up to tyrants, and is increasingly oriented against the West--even at the cost of its self-proclaimed principles of human rights and political freedom.

snip...

In early September of this year, Mr. Kasrils wrote of Israel in the weekly Mail & Guardian that "we must call baby killers 'baby killers,' and declare that those using methods reminiscent of the Nazis be told that they are behaving like Nazis." This article was published mere days before Mr. Kasrils ventured to Tehran to glorify Hezbollah. A few months prior, Mr. Kasrils joined some 70 South African Jews in a statement published in several of the country's newspapers declaring that, "Jewish support for Israel aggression kills humanity." Not surprisingly, Mr. Kasrils supports boycotting the Jewish state, endorses a "one-state solution" that would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish state, and frequently lends credence to the "Israel is an apartheid state" meme.

Mr. Kasrils's stance on Israel has become so egregious that Helen Suzman, a prominent secular Jew who served 36 years in Parliament as an opponent--sometimes the only one--of apartheid, has written that "it is not only religious Jews who object to Kasrils's allegations. The issue is the anti-Semitism fostered by Kasrils's pronouncements." In May of this year, Mr. Kasrils invited Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas leader and prime minister of the Palestinian National Authority, to South Africa. Of the invitation, the South African Board of Jewish Deputies released a statement reading: "Expressing support for an organization whose very founding charter describes the Jewish people as evil enemies of humanity and calls for its total annihilation, fundamentally contradicts the ideals both of South Africa and of the ruling ANC itself."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010440

[Violet_Crumble]

30. OPINION journal. For goodness sake. Try posting something other than opinions! n/t

[notfullofit]

31. Franchising “Apartheid”

(Even you should have no problem with this 'expert' opinion)


Rhoda Kadalie is a former anti-apartheid activist and South African Human Rights Commissioner.
Based in Cape Town, she is currently the Director of the Impumelelo Innovations Award Trust and is a widely-published columnist for newspapers including The Business Day and Rapport.
Julia I. Bertelsmann (right) is the editor-in-chief of New Society: Harvard College Student Middle East Journal.

By Rhoda Kadalie with Julia I. Bertelsmann March 2008
snip...

The Prophets of Prejudice

Not only has the ANC begun to distort the history of its relations with Israel, but several former anti-apartheid activists in the party have joined a cottage industry that exploits the Israel-apartheid analogy for personal and political gain. Troublingly, their anti-Israel diatribes are sometimes barely distinguishable from antisemitism. Foremost among these prophets of apartheid is Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who has energetically supported the campaign to demonize Israel as an apartheid state.

At the end of 2007, Tutu was the keynote speaker at a conference on “The Apartheid Paradigm in Palestine-Israel” at Boston’s Old South Church. Tutu addressed his remarks entirely to Jews (few of whom were actually present,
since the conference was held on the Jewish Sabbath.) He warned Jews: “Don’t be found fighting against the God, your God, our God who hears the cry of the oppressed.” Tutu made no appeal to Arabs or Palestinians to do their part. Nor, in fact, did he refer to Israelis. He referred only to Jews, eschewing the standard distinctions made by anti-Zionists who want to avoid accusations of antisemitism.

Ronnie Kasrils has similarly exploited his anti-apartheid credentials to achieve celebrity status in the anti-Israel movement and send his self-serving memoir, Armed and Dangerous, into a second printing.16 He was embarrassed by reports last year in the Palestinian press that he had told an audience at Bir Zeit University in the West Bank “that the guns should be pointed towards the enemy,”17 though he disputed the accuracy of the quote.
Another South African who has staked his reputation....

MUCH MORE
http://www.z-word.com/uploads/assets/documents/Franchising%20Apartheid_sbHFe7yX.pdf

[Violet_Crumble]

32. If you'd been readingthe thread you'd see this stuff was the first one posted...

I'd suggest you go read the ridiculous claim that Sezu made and which it looks like yr trying to back up with a flurry of links to opinions and blogs and more opinions and blogs, and then ask yrself why yr trying to argue something which is blatantly ridiculous...

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Let's put a stop to these silly opinion pieces once and for all...

Sezu incorrectly claimed that the ANC (he called it an extremist faction when in fact it governs South Africa) had a documented history of hating Israel. Here's some FACTS as opposed to the opinion of twits who think anyone who dares criticise Israel hates Israel:

Israel and South Africa have warm relations. That's really good considering there was a history of Israel almost standing alone and supporting the Apartheid regime of South Africa when nearly every other country opposed it. How could it be that a government that has good relations with another is actually a hater of that country?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-South_Africa_relations

Now, if you are of the opinion that being critical of Israel's policies in the Occupied Territories is 'hating Israel', then that's a whole different matter...

[notfullofit]

34. 'terrorist colony of Israel

South Africa trade union: Hizbullah fighters heroic

African country's largest trade union attacks 'terrorist colony of Israel,' renews call for boycott

The Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) has renewed its call for a boycott of Israel during a demonstration with Muslim organizations in Cape Town in late October, the South African IOL news website reported.
COSATU is South Africa's largest trade union, with a membership of 1.8 million, and is also represented in South Africa's government, being one of three members of the 'tripartite alliance.'
The alliance also includes the ANC ruling party, and the South African Communist Party.

According to the report, the march was attended by "militant Muslim group Qibla and COSATU," and the union's representative reiterated acall to boycott Israel. The marchers also submitted a memorandum to the South African foreign minister, which said Israel was an "illegitimate, terrorist state, racist, expansionist and chauvinistic and has no right to exist."
more..
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3325160,00.html

You can dismiss all the articles as you wish but the underlying facts are there.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Since when has a trade union been the government of South Africa?

You haven't given any underlying facts to support the idiotic claim yr supporting. And it doesn't look like I should hold my breath waiting...

Why are you so intent on holding to a false belief that the current govt of South Africa hates Israel when you've been shown the FACT that both governments have warm relations?

[notfullofit]

36. Didyou miss

this bit?

'The alliance also includes the ANC ruling party,'

[Violet_Crumble]

39. No, but it's not supporting the ridiculous claim yr so intent on defending...

Also, did you miss the question I asked you?

[notfullofit]

49. ANC backs anti-Israel protest

ANC backs anti-Israel protest

ANC website calls on South Africans to take part in week of national protest in solidarity with Palestinians; South African trade union head supports boycott, sanctions on Israel

Ynetnews Published: 05.31.07, 15:14 / Israel News

South Africa's ruling party, the African National Congress, has called on South Africans to turn out in their thousands during a week of national protest action in solidarity with the Palestinian people from Monday, June 4.

The week of action coincides with anti-Israel activities around the world commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War.

Addressing a media conference earlier this week, ANC national executive committee member Ronnie Kasrils described the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory as "criminal and intolerable".

Activities in South Africa are being coordinated by the End the Occupation Campaign, comprising almost 20 civil society organizations, social movements, solidarity organizations, political parties and faith-based organizations.


In a declaration issued this week and published on the ANC's official website, the campaign said: "We face a new crisis of war and occupation, a crisis in which Palestinians continue to suffer, even more than the suffering already imposed by decades of brutal occupation and apartheid... The conditions of Palestinians living under occupation continue to deteriorate and Palestinian refugees continue to be denied their international rights, including their right of return. Palestinians in Jerusalem and elsewhere face ethnic cleansing."

more
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3407084,00.html

Here's your answer from the ANC's own website. Is this what you call 'warm relations'?
With friends like these Israel sure as hell don't need enemies.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. I see, So you think that showing support for the Palestinian people is hating Israel...

Here's a newsflash for you. My own country is supportive of the Palestinian people, is critical of the behaviour of both Israel and the Palestinians, and has a good relationship with Israel. Seeing as how you view any support of the Palestinian people or criticism of Israel as *hating Israel*, I take it you view any criticism of the US as *hating America*?

[notfullofit]

55. You are

dissing your own argument that I have been shown the 'FACT'

'false belief that the current govt of South Africa hates Israel when you've been shown the FACT that both governments have warm relations?'

when I have shown you just the opposite FACT of 'warm relations' unless of course you think that calling for a boycott of a country constitutes 'warm relations'.

However I think it is fair to say that most of us have support and sympathy for the Palestinian people, just not the evil bastards in charge of governing them i.e., Hamas and I for one am able to discern the diffence.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. Go and look at the Wiki link I posted for you...

Israel and the South African govt have good relations...

And you have not shown any relevant facts at all, apart from showing confusion between trade unions and the ANC...

If you support and sympathise with the Palestinians, then why are you in another thread calling an Israeli journalist 'anti-Israel' and advocating the stripping of his citizenship because he dared support the Palestinian people?

[notfullofit]

58. There is a vast

difference between supporting the Palestinian people and bashing Israel every chance you get just because you have the platform to do so.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. So show me where the South African govt bashes Israel every chance it gets...

Because honestly I don't think you do see the vast difference at all, especially after reading some of the Seth Freedman articles in another thread that you pointed out as being 'anti-Israel'...

[notfullofit]

60. I was

referring to Freedman and not the S.Afrcan govt.

'show me where the South African govt bashes Israel every chance it gets...'

And if you think Freedman is not anti Israel then we are not going to get anywhere on this discussion.

EOM

[Violet_Crumble]

61. I asked you to explain to me how Seth Freedman is anti-Israel, and you didn't...

So I'll ask again. You posted a list of his articles as supposed proof he's *anti-Israel* and stated yr support for stripping the citizenship of Israelis who dare to criticise their own government.

Here's my question again:

Explain to me very carefully what is 'anti-Israel' about these articles you listed:

Repairing the world
May 19 2008: Seth Freedman: Members of Noam and Israel Activists show that Zionism can be about more than the interests of just one community (it's anti-Israel to write about Zionism being a multi-faceted thing??)

The continuing catastrophe
May 16 2008: Seth Freedman: Israel's anniversary celebrations were followed yesterday by a day of mourning for Palestinians, marking 60 years since the Nakba (it's anti-Israel to recognise the suffering of the Palestinian people???)

Citizens, but second-class
May 26 2008: Seth Freedman: The bedouins of the Negev desert carry Israeli ID, but they've been treated appallingly by the state of which they form a part (it's anti-Israel to talk about the bad treatment received by some Israeli citizens???)

A drip, drip solution?
Jun 17 2008: Seth Freedman: A British-run initiative in Bethlehem is trying to tackle the serious water shortages of Palestinians(and how is it anti-Israel to talk about an initiative to try to tackle water shortagtes??)

[notfullofit]

62. I am not going

to disseminate each article piece by piece, suffice it to say the following description sums it up for me and reflect my own 'personal' views of the man.......snip....

'It seems that in Seth Freedman's world, it doesn't take two to tango, and it doesn't take two to make peace. In much of his writing, the Palestinians are reduced to the role of Israel's victims, without any agency or responsibility of their own. It is precisely this approach that the Jerusalem Post editorial takes issue with by arguing that the prospects for peace are not helped by those who insist on ignoring "more than 60 years of Palestinian rejectionism, intransigence, self-defeating violence and denial of Jewish rights."



http://personel.obec.go.th/News/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL2NnaXMuanBvc3QuY29tL0Jsb2dzL0JpZ21hbi9lbnRyeS90aGVfaW5ldml0YWJsZV9yZWFjdGlvbl9wb3N0ZWRfYnk%3D

[Violet_Crumble]

63. But you claimed those articles showed he was *anti-Israel*...

Yet you refuse to explain *why* they make him anti-Israel. As I've pointed out, accusing someone of being anti-Israel coz they write articles about Zionism or water shortages is totally ridiculous and clearly doesn't make someone anti anything. Rather than parrot the words of a dingbat on a blog about Mr Freedman, I would have preferred that you back up yr accusation, which was that the articles you listed showed he was anti-Israel....

As to what you said about thinking his Israeli citizenship should be stripped from him. Israel, the US, and where I live are democracies. Fortunately most people understand that living in a democracy means that people aren't forced to agree with their government and they're not persecuted or punished for being critical of it. Hell, if yr desire to strip citizenship from people who criticise their govt was extended to Americans, you'd be wanting to see many DUers stripped of their US citizenship for daring to be critical of Bushco. And I was very critical of Australia's last government, but if anyone suggested that I be stripped of my citizenship for being critical, I'd be quite rightly slapping the label of fascist on them. When it comes to being *anti-Israel*, calls to strip citizenship of Israelis who are critical of their govt is pretty damn *anti-Israel*...

[notfullofit]

64. I did not

say his citizenship should be revoked, my exact words were "I'm suprised Israel has not revoked his Israeli passport by now"

as I said before, anyone who does not hold your POV mst be discounted i.e. your words above 'a dingbat on a blog ' nevetheless my opinion of Freedman and the whole of the Guardians CIF remain unchanged.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. Of course you suggested his citizenship should be revoked..

And from yr exact words, you agree with those who hold that view...

Yes, I know you've incorrectly claimed before that I think anyone who doesn't hold my POV must be discounted, and I recall pointing out to you before that unlike you who does very much do that, I use objectivity when looking at sources, which is why (unlike you) I've pointed out that there's both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian sources that are biased.

You can have whatever opinion you like. But don't go passing yr opinions off as facts or acting all bothered when people don't agree with dingbatty opinions. And most especially, don't expect to be taken seriously when you make accusations about people like Seth Freedman, then refuse to explain the basis for yr accusation...

[notfullofit]

66. Will you please point out where

I suggested his citizenship should be revoked.

[Violet_Crumble]

67. You posted it yrself just before...

You stated you were surprised Israel hadn't stripped him of his citizenship. I could either make the assumption that you have zero knowledge of Israel and think it's a place where citizens are stripped of their citizenship for daring to criticise their govt, or come to the obvious conclusion that you support such a thing being done to anyone you label 'anti-Israel'. And seeing as how you refuse to explain why the list of articles you posted links to are anti-Israel, I'm going to have to assume that 'anti-Israel' = disagreeing with the POV of 'notfullofit'...

[LeftishBrit]

77. Warning: here comes one of those posts where I end up disagreeing with almost everyone!

Firstly, revoking someone's passport is not the same thing as stripping them of citizenship; so notfullofit was not implying that. What it does mean is restricting people's right to travel freely.

Secondly, I do *not* think that Seth Freedman is anti-Israel. I think that he is critical of Israel in many ways, but to me 'anti-Israel' means believing that the state of Israel should not exist, or that it is responsible for a large number of the world's problems, or that it is a unique 'pariah state'. Freedman does not think any of these things. He does criticize a lot of Israeli actions and policies, and recommends many changes (and one might consider these recommendations justified, or idealistic to the point of being impractical and thus unfair, or even a bit of both!) But with all the really anti-Israel people around - Jonathan Cook, Robert Fisk, those who write for 'Counterpunch', Neturei Karta, not to mention many leaders in other Middle Eastern states - I think it's 'crying wolf' to call Freedman anti-Israel.

Thirdly, even if he were anti-Israel, I am not surprised that Israel don't revoke his passport. Israel isn't in the habit of restricting free speech, including even 'bad-mouthing' the state, to that extent; frankly the whole idea reminds me a bit of the Soviet Union in its heyday restricting the travel, in or out, of dissidents and critics of the state.

Fourthly, and importantly - and now I will annoy most of those who were NOT annoyed by the earlier part of my post - it's a very good thing that Israel do allow this sort of criticism and that they do not restrict or punish 'dissidents'. And it says something very good about Israel - and in particular it is in itself a disproof of the idea that keeps coming up that Israel is controlling, or trying to control, the media of other countries; that Israel and its friends are censoring and suppressing criticism; etc. If Israel is so lacking in political control of its *own* media, and its *own* journalists and critical citizens, etc. - what makes anyone think that it is controlling the media and censoring critical opinion elsewhere??????

[notfullofit]

78. I agree with

your fourth point, however my view of Freedman remains unchanged. He has a forum which is judged by many, to hold anti-Israel views and he uses that forum to knock Israel every chance he gets, often gets his facts wrong and only apologises when caught.

I've been told that I am stubborn and hard headed but I don't bury my head in the sand.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. Didn't you realise the dingbat is a CiF contributor?

Kind of blows yr nonsense about CiF being anti-Israel out of the water, doesn't it? Not that contributing to CiF makes her a dingbat, it's the way I've seen her strange little vendetta with Seth Freedman unravel in the comments sections of his articles...

[notfullofit]

69. I think

calling someone a dingbat puts you on the same level playing field as Archie Bunker.

[Violet_Crumble]

70. I'm so sorry the word 'dingbat' annoys you so!

She comes across as a dingbat in the comments section at CiF and there's nothing Archie Bunkerish about it. Now on the other hand I could see Archie Bunker expressing surprise that a democratic country doesn't strip citizenship from citizens who dare to criticise their govt! ;)

Anyway, now that little diversion's out of the way, I would like you to try to explain why you think articles about Zionism not being a one-dimensional thing and water shortages are *anti-Israel*

[notfullofit]

71. Sorry,

I've had enough, we will never see eye to eye so let's just leave it where it is and move on.

[Violet_Crumble]

72. Fine with me...

I'll see you the next time you accuse Seth Freedman of being anti-Israel....

[notfullofit]

73. Okie dokie.

[LeftishBrit]

37. Due to all the stories that come up about Britain...

I'm always a bit suspicious of reports that say that a trade union is 'boycotting' Israel. Usually, what's happened is that a group of unrepresentative activists have demanded that the trade union consider a boycott. Then either it's voted down or the union members simply ignore it.

Of course it may be that this case in South Africa is a bit more serious; it's just that there's been so much wolf-crying about unions in Britain, including my own, that I take such stories with a grain of salt.

If it *is* true, then I would suggest that the South African trade union activists might devote a little more time and attention to what's happening right next door to them in Zimbabwe!

[Violet_Crumble]

43. There'd better not be any talk about boycotting Zimbabwe!

I've learnt from posts in this forum that boycotting is a bad thing and means that people *hate* the country being boycotted ;)

How do you know whether or not South African trade unions are paying attention to what's happening in Zimbabwe? I'm guessing trade unions there are like over here and able to pay attention to more than one thing at a time...

[LeftishBrit]

45. I admit to knowing about as much about South African trade unions as most non-Brits know about our

trade unions! Which isn't a lot.

Very likely they are not boycotting Israel. Quite possibly they are criticizing Zimbabwe. Even MORE likely, they are in fact devoting most of their time and effort to trying to get decent pay and conditions for their members. Working-class people in South Africa don't exactly live like princes, and it's the job of the trade unions to prevent them going under completely.

My main point was really that we need to be highly sceptical about reports that trade union X in country Y is boycotting Israel. Usually they aren't.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. I agree the even MORE likely scenario would be most likely...

I mean, that's the reason trade unions exist. Like you I don't know much about South African trade unions, but I'd find it hard to believe that many trade unions could be as powerful and sometimes militant as the ones here (when I was a kid they were notorious for closing down the ports for long periods of time), but as far as I'm aware even our trade unions aren't boycotting any country currently...

[Violet_Crumble]

41. 'The ANC seeks solidarity with the many muslims in its base...'

If that sort of thing were to be said about Jews, for example:'The Democratic Party seeks solidarity with the many Jews in its base...', wouldn't that be jumped on and quite rightly called ignorant and maybe even verging on a bit bigoted sounding? So why does this sort of thing get ignored when it's said about Muslims?

[Sezu]

52. Uh, in case you were asleep, it IS said. ALL THE

TIME!!! Because it is true. So stop with the race baiting already.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. It's not said all the time...

The times I've seen it appear in posts, they've been deleted for being the bigoted tripe that they are. And it's not true that the Democratic Party or the ANC try to appeal to the many Jews or Muslims in their base for the blatantly obvious fact that for both parties and populations Jews (for the Democrats) and Muslims (for the ANC) are a small percentage of the population...

[azurnoir]

51. an article you could read

concerning the ANC and religion

The time is ripe to recognise the holy days of faiths other than Christianity as public holidays, according to the ANC. But in exchange for recognising the holidays of Hindus, Jews and Muslims, the party wants to do away with adding a Monday to a public holiday that falls on a Sunday.

http://www.vuya.net/?q=node/2143

[LeftishBrit]

38. Please read the full article! Another misleading headline here.

'The Independent' is better than most British newspapers, but it is inclined to sensational headlines that don't fit the actual articles.

Last paragraphs:

'The delegation's final formal statement made no mention of comparisons with apartheid and Judge Davis said he thought the use of the term in the Middle East context was "very unhelpful".

He added: "The level of social control I've seen here, separate roads, different number plates may well be more cynically pernicious than what we have ever had. But this is a country that is really about how there is going to be divorce and we were always a marriage." Ms Hassan herself said she thought the apartheid comparison was a potential "red herring".

Israelis point out there are no South-African-style laws segregating Israeli and East Jerusalem Arabs from Israeli Jews in public spaces.

The delegation yesterday urged international support for the "new and small movement of Palestinian-Israeli joint non-violent struggle". And its members stressed their understanding of Israeli security needs. Mr Feinstein said: "I completely understand the fears of Israelis ... but at the same time we have seen for ourselves and been told about all sorts of measures that don't seem to be in terms of security and in some instances could if anything undermine security of state."

The delegation also visited the Parents' Circle – a joint organisation of Israeli and Palestinian families bereaved by the conflict. Ms Hassan said this had been at once the most "depressing and inspiring" visit of the trip.'


So while some individuals made the 'apartheid' comparison, it was *not* present in the final report, and some members explicitly said it was unhelpful. They do criticize restrictions and injustices; and support joint Palestinian-Israeli nonviolent movements. I agree with that.

The Parents' Circle is indeed an inspiring organization coming out of tragedy. I recommend anyone here on either side to take a look at their site:

www.theparentscircle.org

[Violet_Crumble]

40. I did read the entire article and the headline isn't misleading at all...

The headline states 'this is like apartheid', obviously a quote from one of the delegation. That statement is supported by what the delegation said in the article:

'"Even with the system of permits, even with the limits of movement to South Africa, we never had as much restriction on movement as I see for the people here," said an ANC parliamentarian, Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge of the West Bank.'

'Mrs Madlala-Routledge, a former deputy health minister in President Thabo Mbeki's government, added: "While I want to be careful not to characterise everything that I see here as apartheid, I just do find comparisons in a number of places. I also find differences."'

'Fatima Hassan, a leading South African human rights lawyer, said: "The issue of separate roads, of cars driven by different nationalities, the indignity of producing a permit any time a soldier asks for it, and of waiting in long queues in the boiling sun at checkpoints just to enter your own city, I think is worse than what we experienced during apartheid."'

'One prominent member of the delegation, who declined to be named, said South Africa had been "much poorer" both during and after apartheid than the Palestinian territories. But he added: "The daily indignity to which the Palestinian population is subjected far outstrips the apartheid regime. And the effectiveness with which the bureaucracy implements the repressive measures far exceed that of the apartheid regime."'

[LeftishBrit]

42. What is misleading is the implication that this is the overall consensus of the group.

I agree that it doesn't actually say so. But that's the impression that people can pick up.

Personally, I think that whether a situation can be compared to 'apartheid' depends on how strictly one defines 'apartheid'. If it is defined as 'segregation, to the disadvantage of at least one group concerned', then lots of situations, including that in the West Bank, could be called apartheid. If it is defined in terms of an elaborate system of law requiring such segregation on a permanent basis, then far fewer situations fit that description.

I don't think there's a close analogy overall between Israel/ Occupied Territories and South Africa. In South Africa, the point was to reform the political and legal system within a country; in Israel, to end the occupation and establish a new independent Palestinian state.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Well, it does seem to have been the overall consensus of the group...

In the article they said it was like apartheid, and one of them said there were similarities and differences, and I agree with that call...

I think there is a lot of similarities to apartheid happening in the West Bank. The point of the Israeli government in doing what it does isn't to end the occupation and establish a new independent Palestinian state. To do that, instead of limiting the movement of Palestinians and subjecting them to a bunch of discriminatory practises, they should be starting by hauling those settlers by the scruff of their necks back to Israel...

[Scurrilous]

74. Bishara tells youths: Israel an Apartheid state

Former Balad chairman accused of aiding Hizbullah speaks to party's youth via video conference, slams Israel for using Arabs' citizenship status as weapon, admonishes authorities for tying it in to political allegiance

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3569845,00.html

<snip>

"Former MK and Balad Chairman Azmi Bishara, who is currently residing in Qatar, delivered an address to the party's youth convention on Thursday via video conference.

The former MK fled Israel last year, after being accused of treason and aiding and abetting the enemy - Hizbullah – during the Second Lebanon War.

The speech was said to be the highlight of the evening, which was held in a Nazareth Illit (Upper Nazareth) hotel and was titled "No to National Service."

The matter of Arab youths, who are exempt from mandatory IDF service, volunteering for National Service, is a volatile subject: Just nine months ago, current Balad Chairman, MK Jamal Zahalka announced that anyone in the Arab sector volunteering for the service would be considered a pariah.

Following the party's fierce objections, its youth movement launched a "prevention campaign," going around Arab communities and informing their peers – who may have been contemplating joining the National Service – the Israel's promises that volunteering would make them eligible for certain benefits, were empty ones.

Bishara began his speech by reminding his listeners he no longer has holds official position in the party, adding "you are the Palestinian people's political future and we are all counting on you."