Israel faces South African-style boycott over barrier

[Just Me]

- snip -


"There is a danger that we will be exposed to an international boycott as was the case before the fall of the regime in South Africa," Justice Minister Tommy Lapid told Sunday's cabinet meeting, his spokesman Tzahi Moshe told AFP.


Lapid, who is also a deputy prime minister, said the government should "have another look" at the route of the barrier which has attracted widespread international condemnation as it juts deep into Palestinian territory.


The UN General Assembly has referred the barrier to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague (news - web sites) which is expected to begin hearings on February 23.


In a resolution passed by 90 votes to eight with 74 abstentions on December 8, the assembly asked the ICJ to rule on the legal consequences of the barrier "which Israel, the occupying power, is constructing in occupied Palestinian territory".

- more -


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1515&ncid=1515&e=2&u=/afp/20040104/wl_mideast_afp/mideast_israel_barrier_040104125015

[The Zanti Regent]

1. Mr Sharon, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL

It was WRONG to put a wall around Berlin.

It is WRONG to put a wall around Palestinians.

It is WRONG for the American Taxpayer to finance Sicko Sharon.

[corporatewhore]

3. my thoughts exactly

[Zhade]

4. AMEN!

I am disgusted by this Apartheid Wall, and the hurt caused to Palestinians and Israelis by militants on both sides of the issue.

I pray I will see this wall destroyed in my time.

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. You must be kidding

Mr. Sharon, please allow Palestinian terrorists to kill Israeli children.

I think I will go out and by some Israeli products.

[kalian]

8. You must be kidding

right back at you.

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. Wow, the echo defense

[The Zanti Regent]

15. How many Palestinian children has Sharon killed?

Think about that.

Google it.

Sharon is a sick fuck.

[Gimel]

17. So here you're talking about a wall period

You don't care if it's on Israeli soil or not. It will surround the PA, and that's what you are opposing. Only a fraction of the wall intrudes over the Green Line. Minister Lapid does not oppose the wall. He only says it will draw international condemnation if it is over the Green Line, and if the Hague court rules against it.

The same story is online at haaretzdaily.com, for those who want to get a closer look at what was actually said by Lapid, not a second hand reiteration.

On edit: The quotation from Lapid
"we didn't suffice with the original fence, but changed its route, which has become a matter of international dispute."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/379371.html

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Only a fraction?

You make it sound as though only a tiny little bit is just going to happen to stray into Palestinian territory, but around 12% isn't 'only a fraction'. It's a fair sized chunk of the West Bank, and I imagine some people who have no problem with the route would be screaming blue murder if even 0.0001% of Israel was left on the Palestinian side...

Lapid is absolutely correct that the wall is drawing international condemnation with the route it will be taking. And his issue with the wall is the same as that of many people, not that the wall itself is being built, but that it's not following the Green Line...

Violet...

[Gimel]

21. I don't see that

None of the comments above mention that the wall is fine if on the Green Line. They call it Apartheid. Would it be any less of a division if it were a few feet or meters to the west?

The wall is being discussed, and on this forum it appears to have international condemnation. I'm not sure that that is in fact the case. All of the EU abstained from the vote in the UN, you'll recall.

The reduced threat of terror make it worth while for Israelis and for peace in the ME.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Maybe you should give people a chance to say what they think?

It appears to me yr jumping to conclusions based on what one person hasn't said. Have you just happened not to have noticed the many times regular posters in this forum have said that they don't oppose a wall, but oppose the route it's taking? The Palestinian PM even offered to pay for it's construction if it was built along the Green Line...

I've asked you quite a few times and you've never answered. Would you be opposed to this wall if it was built on a route that left around 12% of Israel on the Palestinian side?

I doubt that the EU abstaining from a UN vote indicates that there's a lack of international condemnation for the path the wall's taking. After all, the vote was on whether to refer the issue to the ICJ, not on whether they were opposed to the wall or not...

And you still haven't given any sort of explanation as to why the wall along the route it's taking gives Israel greater security than it would if built along the Green Line. It seems logical that building it along the Green Line would give Israel greater security, as large numbers of those pesky possible suicide-bombing Palestinians wouldn't find themselves caught between the wall and the Green Line...

Violet...

[Gimel]

23. People have the chance

The site offers that, thanks to the owners of DU. I don't need to invite them. Look at post 1 in the thread, for example. Is there any opportunity to assume that if the Peace Fence were moved to exactly the Green Line there would be any other interpretation? Would the Wall still resemble the Berlin Wall to them? Would it still divide the Israelis from the potential suicide bombers?

I think your question, although hypothetical, is unanswerable, because it is based on false suppositions. I personally think the Green Line route would have been better, and I've said so before, so I think that your idea to propose making the wall go through Haifa and along the coast line - which is about all it could do to take 12% of Israel. Anyway, that estimation is a gross exaggeration. Only about 1.7 percent of the wall intrudes into the area within the Green Line.

Stages A and B of the construction of the separation fence have led to the annexation of 1.7 percent, or some 60 square kilometers, of the West Bank. On completion of the fence at the end of 2005, around 6 percent, or some 200 square kilometers, of the West Bank will lie within Israel, a defense source said yesterday during a meeting with members of the Public Council for the Construction of the Separation Fence.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/379370.html

There is no rule that I am required to answer any question you propose. You've never answered my questions about your relationship to the native indigenous people of Australia.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Yes, and you can ask them to state their views...

Message boards are real handy for doing that. That way people don't get into 'reading between the lines' mode and don't attribute views to people that they may not hold...

No, Gimel. The proposed route of the wall will cut into approximately 12% of Palestinian territory. What's been built already may well be only 1.7%, though I think unnamed defence sources can't really be taken with anything but a grain of salt...

I don't really see why it's too hard to answer my question. You support the wall cutting into Palestinian territory, so why wouldn't you support it cutting into Israel?

No, did I ever say you HAD to answer questions you were asked? I don't think I did. What I do hope for though is that people who are genuinelly interested in having a constructive discussion will try to answer questions. That's how discussions happen, after all...

What questions about my relationship to indigenous Australians haven't I answered? Could you give me a link? I'm not really sure what my relationship with indigenous Australians has to do with the I/P conflict, but I'm flexible and can talk indigenous issues till the cows come home :)

Violet...

[Forkboy]

20. Mr Sharon,build that wall on your own damn land!

[Jacobin]

2. I read somewhere that Congress had actually made a boycott

of Israel by Americans illegal. Not sure exactly how that would be enforced, but if true, it typifies the mindset of those who are pushing Armageddon-think to the extreme, on behalf of our entire country.

[Just Me]

5. How would that NOT be a violation of free speech?

A congressional prohibition against boycotting ANY of Sharon's policies? Is that actually "law"? I cannot imagine such a law withstanding judicial scrutiny.

[Zhade]

6. You are correct.

Here's the official website for the Office of Antiboycott Compliance.

From the site:

What do the Laws Prohibit?

Conduct that may be penalized under the TRA and/or prohibited under the EAR includes:

Agreements to refuse or actual refusal to do business with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.

Agreements to discriminate or actual discrimination against other persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin or nationality.

Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about business relationships with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.

Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person.

Implementing letters of credit containing prohibited boycott terms or conditions.

The TRA does not "prohibit" conduct, but denies tax benefits ("penalizes") for certain types of boycott-related agreements.

[Just Me]

13. Shitza,...

,...crazy!!!

[kalian]

10. Isn't that grand...and how "free"....

:eyes:

[Jim Sagle]

11. By boycotting Israel, the international community would be declaring

its own moral bankruptcy.

[Just Me]

14. Huh?

Sorry,...whoosh over my head.

[Zhade]

16. The same morals that support financing a war criminal like Sharon?

NT!

[Forkboy]

18. Boycotts RAWK dude!

[methinks2]

12. Nice to hear

that they are seeing the light over there. Violence only begets more violence. I believe it was Ghandi who said that an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind. Can't remember the exact quote but I'm sure my meaning comes across.