You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #19: Some more from the decision... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-14-05 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. Some more from the decision...
Actually, the most important part, which is the question the Court issued the Advisory Opinion on:

'What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?'

I'd be thinking that the reason why Article 51 of the Charter wasn't found applicable in this case is because attacks are originating from territory that Israel occupies, and as the occupying power, Israel has the obligation not to alter the character of the territory it's occupying. That is not to say that Israel does not have the right to defend itself against attacks just because the Court ruled that the construction of the wall was illegal. In fact, the ruling states so very clearly:

141. The fact remains that Israel has to face numerous indiscriminate and deadly acts of violence against its civilian population. It has the right, and indeed the duty, to respond in order to protect the lives of its citizens. The measures taken are bound nonetheless to remain in conformity with applicable international law

142. 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 resulting from the considerations mentioned in paragraphs 122 and 137 above. The Court accordingly finds that the construction of the wall, and its associated regime, are contrary to international law.


Sorry, eyl, but I find it unbelievable that the Israeli govt's motives for the route the wall takes has anything to do with 'good' vs 'terrorist' Palestinians. It's got everything to do with where the settlements are in the West Bank, and Israel's plans for annexing that territory...

Violet...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC