Comment: Israel follows its own law, not bigoted Hague decision

[drdon326]

Contrast this with the questionable status of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. No Israeli judge may serve on that court as a permanent member, while sworn enemies of Israel serve among its judges, several of whom represent countries that do not abide by the rule of law.

Virtually every democracy voted against that court's taking jurisdiction over the fence case, while nearly every country that voted to take jurisdiction was a tyranny. Israel owes the International Court absolutely no deference. It is under neither a moral nor a legal obligation to give any weight to its predetermined decision.
The Supreme Court of Israel recognized the unquestionable reality that the security fence has saved numerous lives and promises to save more, but it also recognized that this benefit must be weighed against the material disadvantages to West Bank Palestinians. The International Court, on the other hand, discounted the saving of lives and focused only on the Palestinian interests. By showing its preference for Palestinian property rights over the lives of Jews, the International Court displayed its bigotry.

The International Court of Justice is much like a Mississippi court in the 1930s. The all-white Mississippi court, which excluded blacks from serving on it, could do justice in disputes between whites, but it was incapable of doing justice in cases between a white and a black. It would always favor white litigants. So, too, the International Court. It is perfectly capable of resolving disputes between Sweden and Norway, but it is incapable of doing justice where Israel is involved, because Israel is the excluded black when it comes to that court – indeed when it comes to most United Nations organs.

A judicial decision can have no legitimacy when rendered against a nation that is willfully excluded from the court's membership by bigotry.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1089516095976
.................................................................

must read.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wakfs]

2. Yet you fail to address this specific comment

In the original post:

"Contrast this with the questionable status of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. No Israeli judge may serve on that court as a permanent member, while sworn enemies of Israel serve among its judges, several of whom represent countries that do not abide by the rule of law."

Well, what say you to this? Seems like some lopsided "justice" to me.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. How about this? That specific comment was complete crap...

No surprises there, considering the right-wing source it's come from...

No Israeli judge may serve on the court as a permanent member? Uh, hello? No Israeli judges? There's judges who have permanent terms? Where is that crap coming from? Here's some fact from the ICJ website:

The Court is composed of 15 judges elected to nine-year terms of office by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council sitting independently of each other. It may not include more than one judge of any nationality. Elections are held every three years for one-third of the seats, and retiring judges may be re-elected. The Members of the Court do not represent their governments but are independent magistrates.

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation/icjgnnot.html

Uh, Israel doesn't abide by the rule of law, so it seems bizarre that you'd be complaining that a judge from a country that doesn't abide by international law should be allowed to serve, but then say a judge from other countries that don't abide by international law shouldn't. And to clarify it for those who need that sort of clarification, if 'abiding by international law' only applies to binding SC and ICJ rulings, doesn't that also apply to other countries? And does that mean that there's not grave violations of international law going on in the Sudan right now?

Anyway, lovely to see the author of that crappy little article singlehandedly pooh-pooh every decision ever made by the ICJ. Just think, if the decision had gone the other way, these idiots would be the first to demand that everyone respect the decisions handed down by the same court they now try and cast a slur on :shrug:

Violet...

[Gimel]

9. Advisory opinion

Like the General Assembly "orders" telling Israel what to do, the courts ruling is only advisory, so ignoring it is not breaking international law. Yes, the GOI puts the lives of it's citizens above obeying advisory opinions.

[drdon326]

11. 'Our graveyards hold the reasons for the fence'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/11/wmid11.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/11/ixworld.html

[Violet_Crumble]

12. That was an interesting op piece...

It was devoid of the frothing at the mouth stuff that I'd expected. The writer works from the view that the path of the barrier is Israel's new frontier. If that's the case, Israel would no longer be a democracy, as those Palestinians between the Green Line and the barrier would not be citizens of Israel, but have to apply to the Israeli military to keep living where they've always lived...

Some other interesting comments that I'm sure you totally agree with:

"It is hard for many to sympathise with Israel's security fears as long as it seems committed to territorial expansion - each day, settlements grow on the West Bank."

and

"World opinion recoils from the ruthlessness with which the line of the barrier is being drawn, dividing Palestinian shepherds from their grazing and villagers from their neighbours. Few Israelis are troubled by these details."

Violet...

[Gimel]

13. Rhetoric

"It is hard for many to sympathise with Israel's security fears as long as it seems committed to territorial expansion - each day, settlements grow on the West Bank."

Mere rhetoric. The world keeps growing day by day.


"World opinion recoils from the ruthlessness with which the line of the barrier is being drawn, dividing Palestinian shepherds from their grazing and villagers from their neighbours. Few Israelis are troubled by these details."


The Israel high court decision reveals otherwise. That wasn't mentioned in this article I noticed, which was probably written before that decision was published.

[The Magistrate]

32. No And Yes, Ma'am

The settlements on land overrun in '67 ought not to be expanded. There are three forms of expansion: the natural increase of families giving birth, the arrival of newly recruited occupants, and the establishment of new settlements. The first is reasonable, the rest not, with the last cause being illegal even under Israeli law in most instances. At minimum the Israeli government ought to cease subsidizing new arrivals in the settlementsm and would do Israel a power of good if ceased all subsidization, both indirect and direct, of persons residing outside the bounds of Israel proper. The continual pressing for more and more land is wrong, and it must cease.

There is no room for doubt that the course of the security barrier has been calculated not for military advantage, but as a de facto annexation of land to Israel. The judges of the High Court of Israel recognized this, and are to be commended for doing so. But their decision, if my understanding of it is correct, applies only to a particular stretch of the thing in the environs of Jerusalem, and that is not the only place where the barrier's course is abusive.

[drdon326]

3. Riiiiight.....no response to the the article.

.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Trajan]

7. AGAIN: ...

ANOTHER post deleted ... and why ? ..

Because it criticized the VIEWS of the original poster ....

THOSE posts should NOT HAVE BEEN DELETED ...

[Lithos]

42. Trajan, and everyone else

There is a not so fine line between criticism of a post and the person themself. Posts get deleted because they cross that line.

Such was the case here, talking about "VIEWS" is the same as talking about a poster.

If you have an issue, please post either in the Ask the Administrator's forum or directly to an Admin.

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground.

[drdon326]

8. "The ICJ is much like a Mississippi court in the 1930s. "

Well said.....this was a kangaroo court that has no legitimacy.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Why did the author of the article lie?

It'd help if the idiot who wrote the article had done the most basic bit of research into the Court before they started writing that article, don't ya reckon?

Violet...

[IndianaGreen]

14. I see no difference between Sharon's Israel and DeKlerk's South Africa.

They were both rogue nations with their own version of apartheid! Both were supported by the US, for different reasons. Opponents of apartheid were labeled as terrorists, just as opponents of the Occupation are today.

[drdon326]

15. WOW....

Perhaps if you TOTALLY ignore the fact that:

1.israel arabs have voting rights
2.israel arabs enjoy a level of peace and prosperity
that is the envy of its neighbors
3.more religious freedom is practiced in israel than in any
of its neighbors


Indy....you there??......hello, Indy??

where did Indy go??....oh, drive by posting.

[pop goes the weasel]

16. Same could be said about the South in the 1930s

1.Blacks have voting rights
2.Blacks enjoy a level of peace and prosperity that is the envy of African nations
3.more religious freedom is practiced in the South than in any
African nation"

In fact, these things were said by racists to justify Jim Crow treatment of black Americans.

Why don't you tell us all if Israeli Arabs have equal rights to Israeli Jews? You know the answer is "no," so you don't want to bring that up.

[drdon326]

17. Then read for yourself how israeli arabs feel about the fence

Israeli Arabs credit fence for newfound prosperity

"God be blessed, the fence ended the parade of terrorists through this city and gave us an economic boom and increased security," says Umm el-Fahm City Manager Tawfiq Karaman."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1087441302553

.......................................................

[pop goes the weasel]

23. I had already read that article

and it proves nothing except that some Arabs who have carved out nice positions of power for themselves under the current regime agree publicly with Israeli policy.

You are avoiding a direct question. Are Arabs equal citizens in Israel?

[Proudlib]

33. Huh!?!?

In what South was this fantasy?


"1.Blacks have voting rights"

No they didn't. Blacks in the South were shot if they tried to register to vote, much less actually practice their right. It took the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to finally put an end to the deliberate act of not allowing blacks to vote (the brief period of Reconstruction excepted).

"2.Blacks enjoy a level of peace and prosperity that is the envy of African nations"

No they didn't. Blacks in the South, save for a small minority, lived in poverty and at the mercy of the white plantation owners. The difference between being a black sharecropper and a slave was that on paper the sharecropper was supposed to get paid. But the whites who did all of bookkeeping cooked the books so much that a sharecropper would be lucky to see any money come payout time, much less buy a child a new pair of shoes for Christmas. If anything, the white owners made sure that black families stayed in debt for generations.

"3.more religious freedom is practiced in the South than in any
African nation"

Yeah, whatever.

"In fact, these things were said by racists to justify Jim Crow treatment of black Americans."

No they weren't. Racists justfied Jim Crow on the basis of racial superiority. They made no other pretext.

[pop goes the weasel]

34. In this one here in this dimension

The one I live in. I heard this crap from elderly relatives when I was a kid. If you don't know this is what was said, then you are in living in a dreamworld. They justified the two-tiered system of citizenship, and that the rights on paper were not the same as the rights allowed, by trotting out the argument that Southern blacks had life better than blacks elsewhere. So, you see why I am not persuaded by the argument that Israeli Arabs have it better than other Arabs. Do they have it the same as Israeli Jews?

[The Magistrate]

35. However, Ma'am

The pricipal point you chose to engage on was mistaken. There is no particular difficulty experienced by Israeli Arabs in voting, or in other forms of political expression not aimed at the overthrow of the state. Arab Israelis have always exercised the franchise, there have always been Arab party lists, and Arab politicians elected to and serving in the Knesset. This was not true of the Jim Crow south.

[pop goes the weasel]

51. You still don't answer my question

Do Arab Israelis have the same rights as Jewish Israelis? This is my principal point. Saying that they can do this thing and that thing is not the same as saying they have the same rights. Do they have the same access to citizenship? The same rights to property? Are they treated the same by the courts? No one will answer that, and I'm left suspecting that some pigs are more equal than others.

This is quite apart from whether there should be a security fence or what form it should take. (Personally, I think it solves nothing in the long run, though I understand the desire to have a short-run solution.)

[The Magistrate]

55. In That Question, Ma'am

One must confront some differences between legal prescription and actual social condidtions. The point of both Jim Crow and Afrikaner apartheid was the existence of legal prescription of unequal status. Arab citizens of Israel have the same rights to vote, hold property securely, and to access the courts, as do Jewish citizens. The Jewish National Trust, which holds title to a great deal of land in Israel, will generally not lease to any non-Jew, but this is not quite a governmental organization, as its charter dates to the earliest days of organized Zionism. It is legal for a Jewish community to bar non-Jews, and this element of legal residential segregation is, in my view, a decided blemish.

Social practice is something else. There is a good deal of practical, private discrimination against Arab citizens in questions of employment and similar matters. There has often been in Israel, for that matter, a good deal of the same by Jews of Western origin against Jews who arrived from Middle Eastern countries. The identification of the Labor bloc with Jews of Western origin is one of the reasons Likud receives the support of many Jews of Middle Eastern origin, who turned to it out of resentment of such treatment. This sort of thing, however, strikes me as a general human flaw, and has little weight as a thing to rouse particular outrage at Israel. The list of societies that do not have some minority element subject to some discriminatory social practice would be a damned short one....

[Classical_Liberal]

61. Arabs on the West Bank don't have a right to vote

and they represent the vast majority. It is true that about 10% of blacks manage to vote despite official segragation. Same goes for blacks under apartheid. They even served in the legislature.

[The Magistrate]

66. They Are Not Citizens Of Israel, Ma'am

Why should they vote in its elections? Show me a country anywhere in the world that allows persons who are not citizens to cast a ballot at its polls.

[Classical_Liberal]

69. That is the entire point

Israel governs them and settles its citizens there, but doesn't give them the right to vote. Israel calls the territories disputed, names them Judia and Samaria as if they are official provinces, and won't give them up. How is that different from South African Apartheid? Most blacks weren't allowed to be citizens either. Fort that matter blacks in this country were only 3/5 citizens. Why do you think not giving people who live in a country citizenship is admirable?

[The Magistrate]

70. It Is No Point At All, Ma'am

The territories you refer to were overrun in war. None of the inhabitants at that time were citizens of Israel, nor had any desire to be. Occupation of the area continues today because a state of de facto war continues to exist, and military occupation is conceived as a measure essential to the protection of the people of Israel in that war by their government. Whether you realize it or not, you are arguing for the annexation of the territories in toto by Israel, and the imposition of Israeli citizenship on the populace residing there. That would be a rather flagrant breach of international law....

[Classical_Liberal]

72. Then why the hell did Israel build houses for it's citizens there

, and why didn't they make the citizens leave it back when they had relative peace? Words are meaningless to me. I look at actions. Israel's actions tell me they consider the West Bank theirs. IF it isn't theirs they should leave, if it is they should give the Palestinians citzenship. It's that simple.

[Djinn]

74. exactly

if the land is occupied because of a defacto war then Israel should not be providing services for it's citizens who choose to live in an area that is NOT part of Israel. If any other citizen of any other nation leaves the boundaries of teh nation they are citizens of then the govt usually stop providing for them with taxpayers money.

It is not enough for Israel to claim they do not "move" the settlers there and that settlers go of their own volition (it's also disengenous but that's another story) if Israel continues to pay for services for the settlers AND to allow them to vote then it is in action colonising the OT.

[Classical_Liberal]

63. In fact 10% of Southern Blacks passed the literacy tests and manage

to vote even during Jim Crow. The one who is being misleading here is DRDon. He talks about ARab citizens being allowed to vote and neglects to mention that most aren't given citizenship, and are actually treated worse than blacks, in that people in the South weren't allowed to steal their property.

[The Magistrate]

67. History, Ma'am, Really Is Not Your Strong Point

Theft of property from Blacks who had managed to acquire it was a routine feature of those days, with methods ranging from K.K.K. brutalities to more elegant legal work.

The problem you have here, Ma'am, is that you are endeavoring to demonstrate somehow that there is something unique and horrible about the actions of Israel, that dwarfs just about any other human misbehavior, and since this is not true, your efforts to demonstrate it will always fail....

[Classical_Liberal]

68. In comparing it to Jim Crow I am hardly demonstrating it's uniqueness

Never the less, destroying homes and moving settlers in would be more comparible to the American Indian wars than the treatment of blacks. That is just a fact. Apartheid would also be a more apt comparison.

[The Magistrate]

71. What You Are Doing, Ma'am

Is attempting by comparison to demonstrate it is worse. That effort, being an attempt to demonstrate something false, will invariably fail.

[Classical_Liberal]

73. It is worse than Jim Crow in certain respects.

.

[Classical_Liberal]

62. Accept most Arabs over 90% in fact aren't given citizenship

and don't have the right to vote at all.

[Fight_n_back]

28. If you really feel that way

then I am dissapointed by your lack of action. People organized huge boycotts against South Africa, people organized marches while you do nothing here.

Of course, your friends in Syria and Saudi Arabia don't get accussed of aprtheid because they eliminated all Jews from their countries.

[drdon326]

30. OHHH!!....thats different because...

syria and SA are free to do anything they want with total
impugnity.....no UN sanction....no ICJ ruling.

Indy???....still there??

[IndianaGreen]

31. Campaign to Divest from Israel

http://www.divestment.org/divestment/index.php

Joint Harvard-MIT Petition for Divestment from Israel

We, the undersigned are appalled by the human rights abuses against Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli government, the continual military occupation and colonization of Palestinian territory by Israeli armed forces and settlers, and the forcible eviction from and demolition of Palestinian homes, towns and cities. We find the recent attacks on Israeli citizens unacceptable and abhorrent. But these should not and do not negate the human rights of the Palestinians.

As members of the MIT and Harvard University communities, we believe that our universities ought to use their influence - political and financial - to encourage the United States government and the government of Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians. We therefore call on the US government to make military aid and arms sales to Israel conditional on immediate initiation and rapid progress in implementing the conditions listed below. We also call on MIT and Harvard to divest from Israel, and from US companies that sell arms to Israel, until these conditions are met:

Israel is in compliance with United Nations Resolution 242 which notes the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, and which calls for withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from occupied territories.

Israel is in compliance with the United Nations Committee Against Torture 2001 Report which recommends that Israel's use of legal torture be ended.

More...

http://www.harvardmitdivest.org/

[Fight_n_back]

39. I know other people are doing it

I was talking about you...


and of course, you are fighting for divestature from Saudi Arabia as well.

[Classical_Liberal]

64. Divestiture in Saudi Arabia via energy independence

is the only advantage I will get from voting for Kerry. He will kiss Israeli butt just the same though.

[bex]

76. Thank you for your post

The truth about Palestine will come out eventually. This is just a moment in time.

[MariaS]

18. There is a Documentary

entitled "Israel's Shattered Dreams" that I watched last weekend and I would highly recommend for anyone who is interested in the Israeli/Palestinian issue. It is told from the prospective of Israelis and Palestinians and gave to me an added perspective of the conflict.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. Dershowitz lies here

"Virtually every democracy voted against that court's taking jurisdiction over the fence case, while nearly every country that voted to take jurisdiction was a tyranny."

In fact, a total of 8 countries voted against the court giving the opinion: Australia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States. 90 voted in favour, and 74 abstained. The full list is here. Most democracies abstained; but several, like Brazil and India, voted 'for'.

[drdon326]

20. Lets publish who did/did not want this to go to ICJ...

In favor: Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela.

Absent: Afghanistan, Angola, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tuvalu.
====================================================================

NICE to see Sudan( thats involved in slavery) ans sausi arabia(that treats women like 3 class citizens and practices religious discrimination) are allowed to pass judgement on a country that practices NONE of those things.

[Jack Rabbit]

21. This is too typical of Dershowitz on this issue

Dershowitz is a trial lawyer and he's acting like one. It is not his job to present a fair and balanced view of matters, only to present those facts that support his client's case; he leaves it up to advocates of the adversary to present facts favorable to their case.

Dershowitz is also acting like a trial lawyer in one other respect. As they say: if the facts are against you, pound on the law; if the law is against you, pound on the facts; if the facts and the law are against you, pound on the table. Dershowitz is reduced to pounding on the table.

The court ruled that Israel has no right to build the wall so deep in occupied territory. The rule of law that is applied is the Fourth Geneva Convention, The Hague convention of 1907 and other bodies of international law. The ICJ did not rule that Israel has no right to build a wall; only that it had to be constructed in what is Israeli territory.

The ruling is a sound application of the facts to the law. Dershowitz is responds by calling the entire institution racist. He has nothing else to do except present along, ugly rant.

[drdon326]

22. I respectfully disagree.

This only got to the IJC thru a UN vote (big surprise how the
vote turned out) and Israel lost in the IJC....THE SAME IJC that
practically ignored the reason for the wall in the first place.

This is a free forum and you can bash Dershowitz but his liberal
credentials are pretty much forged in steel....and I agree with him that the ICJ is incapable of exercising fairness in this case.

"The International Court of Justice is much like a Mississippi court in the 1930s. The all-white Mississippi court, which excluded blacks from serving on it, could do justice in disputes between whites, but it was incapable of doing justice in cases between a white and a black. It would always favor white litigants. So, too, the International Court. It is perfectly capable of resolving disputes between Sweden and Norway, but it is incapable of doing justice where Israel is involved, because Israel is the excluded black when it comes to that court – indeed when it comes to most United Nations organs."

see this article if the "facts" don't match:

ISRAEL'S ANTI-TERROR FENCE:
THE WORLD COURT CASE

The UN General Assembly (GA) resolution asking the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory opinion is actually a request for an endorsement of an already-stated political opinion of the GA. The ICJ lacks jurisdiction over the case because the GA has dictated the desired result. The court is not authorized to make endorsements of the GA's political opinions dressed in legal garb.

The security fence is a necessary and proportional response to a campaign of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Palestinians. If the fence were built along the 1949 armistice line (the "green line"), it would not achieve Israel's legitimate security goal of protecting its citizens.

The "green line" from 1949 bounding the West Bank is solely a defunct military line demarcating the extent of the Transjordanian invasion of Israel in 1948. Indeed, at the insistence of Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, each of the armistice agreements of 1949 specified that the ceasefire lines were not borders and that neither side relinquishes its territorial claims.

The fence does not violate the Fourth Geneva Convention because the convention does not apply to the West Bank, a territory of disputed sovereignty to which Israel has the strongest claim, and which was not previously possessed by a legitimate sovereign.

Even if the Convention applied, a fence that controls movement of civilians does not violate it; the Convention permits occupying states to take necessary and proportional steps for security purposes.

The resort to the International Court of Justice by the PLO is itself a violation of the Oslo Accords. Under Oslo, any disputes must be resolved by negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians, by agreed-upon conciliation, or agreed-upon arbitration.

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp513.htm






(LITHOS....In no way should my disagreement with Jack be construed as
a personal attack.)

[drdon326]

24. BTW....The authors....

Laurence E. Rothenberg is a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. The former editor-in-chief of the Harvard International Law Journal, he is the author of numerous articles, studies, and book chapters on international law, globalization, and U.S. military strategy.

Abraham Bell is a member of the Faculty of Law at Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, where he specializes in international, property, and administrative law. He has taught as a visiting professor at Fordham University Law School, and delivered lectures on legal aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict at Harvard, Columbia, NYU, the University of Chicago, and numerous other universities

[Jack Rabbit]

25. Response

The security fence is a necessary and proportional response to a campaign of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Palestinians. If the fence were built along the 1949 armistice line (the "green line"), it would not achieve Israel's legitimate security goal of protecting its citizens.

It is true that a security fence is at least a reasonable response to a campaign of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by the Palestinians against Israeli civilians. The issue is whether this security fence is necessary. It is not. A security fence built on the Green Line would also provide security to Israel and be consistent with the applicable law.

The "green line" from 1949 bounding the West Bank is solely a defunct military line demarcating the extent of the Transjordanian invasion of Israel in 1948. Indeed, at the insistence of Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, each of the armistice agreements of 1949 specified that the ceasefire lines were not borders and that neither side relinquishes its territorial claims.

The Green Line has served as a border between Israel and the West Bank, whether the West Bank be thought of as a part of Jordan or as a Palestinian territory not Incorporated into a state, since the armistice of 1949. It should be treated as such. Whether thought of as a border in the formal sense or not, it would be the starting point for negotiations for the final resolution of a border. Until those issues are resolved, no one has the right to make unilateral claims over territory on the other side.

The fence does not violate the Fourth Geneva Convention because the convention does not apply to the West Bank, a territory of disputed sovereignty to which Israel has the strongest claim, and which was not previously possessed by a legitimate sovereign.

This statement is simply false. There is no disputed sovereignty over the West Bank. It is not part of the modern state of Israel and never has been. If Mr. Dershowitz claims otherwise, then he should learn to read a map. The Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the West Bank and Gaza. Those territories are occupied, not in the least bit disputed.

Even if the Convention applied, a fence that controls movement of civilians does not violate it; the Convention permits occupying states to take necessary and proportional steps for security purposes.

Dershowitz begs a question that has already been resolved in this post. Israel has no right to construct a security wall deep inside occupied territory, period.

The resort to the International Court of Justice by the PLO is itself a violation of the Oslo Accords. Under Oslo, any disputes must be resolved by negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians, by agreed-upon conciliation, or agreed-upon arbitration.

This would essentially leave the Palestinian people at the mercy of the Israeli High Court for relief from the arbitrary whims of an Israeli government bent on throwing Palestinians out of their homes to make way for housing in which they cannot live accessed on roads on which they cannot travel. There is something wrong with that picture. The Palestinians cannot rely on Israeli courts for relief. Much like Mississippi courts of the 1930s, the Israeli justice system simply does not recognize Palestinians as people with equal rights. The justice system has been manipulated by the Israelis to the advantage of the cause of the settlers, as B'Tselem has found:

The process employed in taking control of land breaches the basic principles of due procedure and natural justice. In many cases, Palestinian residents were unaware that their land was registered in the name of the state, and by the time they discovered this fact, it was too late to appeal. The burden of proof always rests with the Palestinian claiming ownership of the land. Even if he meets this burden, the land may still be registered in the name of the state on the grounds that it was transferred to the settlement "in good faith."

With the Israeli justice system stacked against them, the Palestinians have nothing better to do but to seek justice elsewhere. That they have done.

Since the West Bank is occupied territory, the Fourth Geneva Convention applies. Since Israel could build a security barrier on its own territory rather than Palestinian territory, the present structure is not a necessary and proportional response to terrorism.

The ruling Of the ICJ is a sound application of the facts to the law. Mr. Dershowitz' rant won't change that.

[drdon326]

27. So much to respond....but 2 points

"It is true that a security fence is at least a reasonable response to a campaign of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by the Palestinians against Israeli civilians. The issue is whether this security fence is necessary. It is not. A security fence built on the Green Line would also provide security to Israel and be consistent with the applicable law."

I agree with you that the fence is "a reasonable response to a campaign of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by the Palestinians against Israeli civilians". However while I would defer to your knowledge of weapons and security , i would remind you that kassam rockets/bombs would hit major centers in jerusalem if the fence were at the green line. The 4th convention CLEARLY allows for self-defense.




"Even if the Convention applied, a fence that controls movement of civilians does not violate it; the Convention permits occupying states to take necessary and proportional steps for security purposes.

Dershowitz begs a question that has already been resolved in this post. Israel has no right to construct a security wall deep inside occupied territory, period."

I think the problem i have is your wording....the fence is not "deep
inside the occupied terrories" . The fourth geneva convention as you know allows for security and the proof against your statement is that
the fence is on the green line at certain places and several miles outside the green line where appropriate.

[Jack Rabbit]

29. Response

I would remind you that kassam rockets/bombs would hit major centers in jerusalem if the fence were at the green line. The 4th convention CLEARLY allows for self-defense.

Indeed, it does. Israel might be able to justify variations of the route of the fence with the Green Line using that argument, but not the discrepancies between the route and the Green Line that actually exist.

Unfortunately, Israel had to justify the route of the fence as it is being constructed. The ICJ ruled on that.


Source: BBC

The fourth geneva convention as you know allows for security and the proof against your statement is that the fence is on the green line at certain places and several miles outside the green line where appropriate.

Your second point is essentially the same as your first. The Court ruled that Israel's wall as it is being constructed cannot be justified by security concerns. It did not say that that no wall is justified. It did not say that Israel has no right to protect herself from terrorist attacks. Reading the Israeli press, one would think the court ruled that Israel must roll over die. It's nowhere near that.

The ruling was not against Israeli security or a wall. It was against the route the wall is taking.

[geek tragedy]

44. That picture shows that a land grab is going on here

I'm generally pro-Israel, but comparing the ICJ to the Jim Crow South courts is patently absurd.

Common sense: I'f I don't want my neighbor's dog coming on my lawn, I build a fence on my side of the property line.

[The Magistrate]

36. Unfortunately, My Dear Doctor

The view you take in this matter does not seem to me a sound one. This opinion is a pretty good one, and makes hash of the arguements you quoted above that the Geneva accords do not apply to the territories overrun in '67. Those gentlemen have prepared a losing brief, Sir, and it would be unwise to rely on it in future.

It is not a perfect opinion, of course. Two elements of it seem weak to me. The argument that the barrier constitutes an offense against the right of self-determination is a considerable stretch. The narrow interpertation of the right of self-defense under the U.N. Charter is a reversal of the reasoning employed elsewhere in the decision: having taken an expansive view of the applicability of various elements of international law in the protection of the rights of the people of Arab Palestine, the Court ought not try and have it both ways by adopting a narrow and crabbed view of measures for self-defense. A dissenting opinion of one judge seems to take a much sounder view of this question.

But neither of these caveats means very much. Even if the element of self determination were left out, there is still abundant cause for ruling the Geneva accords apply to the situation. Even if it is granted that Israel has, on grounds of self defense, the right to take measures absolutely necessary for the protection of its territory and citizens, Israel could not possibly show the present course of the security barrier was absolutely necessary for that purpose.

It is important for persons who support Israel to recognize and accept the gist of the Court's ruling, that the Geneva accords do indeed apply in the territories over-run in '67. The most important consequence of that is that the program of settlements there encouraged, subsidized, and protected by the Israeli government, is not legal. That in itself renders awfully shaky any argument of necessity in self-defense applied to military action of any sort aimed at protection of residents in the settlements, for there is available the superior means of protecting those persons by abiding by the law, and liquidating the illegal venture that has placed them in jeopardy.

[drdon326]

41. Just for the record....

those were 2 international lawyers I posted.....not me

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x74198#74238

Now I'm not a lawyer (tg) but the authors seem to know
the relevant information.

[The Magistrate]

46. That Is Understood, Sir

It does not make them correct: lawyers are on the losing side of every argument between parties before a judge....

[bemildred]

26. The "everybody else is nuts, and besides they're all against me" argument.

I don't expect it will change any minds, one way or the other.
I suppose it will help stiffen the spines of the faithful.

[bigbillhaywood]

37. You sure post some funny op-eds, drdron...

"The International Court of Justice is much like a Mississippi court in the 1930s."

Did this op-ed come from The Onion? This is high-quality comedy. Let me check the link--what? Jerusalem Post? Oh, never mind.

[Jim Sagle]

38. J Post keeps on keepin' on, bringing truth to a mendacious world.

[IndianaGreen]

40. Jerusalem Post is up for sale

since Conrad Black fell from grace, Hollinger International is putting up several of its newspapers up for sale, Jerusalem Post among them.

Perhaps a liberal will buy it, and fire all of those American conservatives the Post hired for its board. On the other hand, the evil Rupert Murdoch may decide to add another ragsheet to his empire.

[number6]

43. LOL :) :o ;)

just like newsmax, washington times, townhall ...

just the kind of rightwing paper, leftists at DU love to read ...


:) :o ;) :hi:

[Jim Sagle]

45. I don't read those much. They're mirror images of CounterPunch.

[bigbillhaywood]

48. Man, you guys are crackin me up here.

[Jim Sagle]

49. Be sure and tip your waitress.

[bigbillhaywood]

50. Jim Sagle...king of the one-liners. I think you may be my favorite

pro-Israeli partisan on all of DU. This round's on the house, my man. :toast:

[Jim Sagle]

52. Beer RAWWWWWWWWWKSSSSSSSS!!!!!!

:toast:

[bemildred]

58. Beer is food.

Twenty-four cans in a case.
Twenty-four hours in a day.
Coincidence? I think not.

[bemildred]

47. "Comment: Israel follows its own bigoted law, not Hague decision"

Must have been a typo.

[Jim Sagle]

53. Or maybe it was just something you ate.

[bemildred]

54. Amnesty International seems to agree with me.

Home come you haven't said they SUCK yet anyway?

[Jim Sagle]

56. I just did that on another thread, and as you know,

I hate to be repetitious. ;)

[bemildred]

57. Yes, the other thread was what I meant.

That WAS quick. But it is always gratifying to have
ones sense of order and predictability in the world verified.

We need some more threads about European anti-semites
now too, the EU is making threats again.
:-)

[Jim Sagle]

59. Is antisemitism really that funny?

;(

[bemildred]

60. No, but propaganda is frequently funny.

And people that resort to name calling because they lack
any better argument are always funny.

[Classical_Liberal]

65. The settlements are antiarab racism

and not progressive of liberal. The EU isn't racist for trying to stop thenm.

[Darranar]

75. India the "tyranny"?

Furthermore, abstaining is not voting against a resolution.

The ICJ decision was the correct one.