The Wall

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 8:38 am

" In building the fence, the court rules, Israel violated international humanitarian law, by infringing on Palestinians' freedom of movement, freedom to seek employment, education and health.

...and freedom to sneek across fields, laden with plastic explosives strapped to youths as live ammunition to blow up civillians.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/449395.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 879057.stm

I am very left wing when it comes to Israeli politics, but i voted for the wall as an answer to the wave of bombings that started a couple of years ago as a result in the breakdown in talks between the two sides. The fact is, it works. We are being defended by this barrier. I can go and pick my sister up from the airport next wednesday and not be afraid of snipers. Which is quite a good thing no.

Seriously! As happy as i am seeing the wall completed, i will be happier when it's torn down, but for the moment i'm safe. So The Hague can declare it's illegal if they want to, maybe if they'd put as much effort into brokering peace than they do making declarations of condemnation for the press we'd be eating fallafel in damascus by now.

FC

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 12:53 pm

Reading the ruling, Court President Shi Jiuyong of China said the court was not convinced the barrier's construction was the only means to achieve Israel's aim of protecting its people from suicide attacks.

Ironic that this alleged *International Court of Justice*

is headed by a citizen from a nation which has the largest wall in the world, built precisely for the same reason the Israelis built theirs.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 2:55 pm

The fact is, it works.

Apparently the ICoJ thought that the recent lack of exploding Arabs and splatterd Israelis was a trivial point with no bearing on the subject. I wonder if the ICoJ has an opinion on the legality of all those smuggling tunnels running into Israel from Egypt ... *crickets chirping*.

Of course, the International Court of Justice thinks the comfort and safety of its own barrier is okay.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 3:49 pm

yeah... I was going to say, from everything I've heard, there have been very few suicide bombings inside Israel since the wall was put up, and none in areas protected by the wall. Say what you want about cutting off Palestinians movement -- it's cutting off the flow of suicide bombers, too.

Here's a question: do the same courts get mad at the fact that you have to show a passport to enter into Germany, the US, etc.? Do they complain that Saudi Arabia and many other Arab countries won't let anyone in if they've ever been to Israel? Oh, but there's no wall, so people can be smuggled across, and that's OK, right? :P

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 9:10 pm

So I kick my neighbour out of his propery, burn his trees and when he gets mad and throws rock at me I build a giant fence around his and my place to keep him away from me. And some how I am justified in this construction project? If Israel built the fence around it's own borders then there would be very little fuss. You create a poisoned atmsphere amongst your neigbours and have to lock your self away well that is your problem. It is Israel's dubious claim to the property they are fencing in that is the issue. It is where the fence is being built not that it is being built that is the issue. There are many, many people living in refugee camps with no money and no hope who can produce a deed to property now enclosed inside that fence. Property taken with no compensation of any kind. Would you rest easy if it was your grandfather's name on that deed.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 9:14 pm

Would you rest easy if it was your grandfather's name on that deed.

Would you rest easy or give a crap about a deed if it was your child they were scraping off the street? We're talking about a little more than "throwing rocks".

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 9:30 pm

We're talking about a little more than "throwing rocks".

True on both sides.

I'm not trying to justify suicide bombing, just pointing out that the real issue is the location of the wall not the existence of it.

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 11:06 pm

What they shoulda done with that wall was build it on the very outer edge of whats supposedly "palestinian territory" and just told em that thats their country, and locked em out.

I believe Israel is justified here. If your neighbors started shooting at you, wouldnt you put a barrier of some kind up, or try to get them thrown off their land?

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 11:18 pm

Of course there is somthing to what you said Ford. The big "buts" are, if there was no bombing there would be no fence.

The people living in the refugee camps look upon their leaders mansions that have been paid for by monies syphoned off from international aid. They have no jobs because Israel won't let them in to work, granted..although it's not hard to figure out why.

As for compensation and wot not. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/445720.html

I think the fence (it's more of a bloody big wall actually) will eventually do somthing that isn't talked about to much. Not only does it stop physically the suicide bombers, it will also change the attitude of the Israeli public. As long as we continue to see people being killed, on both sides, there is a sence of helplessness here. Once it stops there will be more of a willingness to sit down and finally get an agreement sorted out. This is my hope anyway, but you never know whats round the corner in this part of the world.

FC

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 11:50 pm

I'm interested in knowing, how far off of the "official" boundaries is the fence?

Also, since when is there an "offical" boundary for Palestine?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 1:40 am

if the International Court declares it illegal, it's illegal. case closed.

arguing the legality of this wall is kinda like arguing the legality of any other crime.

besides.. what precident is this setting? A 'This rule sucks so I don't have to follow it' type?

That's like me going out in the streets of los angeles and having a bongrip in front of a police station. Do I have the right to say 'your law about cannibas sucks so I don't have to follow it'?

No. they'd throw my ass down on the ground and arrest me for drug abuse.

so why is Isreal different?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 5:49 am

As Robert Frost once wrote:

"Good fences make good neighbors"

bash · Post by **bash** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 6:04 am

Ferno, ICoJ rulings are non-binding advisory decisions. Only the Security Council can attempt to make it binding via the threat of sanctions but there's not much chance the SC will be able to do that because the US will veto it. The International Court of Justice has a fancy name but it's a toothless body by itself. The *ruling* is symbolic only.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 9:33 am

good job woodie on the quote. I don't think the violence is all Palestine's fault but I think Israel deserves the right to defend themselves by whatever means necessary. But there is a exception to every rule, I'm sure Canada would be mad if we built a big wall on THEIR side of the land. But where is the boundary, and why are we fighting, oh that's right, facking religion again.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 9:40 am

Ford, next time you start up a story about how "I kick my neighbor out of his property" you may wish to include the part where all of your neighbors were plotting together to kill you and steal you're land because you believe differently then they do.

I suppose if you support terrorism, murder and hate then you would not include that part no?

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 9:59 am

bash wrote:Only the Security Council can attempt to make it binding via the threat of sanctions but there's not much chance the SC will be able to do that because the US will veto it.

Operative word here is "attempt." The sovereignty of Israel, and any state for that matter, is beyond anything the U.N. can do.

Walls, historically, are nothing more than Band-Aids or scabs. Just look at the Berlin Wall, or the "wall" seperating the Koreas. You might reduce the hurting in the short-term, it's true, but in the long-term there are still significant and huge cultural differences that have to be addressed. A wall doesn't really scream diplomacy. One might argue that it gives the two sides a much-needed "cooling off" period, but in the whole Israeli-Palestine scuffle, who knows where it will lead?

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 10:51 am

There might be a smidgeon of support for the wall if it was built on the 1967 borders of Israel. It is not. It is built along a line that encloses territory that Israel took by force of arms from admittedly antagonistic neighbouring countries. The Israeli claim to that land is simply that they want it and have force of arms to take it. Not a normally accepted way to operate in modern society. Witness the little kerfuffle when Iraq tried it in Kuwait. But the US is backing the occupier this time so no war of liberation is in the cards for original owners of that area.
Give me a bit of time Lothar and I'll link you to a map of the pre '67 boundary and the wall's location.

Try this link. It is of course biased to the Palastinian view but the map is at least close based on others I've seen. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1775.shtml

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 1:08 pm

hm.. after thinking about the US vetoing any SC's sanctions I came up with an answer I didn't like.

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:41 pm

It is built along a line that encloses territory that Israel took by force of arms from admittedly antagonistic neighbouring countries. The Israeli claim to that land is simply that they want it and have force of arms to take it.

Yes, they took it by force of arms because they wanted it. They wanted it in '48, too, but accepted the UN partition anyway. So what?

If you start a war and you lose, you're gonna suffer some consequences. Period. That lesson, apparently, wasn't received in '48, so it was driven home in '67. Why in the world should they be expected to give the land back?

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 5:46 am

This
http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pag ... urpose.htm

was supposed to prevent this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 883885.stm

I guess once every 4 months isn't so bad.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 9:35 am

Flabby Chick:

I guess once every 4 months isn't so bad.

That is a sad comment on the conditions you have to live in. True I guess but sad. And previously you mentioned being able to drive to the airport without fear of sniper fire. The vast majority of North Americans like me have no idea of the conditions in conflict areas. I hope one day peace can come to your home.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 10:31 am

Thanks for the sentiments Ford, i was being a tad flippant to be honest. Once every four months is still a terrible statistic.

I also must stress that i live far from the usual spots that are dangerous, almost in a bubble. Last Tuesday it was my turn to guard the kibbutz from nine in the evening till six in the morning, instead of taking a semi-automatic, i had a twelve string accoustic and a few beers for protection. (but dont tell anyone

)

Like i said before, my hope is that this wall will eventually be taken down. Untill we have somone to talk to...i'm happy it stays.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 12:38 pm

You certainly live a most interesting life Flabby.
Your home is in what appears to be a tropical paradise that others have to pay to enjoy.
You are godless amoung the devout.
With the magic of the internet you post on a forum largely populated by free enterprise Christian Americans and yet you live in a successful Jewish communist community.
You retain your sympathy and humour during a period of blood and conflict.

Keep up the good work and I won't snitch on you about trying to keep the terroists at bay with bad singing and beer breath.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 1:22 pm

Ford, the biggest problem with your argument about the deed and such is that there is really now way to actually know who really can claim what land. If you want to look back in history as to who was there first, there is no way of really knowing. If you look at modern contracts, or whatever, it can be argued that those where written at a convinient time. The fact is this land has been fought over for years on end, long before deeds where written, and long before military conquest was considered an "invalid" way of expanding a kingdom. Both sides have their arguments, and neither side is going to give in anytime soon. I guess Flabby has it about right in hoping that some day both sides will be willing to compromise.

Cuda68-2 · Post by **Cuda68-2** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 4:14 pm

Where's Haggy and his 2 cents?

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 4:43 pm

woodchip wrote:As Robert Frost once wrote:

"Good fences make good neighbors"

Just making sure...

You know that the poem is actually not in favor of fences...quite the opposite really.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 6:35 pm

kufyit wrote:
woodchip wrote:As Robert Frost once wrote:

"Good fences make good neighbors"
Just making sure...

You know that the poem is actually not in favor of fences...quite the opposite really.

Perhaps you refer to:

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun,
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.

On the other hand one can infer walls have their uses:

'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows?
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,

Me thinks in Flabby's case a wall is necessary and so would R.F.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 7:38 pm

Nobody ever learned anything from the Great Wall of China?

You don't need to go thru the wall, you can just go around it.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 8:23 pm

Ummm Fliptw, that be the French maringot (sp) line you be infering.

Vertigo 99 · Post by **Vertigo 99** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 10:04 pm

marginot

[spelled like it sounds in both french and english]

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 10:13 pm

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 10:16 pm

flip,

going around it is a lot harder. Israel already has reasonably tight border control, this just makes it that much tighter.

If your country was the target of an intifada and/or jihad, wouldn't you do whatever you could to keep them out?

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 11:34 pm

Once again I would like to point out that the ICJ is not complaining about the existence of the wall but that the wall is on territory and encompassing territory not within the boundaries of the country of Israel as recognized by the UN.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 12:11 am

Right.

Now, here are some questions:

1) why shouldn't Israel have the right to the land it siezed when it pushed back the nations that attacked it? Israel didn't start the attack -- Israel responded to attacks by pushing back its attackers. Why shouldn't they be allowed to claim some portion of that land in the name of their own security?

2) If Israel placed the wall on the 1967 settlements, as in This picture from the above article, what do you think that would do for the numerous Israeli settlements (yellow spots) that would be surrounded by the currently projected wall (dark purple area)? In particular, what about the suburbs of Jerusalem that would be left outside the wall?

3) If the wall was placed directly on the Green Line, wouldn't the criticism that "it cuts people off from their land, jobs, etc." be a lot stronger since it would cut right through the middle of Jerusalem, as well as blocking off a number of other Israeli cities from Israel proper?

IMO, the dark purple area in that map is a pretty good compromise. It surrounds Israel proper and those cities which are close to Israel proper. It's not like it just cuts right through the middle of the West bank (as the light-purple partition does) -- in fact, a lot of the length of the fence comes from it coming out, around a settlement, and then cutting quickly back to the green line.

Also, from what I understand, people *can* pass through the wall near cities -- it's not a solid wall; there are gates, so those who are being "cut off" from nearby cities are actually just being rerouted through checkpoints.

Given that there is a problem of people *strapping bombs to themselves and exploding in Israeli cities*, and given that there are a number of cities over the green line by only a short distance (ex: half of Jerusalem), and given that Israel took the land as a result of a defensive war, and given that creating this wall is a strong precursor to returning the vast majority of the occupied land... I think the wall is a brilliant idea, and I think the positioning is pretty good -- it's actually very comforting to see EI's map of the positioning of the wall, and how reasonable it was. The ICoJ and their non-binding conclusions do not sway me. Rather, EI's map has swayed me the other way -- I used to be a bit unsure about the wall, but now it seems clear to me that Israel should continue with this project.

DarkHorse · Post by **DarkHorse** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 5:09 am

So the position of the wall effectively lays claim to once-Palestinian territory.

It's better than Israel invading the entire country and disposing of them entirely. Facing facts, Israel doesn't particularly care where the UN thinks its borders should be. They've stopped where they have, that's the main thing.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 7:21 pm

Israel is a modern creation. That is probably the starting point for my opinions. It was created AFTER the period where you could plant a flag on a beach and claim a territory for "God and Country". As a modern creation I think it must fall under modern rules and regulations. I'm sorry but claiming that god gave you that land and you were driven off in ancient history carries no weight with me. Ask the naitive indians of North America how much sympathy they get with that line.

Israel was created, not for indigenous Jews to protect them from the persecution of the local non-jews, but to give a homeland to Jews unwanted in European countries and Russia. That is a second important point to me. Over the objections of one set of indigenous peoples a group of outsiders was given control of the land. Given this control by others, armed and financed by others.

The deal was that Jerusalem would be shared by both Jews and Muslims as it has deep religeous significance to both. Tel Aviv was to be the capital of Israel so that Jerusalem could be only a religeous center.

In this modern world expanding your nation's borders by conquest is condemed, and rightly so, as unjust.
Iraq had a good claim to Kuwait since it had been carved out of it's historical territory by Britain when the Ottoman empire was divided up. When they invaded Kuwait the first Gulf war ensued. Why can Israel conquor land by force and expect approval?

Israel moved it's capital to Jerusalem and now moves it's borders to encompass all the city. Why is this accepted?

The settlements outside the 1967 borders are deliberate attempts to occupy land outside the original borders. Why, when they take over land in the middle of hostile territory they do not own, are the borders of Israel to be moved to give them security? You want to build a wall build it on your own border not inside someone else's.

The reality is that Israel is the strongest bully in a bad neighbourhood and will do whatever it wants. With the US as it's ally no one will dare openly oppose them. The wall may be the end of their expansionist aims but no development within motar or rocket range can be left standing either so you have to add this to the newly occupied territory. Eventually I think the death toll on both sides will fall and within the walls a kind of peace may reign. But it will not be a just or fair peace and I feel Israel should be punished by world opinion and by sanctions for their failure to abide by the laws and rules established by organizations that created them in the first place.
And don't forget that for every Israeli killed by a murderous suicide bomber 4 Palestinans are killed as collateral damage in reprisals and raids. Killed because they, like the inoccents murdered by the bomber, were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 7:45 pm

Ford Prefect wrote:Israel is a modern creation. That is probably the starting point for my opinions. It was created AFTER the period where you could plant a flag on a beach and claim a territory for "God and Country". As a modern creation I think it must fall under modern rules and regulations. I'm sorry but claiming that god gave you that land and you were driven off in ancient history carries no weight with me. Ask the naitive indians of North America how much sympathy they get with that line.

That is what I was saying in the matter of timing- who is to say that at a certain time that ability ceases to count? Who defines when "anchient history" begins, thus rendering anything that happened before that time null and void? As for your reference to Native Americans- thats just a matter of the Europeans being alot bigger bully. In fact, your example is a completely different thing- you view Israeles as the bully invading, while the Indians where the ones getting bullied- by your standard of "natives" and "invaders" what happened in North America should be an example of the validity of simply coming and claiming a land. Fact is: none of the land was taken (in the modern are) by aggression on the part of Israeles, only after aggression was initiated by the surrounding nations. Painting Israel as a bully is inaccurate.

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 7:55 pm

Ford, the wall is meant to be a temporary solution, built along defensive fault lines NOT political lines meant to be the final national boundaries of Israel. Granted, it may end up being the fait accompli borders the longer the wall stands, but that's just more incentive for the Palestinians to get their house in order, stop the attacks and let the wall come down sooner than later and get back to meaningful peace talks so the border lines can be agreed upon by both sides.

Bottom line, however one feels about walls, is that that wall has done more to ease the violence in just one year's time than of decades of talk and good intentions. As such, there's no way in the world it's coming down. Also, being the democracy that it is, Israel's courts are ruling on legitimate challenges to the wall's route and are forcing changes where needed. Frankly I feel the *world bodies* are mostly against Israel and are just pissed that the wall has proven itself to be so effective.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 10:27 pm

Temporary? http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2869.shtml
I guess even a mountain is temporary. It will be generations before that thing comes down. It makes the Berlin wall look like a child's sand castle.

Snoopy: my point is that Israel is a modern creation and so should be ruled by modern laws not the old laws of might makes right and conquor to rule. A ruling of the UN in 1948 made Israel a state. The same UN calls for Israel to abide by the pre 1967 boundaries and nothing happens. Those who used the resolutions of the UN as fodder against Iraq for not destroying it's weapons of mass destruction (or did they?

) just ignore the resolutions of the same body against Israel.
Good for the goose good for the gander I say.

It is just my OPINION that the Israelis play the poor oppressed people card when talking about Jews around the world and then treat the Arab Palestinians like they have no rights at all to their land. When the Christian Serbs decided to get rid of the "Ethnic Albanians" (read Muslims) inside their own sovergn borders in the province of Kosovo the world got on it's high horse and bombed them into the stone age. Apply some of the same rules in Palestine and see what you get. And yes the Muslims in Kosovo were guilty of terroist atrocities against the Kosovo Christian Serbs in an attempt to succeed from Serbia and the world still came to their aid.

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 12:03 am

Nevertheless, senior government sources expressed satisfaction with the ruling, noting that the court accepted the state's position in principle: that the fence was a security barrier rather than a political one, and that, therefore, the government has a right to build it in the West Bank, rather than being obligated, as the petitioners had argued, to build it along the Green Line.

-From FC's original linked Haaretz Daily article.

Ford, your choice of Web references leaves a lot to be desired. A fanatical anti-Israel propaganda site doesn't carry much weight (except with fanatical anti-Israel folks). The wall is temporary. It's clear the wall also inconveniences Israel and it only erected the wall when few other options or reliable security assurances could be obtained from the Palestinian *authorities*. When those assurances are finally in place or the terrorist violence burns it's self out through attrition, it will be dismantled.