Israel will cooperate with Int'l Court on security fence

[Gimel]

Israel will cooperate with the International Court
of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague if the United
Nations General Assembly votes Monday to refer the
issue of the West Bank separation fence to the
court, and will argue that the decision to build
the barrier was based on self-defense.

<snip>

The Foreign Ministry contends that the
construction of the separation barrier does not
violate international law, even though its path
extends beyond the Green Line, into the West
Bank. "Every occupying power has the right to
build fortifications and fences in the occupied
territory when there is a military need for
this," a senior ministry source explains. "When
there is terror," he continues, "no one can
argue that there is no military need for a
fence. It might raise humanitarian problems
that need to be solved, but there is no
question of legality here."
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/369633.html
<snip>

[newyorican]

1. No they won't...

when the court rules against them they will reject the findings. I'll take bets on that one.

[papau]

2. Will you bet that the Court does not rule against them?

:-)

I agree some things are a given - it is amusing to warch Israel put its trust in UN fainess and get slapped down again and again by those that need oil and oil money.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[edzontar]

13. They deserve to lose....

And almost certainly WILL lose.

[Gimel]

24. No certainty

The court may refuse to hear the case. I hope that they do accept the case, in order to settle the controversy. The PF will certainly be legal along the greenline, where most of it is today. It is the sections that are not completed that are planned to go a few miles into the PA area.

Of course this route is still being discussed in Israel government.

[brainshrub]

9. I second that opinion. (nt)

[newyorican]

10. I'll go further...

I'll bet they walk out when they realize stupid word games and circular logic don't work in the real world, although such tactics provide some entertainment in this, and other forums.

[brainshrub]

11. I'll go even further than that...

After they walk out they will accuse the court of being anti-Semitic. If there were any Jewish judges on the docket, then they will be labled "self hating" Jews.

[bluesoul]

12. Actually the "self-hating" thing has

been said here for that brave Israeli lawyer Leah Tsemel by one of the posters...

[Gimel]

19. Indictment

Seems like the guilty before tiral applies to these comments. So progressive./sarcasm

[Gimel]

25. Circular logic

Responding to the incidents as they occur gives the impression of a circular logic. Israel will not go about implementing peace accords while attacks take place. That is stupidity itself to assume that Israel will walk into a PA trap and just keep walking.

[bemildred]

3. Cool!

"Every occupying power ..."

How bout that?
That statement has ramifications.

[tinnypriv]

5. If any enterprising journalist notices that and writes a follow-up

It will be strenuously denied it was ever said. Or quoted "out of context", or some such.

Interesting though, in that it places some folks here to the right of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. I guess they didn't get the memo that denying there is an occupation went out of fashion with Grandma Golda.

[bemildred]

6. I know, it will become "inoperative".

But it's fun to watch them step on their tongues
trying to keep their story straight.

And, the admission that the UN and/or Hague have some
authority etc. is telling and will not be denied. Of
course it does not necessarily mean anything more than
the rest of the continuous stream of blather coming from
that direction.

Still, the shift in the force discussed a few weeks back
seems to have some legs. The bullshit level has been stepped
way up, and the frantic waving of the bloody shirt is
more noticeable than a couple months ago. All of a sudden
we have many plan and ideas and so on. Anything but Geneva,
anything but outside interference or independent accountability
for ones actions.

[Gimel]

7. A non-political statement

the military source is speaking in a military sense. Not to be taken as a government poition, I'm sure. However, Sharon has used the term "occupation" so I don't think there's going to be much of a row over it.

[bemildred]

8. I don't understand your comment.

This statement appears to come from Sharon and Shalom.

The thing is that the Geneva Convention settles certain
responsibilities and duties on an occupying power, and
Israel is egregiously in violation of some of those duties
and responsibilities, esp. with respect to the settlements.

The relevance of the use of the term "occupation" is that they
appear to plan to use it before the Hague, and if they admit
before the Hague that the occupation is an occupation, that
opens up a set of other issues in a venue that has jurisidiction
to address them.

Such an admission will also blow certain rhetorical positions
popular with the Israeli ultra-nationalist right out of the water.

The argument for the wall will not fly either. The issue is
not the general right to build fortifications, etc. but the
specific ones being built.

Regards.

[tinnypriv]

14. I agree

The GOI will certainly conceed that there is an 'Occupation' at the ICJ, because it appears that their defence will be "military neccesity" in line with the 4th Geneva Convention.

That is probably their best shot, in that such a defense probably applies to some sections of the fence, but not most of it.

There is also what newyorican alluded to in another topic: pretending the Occupation doesn't exist at the ICJ would literally have the judges laughing in the aisles (USA judge excepted). Probably not the desired outcome.

You're also right about the rhetorical positions, but that is basically irrelevant - the obvious conclusions won't be drawn by anybody with a public press platform. Not if they want to keep their job.

For an example, pg1 of the NY Times recently ran an article that explicity admitted that US forces in Iraq are taking hostages. They just came out and said it. If that can fly, without the journo daring to even allude to the fact that such actions are war crimes, Israel could probably admit to shooting people for sport and the ultra-nationalists would defend it.

[bemildred]

15. Check.

The other thing is there were zero Noes. Zero.
Uncle Sugar is not with them on this one.

The rhetorical stuff is only relevant in that it shortens
the debunking cycle.

[bemildred]

21. Crap.

My mistake, 8 noes.
Uncle Sugar is still on the job.
Silly me, gotta slow down.

[Gimel]

23. Route of PF

Of course the view of Bush administration is that the PF should follow the greenline. They have no controversy with the PF itself. The need for the barrier is understood.

[Gimel]

35. All they'll have to do

The defense of Israel's position will just have to show the court the Oslo agreements, the Wye accords, and ask why Arafat's government hasn't kept his agreements.

Juxtapose this with close to 200 suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians, more than 600 deaths as a result of those attacks inside Israel, and I think the rest will be understood.

[Gimel]

26. IDF officers

The IDF does not change it's personnel according to who is in office of PM.

[Gimel]

20. If and when

Maybe denying that Israel was attacked is more in tune with the current history revision.

Edited to add a letter that was missing.

[drdon326]

16. Strap the ICJ on a bus

for a while, then see how they rule.

Or better yet, let them expierence the thrill of seeing
youre loved one blown into pieces and i promise you they
will have a better understanding.

PURE MENTAL MASTURBATION.

[bemildred]

17. I didn't know they strapped people on buses.

And you keep my loved one out of it.

As for the last thing, I'm sure you know more
than the rest of us combined, so I will defer to
your judgement.

[newyorican]

18. When all else fails...

invoke the suicide bomber. That plus a what...self-portrait?, in all caps no less...such a deal.

[Gimel]

27. Better yet

prevention of suicide attacks does not make international headlines. You may be unaware of those that failed, were arrested or did not reach their targets.

So you think there have been no bombings for 2 months. There should be peace? Therefore Israel should implement redeployment and leave the terrorist groups alone? That would be foolish. You may need to "invoke" them in argument, but Israelis live with the daily threat. We don't need them to be invoked, thank you.

I'll take a high-tech well monitored Peace Fence. It is a necessity, just like bread and water.

[tinnypriv]

34. Well

I for one have highlighted in this forum numerous times that Israeli security has prevented more suicide bombings, attacks etc. than have actually occurred.

I also linked to the first statistical study of the effectiveness of the wall-fence, published in the Israeli press.

I'm fairly sure most regulars have read both. So it seems if anyone is "unaware", it is yourself.

Moreover, those two items do not change the fact that the wall-fence is a humanitarian disgrace which should be dismantled and reversed immediately.

[Gimel]

37. hutzpah

Self-serving claims like this are meaningless.

[dudeness]

22. I cannot legally build a fence

on my neighbours property..so neither should Israel..build one 200 feet high ..but do it your own land..

however for the best laugh of the day..this quote takes the cake

"The United States joined Israel in strongly opposing the resolution, arguing that it would "politicize" the court and undermine efforts to reach a Middle East peace settlement."

[Gimel]

28. Neighbors property

Neither can you go into your neighbors property and descimate his wife and children.

"Ninety nations voted in favor of the draft, eight opposed and 74 countries abstained."

Only 90 were in favor of this resolution. Guess who they are?

[dudeness]

29. two points gimel

Neither can you go into your neighbors property and descimate his wife and children.

absolutely!!..applies to ALL parties

"Ninety nations voted in favor of the draft, eight opposed and 74 countries abstained."

90 yes..8 no..

thats called a majority..

[Gimel]

30. Further two points

1) Israel entered PA territory it arrest terrorists. Resisting arrest is also a criminal offence in the US. While the Palestinian bombers target civilians, the Israeli actions were to combat terror.

2) Of a 191 member body, 90 is not a majority. Of the 172 countries with representatives present, only 90 voted in favor of the resolution. A very narrow margin for a "majority".

There are about 53 Moslem nations represented in the GA. That leaves only 33 non-Moslem nations that approved the resolution.

[dudeness]

31. 74 chose not to exercise a vote

If you choose not to vote in any democratic forum you pass up your opportunity to have a say in the outcome..therefore you live with the result..sadly thats life..

[Gimel]

32. Everyone will have to

In fact, the Arab nations may live to regret their decision.

[bluesoul]

33. Regret?

How, by being nuked by Israel?

[Gimel]

36. Of course not

By getting a negative "judgment".