“…by a 14-1 vote the judges found the barrier, along its planned route, “gravely infringes” on the rights of Palestinians and cannot be justified by military needs or national security, and violates international law.”
What, specifically, is unlawful about the wall? What rights of the Palestinians are being infringed? Are they technically citizens of Israel, and is it their freedom to move about the country they are technically citizens of that some argue is being infringed?
As you can see, I’m quite ignorant of the situation, and would be grateful for some info.
Since interpretation of law is often debatable, I put this in GD instead of GQ. Of course, if a mod disagrees please move it.
Perhaps someone with greater legal knowledge will step up to the plate, but my understanding is that the argument against it (not one I per se buy) is that it does not just limit movement into Israel, but is inside occupied land and therefore infringes upon movement with those occupied areas. It would be unassailable to build a fence entirely along the Green Line, even though local geography would make such a unteneble route for security purposes. If Israel officially annexed the area within the fence first (which it could do legally but which would be unpopular with all other players and would eliminate the option of exchanging land inside its borders for future other concssions in some future time of negotiation) then it could legally build it along the current route.
Now we see how Israel responds to this ruling. I suspect that they will just ignore it other than the boilerplate protest.
From the little I know about the 14-1 ruling:
The decision carries no weight and is unenforced - It would have to go to the UN for a vote to give it any teeth.
The Israeli Supreme Court has already ruled certain sections of the ‘barrier’ must be moved or modified - and it will be.
People will continue to refer to it as a wall, even though it’s mostly chain-link fence. (The concrete sections seen pictured on the internet are in areas where terrorists shoot at people on the other side)
I believe Israel don’t recognize the authority of the International Cour of Justice on this issue. As a consequence, they wouldn’t have any reason to respond to this ruling.
From more detailled accounts I read since, it’s seems that the issue is only the “planned route” because it would create a “fait accompli” regarding the occupied teritories, not the wall/barrier in itself…
There’s also a major objection where it cuts through Palestinian farmland - they will have to pass through checkpoints every day to get to their land. And if the Israelis decide to lockdown, they can’t farm. If they aren’t farming, the Israelis will take possession of the ‘unused’ land.
This is definitely an issue, but is it an issue mentionned in the ICJ ruling? I didn’t see it mentionned.
Another issue I had overlooked is the case of Palestinians living between the green line and the wall. They’re aren’t allowed to cross the green line to Israel, anymore, and the wall will block access to the west-bank. So, they’ll be more or less trapped inbetween with a difficult access to anything (work, medical care, etc…).
As I understand it, the fence makes it difficult for farmers to get to both sides of their land if the road goes through it.
I have a completely new slant on the conflict. Instead of dividing Palestine into 2 chunks (connected by a road), the 2 sides could swap land back and forth creating the equivalent single landmass. It would connect up to the Mediterranean Sea giving Palestine an unobstructed seaport to all of its land. This in turn would give Jordan a culturally receptive conduit to sea trade.
This way Israel can build the next wall of China and everybody’s happy.
[ul]
[li]The Green Line - as defined by the UNSC - was originally meant as a temporary line, not as a final border. This has not changed, legally speaking.[/li]
[li]According to international law, the West Bank is defined as Occupied Territory (also defined as such by the UNSC and the UNGA). International law states that an occupying nation is not allowed to settle its own citizens inside the occupied territory, nor is she allowed to carry out major constructions or otherwise change/create infrastructure which would disrupt the lives of those living there.[/li]
[li]People living in an occupied territory are non-citizens. They don’t have any citizen rights whatsoever, including travelling, other than those given to them by a Civilian/Military Administration. People in the West Bank and Gaza has been non-citizens since 1967.[/li]
[li]Occupied Territory can be annexed only if the land was taken in a defensive war. If the land is taken during an offensive war (attacks first), international law states that the occupying nation shall redraw once hostilities has ended. In this conflict Israel said they were under attack, while others say Israel attacked first. It should also be noted that Israel has annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and that the people living there (and stayed there throughout the war and post-war period) became Israeli citizens. Israel has not annexed the West Bank (2.3 mill) and Gaza (1.3 mill).[/li][/ul]
What’s unlawful about the wall is the impact it has on those living there, to the degree that it cannot be justified by security reasons, according to the court (it should also be noted that there are two walls in the making, one on the west side of West Bank close to Israel, and one on the east side of the West Bank, between the West Bank and the Jordanian border. These two walls will meet and completely encircle the West Bank territory). On that, I’ll just repost my post to a similar pit thread about this topic:
Apparently, the wall will cut off more than 230,000 Palestinians from their surrounding areas. The population in the West Bank is 2.3 million, so we’re talking about more than 10 percent of the population who are affected.
Perhaps a coincidence but did you know the image from your link on the top-right with the David-star is very closely modelled on a similar German Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda drawing?
As far as I’m concerned all that need be said of the fence is that it works, in that it has been shown to decrease terrorism. If the Palestinians want rid of the fence, they can bloody well stop blowing up school busses. As for the legitimacy of various international organisations re. Israel; they pretty much blew it in the shameful Durban debacle. What I find must striking in the so called court and their predicable ruling is how a whole shitload of countries, from from Afghanistan to Cameroon , having absolutely nothing to do with the fence, got to talk, while those people on the ground, the terror victims , was refused a voice. Gah!
So when is the international court going to take up the problem with Arafat’s (and by proxy EU’s) obvious support of terrorism? How about never!
The drawing first appeared in Seattle Times. I find the similarities too striking to be accidental. Most likely the “artist” or rather the plagiarist Tony Auth (what an idiot!) had seen the original Nazi drawing and found it just right, and the site you linked to knew nothing of its Nazi source. Or perhaps the geometry of the David-star just begs for that kind of simple propaganda, whatever it’s still telling that newspapers again find it appropriate to publish drawings that are the spitting image of hateful Nazi German propaganda. Guess it’s all in the Zeitgeist.
How pleasant it must be in your little black and white world. If it were quite as simple as you suggest (ie. take the actual occupation out of the equation) then I’m sure the International Court would wholeheartedly agree.
Unfortunately, the situation is slightly (just slightly mind you) more complex than you suggest…
Dear Rune, Gush Shalom is an Israeli peace organization. It was founded by Avnery who fled from Hitler to Israel in 1933. He is a soldier turned pacifist. He was a member of Irgun, served in the Israeli Army, and has served 3 terms in the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset.
While Gush Shalom, as B’Tselem, is criticized in Israel, Gush Shalom wants a two-state solution, with a secure jewish Israel and a sovereign Palestine, divided by the Green Line. (The mainstream peace movement in Israel is Peace Now.)
The name, Gush Shalom, is hebrew and means “the peace block”.
The court’s opinion is an advisory opinion at the request of the UN Secretary General. Israel is free to ask for an opinion from the court of those things you mention. Don’t blame the court, blame Israel for not asking, they will get it if they ask.
However, you don’t answer the key question: Why must the wall be built on the West Bank instead of along the Green Line. As I said in the other thread, a wall is a wall, isn’t it?
