I suppose the Israelis confidence in the impartiality of the UN is no longer in such stellar condition. But of course there’s nothing to hinder the UN Secretary General, or some other of the myriad organisations who apparently think they have a stake in this, from taking such a step himself – if for no other reason then to create a facade of neutrality.
As you said, this has already been discussed to death. The green line is a fairly arbitrary line never meant to be permanent. I think also Jews beyond the green line deserves to be protected from being murdered by terrorists. I don’t know of and don’t necessary agree with the complete route of the wall (like I don’t agree with lots of thing in this imperfect world) but have no problem with it being built to protect those settlements on the west-bank lying close to the so-called green line.
What you call the “impartiality of the UN” is nothing else that countries from all around the world who by examining international law have determined that Israel is violating such law. There’s probably no more than 5-10 countries who support Israel’s position. If you’re going to claim that the UN is impartial, then you have to make an argument that the UN has erred in its handling of the situation. If you can’t make that argument, then your position basically is that the majority is wrong. But that has nothing to do with UN impartiality.
I don’t disagree with the argument that the UN could have done a better job by more forcefully condemning Palestinian fundamentalist organizations, but that’s not an excuse to cease to point out other violations, particularly state sanctioned, when they occur. Two wrongs don’t make it right.
And btw, since you seem to have forgotten, the court is not a UN agency, it’s the judicial organ of the UN, replacing the Permanent Court of International Justice. The court is operating under a Statute integrated as a part of Charter of the United Nations.
I see. Let’s skip the details and go down analogy lane for a moment:
Let’s imagine you and I both owned farms, located next to each other. Then you build houses for your family on my land, and there’s nothing I can do about it because you have big guns. Then you move our shared fence beyond the houses you have built on my land, claiming that you need to protect your family because I’m struggling to get my land back. The very land you have unilaterally confiscated without paying any restitution. Swell.
By first look I agree with you, countries such as Cameroon has nothing to do with this case. However, ICJ procedures are quite clear on this: UN member states may submit opinions regardless of their conection with the issue. And the Court is free to disregard statements as they see fit. If we take a step back and look at South Africa, I don’t think that anybody would argue that only South Africa and their neighboring countries had the right to have an opinion on the matter. But that was certainly how South Africa felt at that time.
Instead of bitching about it, read the Court’s opinion, and you’ll see that statements made by such far-away-countries is not included in the sources the Court has relied upon in reaching their opinion.
From your second cite:
This is correct by the Court. Read up on the Court’s procedures, and you’ll see that only UN members (and a few UN agencies) may adress the court. Individuals, including victims, cannot address the court. If you read the opinion, you’ll see that also Palestinian individuals, neither victims of Israeli military operations nor individuals who are directly affected by the construction of the wall, didn’t get to address the court. The Court cannot change that, they don’t write law, they just rule on the law at hand.
I like to indulge in the fantasy that the UN is more than just the sum of the countries, and that also countries with minority interests can be treated fairly. Which is why I repeatedly get so disappointed in the UN and outraged that it never seem to be able to live up to its grand potential. But of course in my more saner moments I know this is unrealistic, it’s just big fish eat small fish. Business as usual. Oldest game in town. But then at least lets ditch pretensions and all this talk about of moral superiority of UN resolutions and so called World Courts, when all it is, is power.
It is essential for a court to be seen as impartial. If it is clearly seen to be having strong a prior preferences, then its verdict can be ignored with moral impunity. Which is pretty much what has happened in this case. I on the other hand am neither jury nor judge, and can be seen to be partial. Which I readily agree that I am.
I find your analogy deeply flawed for a number of reasons. You forgot the part where you and all your murdering friends found it opportune to gang up and come killing and pillaging in the dark of the night to rob me of farm and life. You forgot the part where you evicted my fellows from their land and send them packing with nought but the clothes on their back, and now you want me to feel sorry when you feel the table turned? In fact there was no farm there in the first place and thus noting to “get back”, as there never has been a Palestinian state. At best the land was abandoned when you saw your plan to come kill me backfired. Yes I find the Israeli settlers born and raised on settlements some to the third generation more entitled to the land than some random Palestinian Arab who’ve never been within sight thereof. But mostly such analogies are just not very helpful, and I find it a little strange that we in Scandinavia should discuss the details of a fence 5000 km from here – surely the world has greater problems than this. But perhaps you’d agree that given the political reality that it’s impossible to remove the settlements (close to the line) they too deserve protection from being murdered by terrorist?
By your statement you imply that the terrorists have a right to or at least morally excused for blowing up school busses. This is not only in extremely bad taste, but dangerous too as it gives the terrorists just that moral legitimacy they so desperately crave and by this you do your little bid to ensure the next suicide bomb will find its victim. In reality there is no moral link between settlements and blowing up school busses and there is no excuse what so ever. Also it’s so incredible stupid since every such act only help to push the Palestinian state further into the future. Indeed were I conspiratory inclined, so stupid I should believe all suicide bombs were the works of Mossad – come to think, much like the Saudies believe.
WTF? I’m saying if there’s going to be a resolution to the conflict, there has to be moral action on both sides. Milions of Palestinians are being oppressed; they have no freedom and their land is being sliced up by Israeli settlements and security corridors. Doesn’t this show up on your radar screen? Is terrorism being used as an excuse to maintain this oppression? Sure, the wall can be temporary, but what about the settlements? Only handfuls of Palestinians are responsible for attacks on Israelis, but the Israeli government is oppressing the entire Palestinian people. A vision for peace of course includes a lack of terrorism, but it also includes a lack of occupation forces and illegal settlements. How twisted of you to construe that as support for more terrorism.
The question I always put to Israelis is, would you be willing to give up the West Bank settlements in exchange for an end to terrorism and being allowed to keep Jerusalem? The question I put to the Palestinians is, would you be willing to stop attacking Israelis, give up your claim to Jerusalm and the right of return in exchange for the removal of the settlements and an independant state?
Well, I happen to believe that the UN does a lot of good, not only as a guardian of international law and as a forum to resolve disputes between nations, but also by protecting refugees and saving lives. But I’m also of the opinion that the UN is no stronger than its member states, - and sometimes the body fails, and fails totally. But I guess that’s a thread of its own.
I don’t agree that the court is impartial. I have read the Court’s verdict and IMO it’s a very thorough verdict. I’ve not seen anyone seriously ripping the verdict apart, as would have been expected if the verdict was flawed. Another thing is that Israel submitted written statements only, opting out of oral statements. Instead they sent a group of PR people to Hague. Very adult behaviour indeed. :rolleyes:
International law clearly states that an occupying nation (and the West Bank is defined as Occupied Territory even by Israel) cannot confiscate private property without compensation in order to erect massive constructions on occupied land. In court, evidence from multiple sources was put forward that 10% - that’s ten percent - of the population in the West Bank has had their lives seriously disrupted one way or another by the wall. An additional 20% will have to cross the wall to get to work, etc.
The irony is that Israel could have avoided this situation by building the wall along the Green Line since they would have had ample backing by previous UN resolutions. I also find the Israeli argument that they chose the current route to protect the settlements inside the West Bank a bit, eh, self contradictive: At first they build illegal settlements on occupied land. (Multiple times have Israel promised, and even signed agreements to, to freeze settlement activity, the fist time at Camp David in 1978. Each and every time have they continued to build new settlements). Then they claim they have to do another unlawful act to protect the first unlawful act.
Given that the cost of the wall is 2.8 million dollars (recent figures) per kilometer, I imagine it would have been a lot cheaper to use military personnel to guard settlements, thereby reducing the length of the wall by putting it along the Green Line. The length of the Green Line is 350 km, the length of the wall on the west side of the WB, with all its twists and turns, will be around 700 km.
First of all, the land was hardly unpopulated. I’m pretty sure hundreds of thousands of refugees will disagree with you on that. And in those cases where land was not cultivated, that doesn’t mean that nobody owned the land. My father (a farmer) owns land that’s not cultivated, but surly you wont argue that anyone who wants to can grab his land to cultivate it on their own?
For example, Israel has taken control of and diverted water resources away from Palestinian villages to Israeli settlements. According to UN reports, there are villages who used to have daily tap water who now only has tap water on a single day each month because only this long does Israel keep the water turned on. The rest of the month villagers have to get their water from local wells. I’m not sure how making it difficult to get water reduces a potential terrorist’s inclination to bomb someone to kingdom kong, but there’s probably a reasoning behind it.
Secondly, history tells us a different story than your assumption of “murderers in the night”. The thruth is that in the years following the war in 1967, life in the occupied territories was pretty quiet. In fact, Israel did a lot of good for the Palestinians during that period - and many Palestinians were better off than they had been before (of course, Palestinians will deny this now). So there were no wave of “murderers in the night”. The conflict again escalated in the 1970s when Israel began to confiscate land to create settlements inside the occupied territories.
If you look at history you will see that Islamic Jihad was founded in 1980, Hamas was founded in 1988, the First Intifada started in 1987, and the first suicide attack occured in 1993. So what happened between 1967 and 1978? The fact: There was little organized resistance to the Israeli occupation outside of refugee camps. Which is why I think - when I read about Israeli officials stating that withdrawal is on the table only if Palestinians give up their armed resistance first - why didn’t Israel withdraw when it was quiet? And how can we believe them now, when they didn’t do anything to withdraw during the quiet years?
Yes, but there’s a reason why we have an interest in such matters (besides peace and humanitarian issues) - it’s called precedence. What happens in this conflict creates precendent for how future conflicts will be handled (it may even rewrite international law). And that may someday be a conflict closer to us.
Yes, I agree with that. If I’m not mistaken, there are ca. 190.000 settlers in the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem), and it’s obviously impossible to relocate many of them. As usual, it come’s down to money - a new house isn’t cheap. In fact, in 1994, following the Oslo Accords, the two parties reached a tentative agreement to swap land, which would have made it possible for Israel to keep most of their settlements. However, the deal was not sellable to the public on either side at that time (and isn’t now), and the deal was never revealed to the public.
Of course coming from me, the questions are rehtorical as it’s more of an expectation that a broad-based conversation between Is and Ps ought to boil down to that basic horse-trade. Nevertheless, I am genuinely curious rather than self-assured, so Noone Special, of the countless conversations you have had with Palestinians as their neighbor, what sort of compromises have they indicated they’d be willing to make?
I understand that many Israelis favor a complete withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza (But can a majority?) and I firmly believe that most Arabs and most Palestinians would accept the Saudi proposal of peace in exchange for a withdrawal. With the status of Jerusalem then being the primary bone of contention, I would like to see how that debate is playing out with a proposed OT withdrawal as its basis. Seeing as how the entire World–including 9/11 and all its consequences–revolving around this question, I am certain that it is not being neglected by the parties involved.
By “right of return,” do you mean return to Israel proper? That’s reasonable. But if what they have is a real sovereign state, they should have the right to welcome long-fled Palestinian refugees, now living in other Arab states and elsewhere, back into Palestinian territory (West Bank and Gaza); and that’s a “right of return” they should not be expected to give up.
:eek: I had no idea there were so many! They speckle the territories like smallpox! How many Israelis live in those settlements? And why are they there in the first place?!
Jerusalem? Nuke it. Herd the entire population out of town at gunpoint (financially compensating them for the lost property, of course, plus $100 each for the inconvenience), and nuke it. With dirty bombs. So thoroughly that nobody can come near the size without a radiation suit for another thousand years. In the interests of world peace and quiet.
