Posted on 11/16/2004 5:10:49 AM PST by stevejackson
On July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Israel's security barrier was a violation of international humanitarian law and human rights law. Eleven days later, the United Nations General Assembly voted 150-6 to condemn Israel and demand removal of the barrier. All twenty-five members of the European Union supported the motion.[1] The EU position would not have been so offensive had it not then undertaken an act of stunning hypocrisy. In August 2004, the EU put out tenders for companies to construct a European separation fence to prevent migration into the EU from countries excluded from it.[2] European officials undertook to build a wall less than one month after condemning Israel's barrier at the United Nations.
EU countries are not the only ones to display hypocrisy. Several states voting to condemn Israel themselves have built barriers on disputed land, often as a response to terrorism. Israel's decisions rest on firm precedent. India, for example, has built a barrier along its line-of-control with Pakistan. Following a number of violent confrontations with Yemeni soldiers and tribesmen, the Saudi Arabian government unilaterally began constructing a barrier on land disputed by its southern neighbor. Morocco has built a barrier against Algerian infiltration in the disputed territory of Western Sahara. Ironically, while both British foreign minister Jack Straw and Turkish foreign minister Abdullah Gül condemned Israel's security fence, both their countries have built their own barriers to combat terrorism. In Cyprus, it is the U.N. itself that, at significant hardship to the local populace, sponsored a security fence reinforcing the island's de facto partition.
Continue reading http://netwmd.com/articles/article786.html ...
(Excerpt) Read more at netwmd.com ...
I always thought that the fence would have been a good thing for the Palestinians as surely it means that Israel is guaranteeing them a state?
I think it is a good idea for Israel as it will stop suicide bombers and means that less fighting will occur and less incursions and chances for soldiers to get hurt in aciton.
I believe that's the rabbit proof fence.
I wonder if the U.N. has taken a vote on the Great Wall of China. Or even the wall sections between the U.S. and Mexico.
lol great comment!'
similarity with israel: the great wall of china was built to keep out primitive barbarian invaders
And what a state it is!
The Green Line (on the map below) was established at the end of the 1948 war. It was never official, but was basically where hostilities ended. The Palestinians who left, or were driven out of, their homes settled in the West Bank.
Soon after the 1967 War, Israel started building settlements in the West Bank, some of which, by now, are quite large. This is important to point out in that it explains the location of the Israeli wall -- it goes into the West Bank (ie., over the "Green Line") to surround and protect these settlements.
Some Palestinians cities, like Qalqiliya, are completely surrounded by the wall (see below). Heck of a Palestinian "state", huh?
You don't understand the Pali's. They want a state - all the way to the Mediterranean. The fence means they don't get Israel and they don't get to build on the ruins of a Jewish State, which is their clear objective.
You don't understand the Pali's. They want a state - all the way to the Mediterranean. The fence means they don't get Israel and they don't get to build on the ruins of a Jewish State, which is their clear objective
Yeh. Damn my infernal logic.
If they could find a moderate non halfwit they could actually get their own state. It is a pity for them that no one has the intelligence to see it. It must suck to live under a jihadi dictatorship and it can't be that good to live next door either.
The wall so far reduced the number of terror attacks in Israel by 85%, and as soon as the wall will be built near Jerusalem, it will be 95%.
UN simply want to finish the work of the Nazis in the 1940s.
May the UN rest in hell together with Arafat and Hitler.
The electrified fence in Kashmir, India has also been very effective in cutting down terrorist incursions there. Try coming close to it there, and it fries you worse than a potato wedge in hot oil!
Besides, they've employed ground sensors and night vision tracking systems to monitor the fence.
So Israel has done a brilliant job of changing the agenda toward peace. Perhaps now that Arafat is burning in hell, the Palis will see the light.
If they get a "state" is should be on Uranus.
Are you insane! Certainly not all of Uranus! Not the Israeli holy sites on Uranus!
It is written, somewhere I'm sure, that 6 million years ago, the Jewish people lived on Uranus, establishing many holy sites on the planet prior to coming to Earth.
But the kind and gentle Israelis are pleased to show their generosity by letting the filthy pig-dog devils of Palestinians settle Uranus on non-religious sites. They're free to settle on the Reykan Plains of Sulphurous Hell, the Frozen Peaks of Garbor, or the Sinking Sands of Lassan.
Their choice.
Accepted Oslo? Who would have accepted that POS offer?
The Palestinian "state" (in orange) looks like Indonesia -- without the water.
Well, not exactly. These peace lines primarily stopped Protestant goon squads from raiding Catholic areas. The violence ran almost exclusively one way. (Fences didn't hinder the IRA or UDA much.) They also served to turn certain Catholic areas into loose prisons where limited access roads made it easier for British authorities to surveil the populace.
Only on walls built in territories that don't belong to the builder.
Imagine if we built our US-Mexico wall right through the middle of Mexico City.
I wounder how the U.N. would rule on our ownership of Texas.
What rule of thumb do you use to decide national ownership of territory?
nothing there belongs to the palis. anything they get is more than they deserve.
if someone has to say otherwise then they should do it with their guns.
I believe the Palestinians have been doing just that.
How's that working out?
it would be working out a lot better if israel would let lose and get rid of the palis permanently.
Stop wondering. They would rule it as legal.
"What rule of thumb do you use to decide national ownership of territory?"
National ownership of territory is not decided by war. The Fourth Geneva Convention (of which Israel is a signatory nation) addresses this in Article 49. "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
National ownership of territory is decided by treaty. As an example, please refer to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that the U.S. signed with Mexico on February 2, 1848.
The terms of the agreement established the border between the U.S. and Mexico at the Rio Grande and the Gila River and granted the U.S. more than 525,000 square miles of former Mexican territory that includes present-day Arizona, California, western Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah.
No such treaty exists between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Then again, the Palestinians think it would be working out a lot better if the Arab countries would let loose and get rid of the Israelis permanently.
Seems to me that this line of thinking has not been working out well for either side for the last 50 years. Time to change the thinking, or should we give it another 50 years?
I'm so glad to hear that. I was living under the delusion that wars were sometimes involved.
the line of thinking would work if it was completed without outsiders trying to force diplomacy on people who need to be at war.
the arabs should let loose and so should israel and the winner gets the land.
And you define "losing" as "they're not killing as many Israelis as they used to".
All of this makes sense to you?
It will make sense when they are killing no Israelis. No one is entitled to their own state. You go out and try to make one and see what your government does to you.
Sometimes. Sometimes not. The U.S. acquired Alaska from Russia without a war.
Israel certainly didn't feel that way in 1947. They accepted the land given to them by the UN. I think they felt entitled, don't you?
So why were the Israeli leaders meeting with Arafat?
No one is entitled to their own state. But if you can convince somebody to give you one, or create one by force, then yes, you can have a state just like the Israelis.
Courtesy and expediency.
Oh, please.
Yep. That was the purpose of the Balfour Declaration.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ..."
Why does every frickin' single discussion about Israel always end up going back 50 years or 5000 years? Why can't you stay on topic?
I went back only as far as the establishment of the current borders to describe the current situation. I don't see what a private letter written in 1917 expressing the unilateral position of the British government at that time has to do with anything today?
Israel is transferring civilians to, and building a wall on, land that is not theirs. Does that help?
Name for me one country, other than Israel, that believes this to be untrue.
I don't see anyone doing anything about it. And last time there was a serious try, in 1973, Israel bloodied them pretty well.
When you say "the land is not theirs", to what do you refer? We are not discussing property rights. Property rights are legal rights in individuals and legal entities enforced by government within a sovereign jurisdiction. You "own" your home and effects against claims by others within your soveriegn's jurisdiction who decides what is yours and what is theirs.
Sovereignty itself on the other hand is not a property right. There is no "enforcer" or judge of sovereignty but the soveriegn itself. That's what the word means, supreme, independent. If there were such an enforcer, an entity such as the United States or Israel would not be sovereign entities. Whoever happens to be sovereign of a particular territory is simply that. Other people's opinions, recognitions and documentations are not relevant unless they plan to do something about it. As long as Israel's army stands sovereign on the West Bank and Gaza it is theirs.
There is not any relevance to treaties. Israel could force someone at gunpoint to sign something ratifying the status quo at anytime, much as Santa Ana as a prisoner of war was forced at gunpoint to sign away northern Mexico at Guadalupe Hidalgo. That would not make Israel any more or less sovereign. The Arab states in effect conceded that fact when their armies vacated the area in 1967.
Aside from countries, I am one who thinks Israel should have the whole enchelada for many reasaons and I put whatever tiny influence I have on world affairs behind that position.
Land outside the original 1947 borders that was not acquired by a treaty. This is according to the 4th Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory. This is according to Resolutions 242 and 183 of the UN, of which Israel is a member. You disagree?
So is this now the attitude? As long as Israel's army stands, where it stands is their territory?
What???
First of all, we didn't need a gun to force the Mexican government to take the $15 million we paid for that land.
Second, Santa Anna went into voluntary exile while a new Mexican government negotiated peace. His signature is not on the document.
You're thinking of the 1836 Treaties of Velasco, which both parties ended up violating.
Ah, but the 1967 War was after. So, does Israel honor the Fourth Geneva Convention or not?
"242 was mooted by the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty (1994) recognizing the present boundary."
The "present boundary". You got a map of that, Butch? Plus there are other provisions of 242 that would apply to the current day.
"and 183 of the UN, of which Israel is a member.'
183, 181, 338 ... so many resolutions. 237, 446, and of course ES-10/6.
Let's see. Treaty with Jordan -- oh, that's rock solid, that moots 242, everyone must honor that treaty.
Geneva conventions? Israel spits on them. UN General Assembly and Security Council Resolutions? Not worth the paper they're written on.
See a pattern here?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.