Amnesty urges Israel to tear down West Bank separation fence

Rights group Amnesty International said Monday that the fence Israel is building to separate itself from the Palestinians in the West Bank is illegal, has caused the Palestinians death and suffering, and should be torn down.

The barrier, mostly razor wire-tipped fences and shorter sections of concrete walls, already stretches for 220 miles - and is planned to cover 450 miles when it is finished - also risks prolonging, rather than ending the conflict, Amnesty said in a report on the eve of the 40th anniversary of the 1967 Six-Day War between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

Israel has said the barrier, deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice because it runs through occupied territory, has stopped Palestinian suicide bombers from reaching its cities and could be removed under a future peace agreement.

"Israel's ... legitimate security concerns are no excuse for blatant violations of international law, nor the mistreatment of thousands of Palestinians in a massive program of collective punishment," Amnesty's U.K. director Kate Allen said.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/866443.html

whats the problem with that ?

But otherwise there is no problem that I can see. "Good fences make good neighbors", as Robert Frost said.

:hi:

NGO watchdog calls on Amnesty International's Israel branch to quit global organization

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3408221,00.html

<snip>

"A soon to be released report by Amnesty International (AI) on Israel is so prejudiced that the human rights group's Israeli branch must quit the organization, an NGO Watchdog said in a statement Sunday."

<snip>

"It described Amnesty's report, "Enduring Occupation: Palestinians under siege in the West Bank," as providing "more evidence of AI's strong political agenda on Arab-Israeli issues," adding that "this report also reinforces the unjustified boycott campaigns that delegitimize Israel and the right of self-defense."

<snip>

"Responding to the charges, Amnesty International's Israel branch Director-General, Amnon Vidan, said his office "stood fully behind the report," and dismissed the call to leave global Amnesty International.

"This is a report that sums up the main violations in the territories; it will highlight 40 years of Israeli military occupation," Vidan told Ynetnews. "This report is not anti-Israel, but sums up things that Amnesty has been claiming for years, regarding the influence of this occupation on Palestinians lives. Its standards and methodologies are what guides AI around the world. And therefore the claim that the report is anti-Israel is demagoguery," he added.

"The call for us to disengage from Amnesty is irrelevant, because we are one organization," Vidan said. "We stand behind the same principles of human rights, supported by all Amnesty members around the world, including those in Israel. And we fully stand behind Amnesty's report," he added."

...no way would I tear the fence down.

The fence has been a major success in stopping suicide bombers from entering Israel. That is why Hamas and the others are so adamant. Damn fence stops them from killing Jews, so that fence must go!

The fence will stay and the Palestinians lose again. Until the Palestinians as a people are willing to live in permanent peace with Israel (no "hudna" with fighting to be renewed when Hamas is ready, no long-term dreams of destroying the Jewish state, then driving out the Jews) it will continue to go badly for them. Until the Palestinians stop thinking that "the occupation" includes Jews living in Tel Aviv, there will be no peace. These are Old Testament Jews, and they will not go quietly into the night.

simple point that you ignored.

Vice Premier Shimon Peres Monday rejected a special Amnesty International report which urged Israel to dismantle the West Bank fence, declaring that suicide bombings had been curtailed almost entirely since the barrier was erected.

In a report timed to coincide with this week's 40th anniversary of the 1967 Six Day War, Amnesty on Monday also called for Israel to dismantle West Bank settlements and roadblocks, for the Palestinians to end attacks on Israeli civilians and for the international community to monitor both sides.

Peres, speaking on Israel Radio, said the West Bank barrier had proven its worth as an obstacle to suicide bombings. "The heaviest damages caused during the intifada, to Israel from a human standpoint, and to the Palestinians from an economic standpoint, were the result of buses blown up by suicide bombers who came into Israel from the West Bank.

"The fact is, that since the fence was erected, this has almost completely stopped. Dozens if not hundreds of lives have been spared."

----
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/866768.html

Since he admits the wall is working so well, then isn't it time to get rid of the road blocks inside the West Bank? And I wish these idiots would realize that likely all of the controversy concerning the wall would disappear if they just put the damned thing on their own land - NOT the West Bank.

And I wish these idiots would realize that likely all of the controversy concerning the wall would disappear if they just put the damned thing on their own land - NOT the West Bank.

if its not the wall it will be the settlements...if not the settlements it will be the overflights....if not the overflights it will be the raids.....
______

theres always going to be something until there is a change in attitude

How is that going to change unless Israel changes its behavior? Or do you think the laws should change to suit Israel and Israel alone?

doesnt seem to help much does it......i believe all those attacks on israel pre67 were "illegal"...(remember no settlements) all those arab armies attacking were probably illegal, the katushas from fatah land were probably illegal...those kassams i guess are as well as hizballas attacks....and israeli overflights are surly illegal, israeli raids into gaza must be, kidnapping israelis is a good bet to being illegal....

intl law sure has its affect on the citizens of the area.....and when the wall which has proven so effective, that doesnt kill anybody and actually prevents violence is declared illegal.....kind of hard to accept intl law as a serious .

If Israel wants their big fence, they have the right to build it as long as it follows the border right? That seems to make sense to me. If you don't like your neighbor and want to wall up your common land border you don't build your fence into your neighbor's land or across your neighbor's land or shoot your fence like arches into your neighbor's land like taking bites out of a slice of bread. Such a case under any civil law court will not stand at all not to mention common decency. You want a new fence, build it on your side of the land.

"theres always going to be something until there is a change in attitude"

And what attitude is that? Pointing out that Israel's actions are sometimes wrong and they are not always right?

2 points:
the 67 ceasefire lines were never an agreed upon border

if the wall was on that line...many of the settlements would then be exposed and vunerable to being attacked the walls purpose is to protect israeli lives....some live on one side of the line, some on the other.

rightfully owned land versus protecting illegal settlers from land they ought not to be living on in the first place, it's a no-brainer which option to choose. Those settlers knew what they were getting into and should move to Israel if it's protection they seek.

protect the israelis....history has shown if not us...nobody else will......especially not "intl law"

The Israelis could be protected far better by a wall on Israeli territory, if they were willing to abandon the illegal settlements.

The fact that the wall has been built on Palestinian land is, I think, strong evidence that its route was chosen to cement the occupation, not to protect Israeli lives.

Also, what would your view be on a non-Israeli nation adopting a policy of "kill or destroy the lives of as many Israelis as it takes to protect our property"?

It's not protecting Israelis, it's protecting settlements.

Why does one exclude the other? The fence has done an excellent job as a barrier to terrorism. Terrorist attacks have dropped almost 100% in the areas that the fence is erected.




The Israelis could be protected far better by a wall on Israeli territory, if they were willing to abandon the illegal settlements.

What makes you think so? How much better would the wall work than it is working now? (Would it block over 100% of terrorist attacks?)

The issue of the settlements is not going to be resolved as a rection to terrorism. The fact is that the settlements are not illegal and have been validated by the Palestinians via Oslo. Whether they will all stay or partially stay or whatever is to be decided by negotiations.

The fact that the wall has been built on Palestinian land is, I think, strong evidence that its route was chosen to cement the occupation, not to protect Israeli lives.

There is no such thing as Palestinian land. The west bank is unclaimed territory right now. The route was chosen to encompass as many Israeli citizens as possible. I don't know what "cement the occupation" means. The issue of the settlements and of the future border has nothing to do with the fence. The fact that the fence encompasses areas where Israelis live seems to be pretty solid evidence that their main concern is protecting Israeli citizen's lives. If it was a land grab then why did they wait 40 years to do it?

Also, what would your view be on a non-Israeli nation adopting a policy of "kill or destroy the lives of as many Israelis as it takes to protect our property"?

I have no idea what this is referring to. The fence is entirely about protecting lives. If Israeli terrorists were infiltrating Jordan on a regular basis and they wanted to put up a fence that severly inconvenienced many Israelis they would still have the right to do so.

settlers out , build the wall on the green line ..

Thats the way to protect all Israelis without stealing land.

The land is occupied but it is also disputed. For example, the Jewish Quarter in East Jerusalem has been Jewish since the time of King David. The Jewish residents were expelled when Jordan occupied the area in 48/9 until the 67 war. So the Jews were expelled for 18 years out of the past three thousand or so. Does this now mean that the Jewish Quarter should be considered Arab land and any Jewish return to the city is nothing more than "illegal colonization" and "stealing land?"

Let them have a say on the apparatus that affects their daily lives.

They vote for the PA, under whose jurisdiction something like 95% of west bank palestinians live. East Jerusalem Palestinians, (because Israel has appended EJ), have the right to apply for Israeli citizenship and then have the right to vote for everything, or if they retain their non-Israeli status, have the right to vote in local elections and have access to Jerusalem resident benefits like pensions.

Palestinians living in the west bank do not get to vote in Israeli elections because they are not Israeli. Just as Iraqis do not get to vote in American or British elections. And Afghanis do not get to vote in NATO elections.

The reason settlers can vote is because they are Israeli citizens. Just because the occupation affects their lives does not mean that Palestinians automatically are owed the right of representation. My girlfriend is not a US citizen yet she lives here in NYC. US laws affect her life every day yet she is not allowed to vote. Because she is not a citizen.

Voting is not just a right that exists in a vacum. Citizenship requires a committment and is part of a larger give and take process. While you get certain rights such as voting, you also have responsibilities to uphold, like jury duty and the draft. Being under occupation is not tantamount to gaining citizenship. Just because Jordan stripped all these poor folk of their Jordanian citizenship does not obligate Israel to give them theirs. Especially if they would rather have their own state instead.

n/t

no parts of Iraq have been home to any Americans for the past 3000 years.

Are you seriously saying that the Jewish Quarter of old Jerusalem, inhabited by Jews continuously from King David's time until modern day, is in fact Arab land that unquestionably belongs to the Palestinians?

Why?

the same way Israeli Arabs are living in Israel.

Personally , I want one state for all its citizens. I think thats the most ethical proposition , if not the most practical.

then there's no way you can honestly consider a one state solution the most practical option.

That pipe dream has been owned by the hardcore ideologues on either side for the past 90 years. I mean "idealogue" in both the best, and the worst manner. Some of the early Zionists held fast to the idea of a single socialist state, where strife did not exist between religions or cultures. Their biggest flaw was to assume that economic benefits would be enough for the Palestinian natives to accept the europeanization of their culture, aka: the marginalization of their culture. Big mistake. And there always existed religious idealogues on both sides that stood unwavering in their belief that the whole of Palestine belonged to their sect alone. (Good luck with that one guys.)

The one thing that always stood in the way of a single state solution still exists today. Reality.

You may as well propose a single state solution between India and Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir debaucle. (It actually resembles the I/P conflict in many (not all) ways.

should these area be automatically given to Palestine? What is the rationality behind determining that Jewish holy sites be placed under Palestinian rule?

It seems arbitrary, to say the least.

Extremists on both sides don't think the green line is worth shit...

If the Israelis and Palestinians want to redraw the borders differently and can agree on such a thing then ok.

But either in justified in objecting in the other getting more than is provided by the green line.

as being the arbiter of who gets what? It isn't just extremists on both sides who put no stock in the green line, no one does. The green line is just an armistice line. It was agreed upon by everyone that it have no relevance to any future border or negotiations.

Now that has changed a bit and it has become a starting point for negotiations via mutual agreement. But there is no guarantee that the Palestinians will get everything east of the green line for their state. In fact, it is virtually guaranteed that they won't. There will be comparable land swaps of less valued land and a lot of money given as compensation for the refugees, and some parts of east Jerusalem, etc. The basics of the settlement are pretty much worked out already. The few sticking points that remain are not easily resolved. For example, who gets sovereignty over the Haram al Sharif/Temple Mount? There's no "right" answer. And there sure 'aint no easy one.

Here's the thing. The whole idea of an independent Palestinian state is relatively new. After it died in 49 no one heard of it until the late 70's/early 80's. The West Bank was occupied by Israel, but from Jordan. It wasn't till '88 that Jordan renounced their claim in favor of a Palestinian state. We can argue for decades over what land is rightfully whose or what international law has to say about it, but honestly, both groups have fair claim to a large chunk of Palestine. The real issue is ensuring that the Palestinians end up with a viable state that meets their needs.

I can tell you right now, they aren't going to end up with the state they want. But there's a good shot that they can get a contiguous state that will allow them Independence and self-determination. And they will have to be willing to settle for that because the alternatives are not preferable for anyone.

They are going to have to give up the dream if they ever want to have a decent reality. Idealism is the death knell of the peace process... mideast politics demands realists.

the 95% is referring to population.

permitted to develop anything on that white area shown in the map ..

That is akin to huge open air prisons.

Aren't you? What do you think? That Palestinians are all being evicted from their villages and homes and squeezed into cities? How many Palestinians would you say have been evicted, and forced into these ghettos you speak of, underocean?

Really. Can you please show me where it has been documented that Palestinians in the West bank are forced off their land and squeezed into crowded urban areas? Or even where it says that the white area of this map is off limits to Palestinians?

Fact is, back in the day, Palestinians used to work in the settlements and did not have any restrictions at all. It was only in response to terrorism that these restrictions had to be imposed for security. It sucks that all of the west bank has to pay the price of Palestinian terrorism. To give one example, all of the Palestinians and Israelis used to be able to use all of the roads in the WB, but after years of people constantly firing on Israeli cars, Israel restricted Palestinian access to them.

But all of these restrictions, the fence, the off-limit roads, the checkpoints, etc. are all temporary. They only exist in reaction to terrorism. For example, now that the fence is up, some of the checkpoints are slowly being dismantled where they aren't needed anymore.

And I meant they are not allowed to develop and grow... They are frozen in whatever state of urban development they had in 1967 .... did any of the West bank cities , villages and towns expand in size since 1967 ? and how does that compare with other countries ?

Why isn't there a civilian Airport in the West Bank to serve peoples needs ?

And what you are mentioning is called collective punishment... Like the USA punishing all African Americans for the crimes committed by the few.

And I know its a sad development , someone told me it was possible to drive into Gaza to buy cheap produce in the 70's and 80's .

. . important effect on their daily lives. They cast that vote for Hamas. That's democracy. You get choices - and then you have to deal with the consequences of those choices.

They must collectively may the price too ?

Have 600 checkpoints built between there cities , sanctions , military assassinations ...

Like all democracies it must pay the price for all decisions of its elected government. How could it be otherwise?

Does the UN have a "Get Out of Responsibility" card for democracies that fuck up - like we did in Viet Nam or Iraq? No. But they sure are doing their best to provide the Palestinians with one of those.

Compared to middle eastern standard , yeah sure its a democracy .... South Africa compared to ME standards was a democracy.

Wasn't directed military rule over Israeli Arabs only lifted in 1980 or so.

But if compared to Western Democratic standards , it falls short in my opinion

It was 1966. Around the same time as civil rights took hold in America. And America did not have the same kind of problematic relationship with her minority citizens as Israel did. The relationship is still very problematic and probably won't be fully worked out until the I/P conflict has long since been resolved. But nothing there makes Israel less Democratic. In fact, I'd say that it is to Israel's credit that their democracy operates so well, and seeks to treat her citizens equally, (with varying success), in spite of these problems... some of which are pretty fundamental.

What about Israeli democracy falls short in your opinion? Their democracy has been consistently ranked as comperable to any western democracy.

Ok, some stuff I read about :


1) Its not possible to get a civil marriage in Israel, there is an Orthodox monopoly on marriage. No where in the western world is there such an intrusion of religion into what should be a legal matter ... Mixed Jewish/Arab marriages are therefore problematic and many cases end up traveling abroad to get married.

If an Israeli marries a west banker and wants his spouse to live with him/her in Israel , forget about it !

Is there any western democratic country that does that ?

2) Immigration laws : only Jews may immigrate to Israel ?

Is there a single western democratic country that has laws on the books limiting immigration to only one or even a few ethnic groups ?

Sure , there where some Racist immigration quotas in the USA before the 1965 immigration act , but thats it.

3) Most land in Israel is owned by the JNF , which can sell land only to jews ...

Is there any other western democracy that allows an organization that excludes 20% of the population to operate legaly.

Not to mention the building permits : it is infinitely more difficult for an Israeli arab to get those than am Israeli Jew.


There are more , but I'll stick to those points for now

Next time can you please try listing a single... true... fact?

Just one maybe?

Not that I don't enjoy your bullshit propaganda. It's interesting to see what some people will believe when they need to validate a strongly held prejudice.

"As civil marriage does not exist in Israel, the only institutionalized form of marriage in Israel is the religious one, i.e. a marriage conducted by a cleric. Specifically, marriage of Israeli Jews must be conducted according to Orthodox Jewish halakha. This implies that people who cannot get married according to Jewish law (e.g. a kohen and a divorcée, or a Jew and one who is not halachically Jewish) cannot have their union sanctioned. This has led for calls, mostly from the secular segment of the Israeli public, for the institution of civil marriage. There are many people affected by this law. In Israel today, there are approximately "300,000 Israelis who cannot marry because one of the partners is not Jewish, or his or her Jewishness cannot be determined."

Many secular Israelis travel abroad to have civil marriages, either because they do not believe in the Orthodox view of Judaism or because their union cannot be sanctioned by halakha. These marriages are legally binding in Israel, though not recognized by the rabbinate as Jewish."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_view_of_marriage


And see post 79 please , I seem to have misplaced it.

"n the area of marriages, stories are legion of couples, especially non-Orthodox ones, who have had unpleasant experiences with rabbinic functionaries. The growing demand for civil marriage in Israel is an indication of dissatisfaction with the rabbinic marriage bureaucracy."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1178708701490&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Can a Muslim immigrate to Israel , the same way he/she can immigrate to any western democracy.

I can source all my claims , in fact , I'll just do that.

Can a Muslim immigrate to Israel , the same way he/she can immigrate to any western democracy.

Immigration is not restricted to Jews. A muslim may have a harder time than a christian, to tell the truth, but I have known non-jews who immigrated to Israel. And the Palestinians of East Jerusalem, of course, have the option of immigrating should they desire.

In fact, technically speaking, most immigrants are not Jewish, but are merely related to Jews. This is a bigger deal than it first seems. Someone can be a practicing Christian and still be admitted according to the Law of Return. The Law of Return is really about persecution, not religion.

True, there's no civil marriage in Israel, which makes mixed marriages (unless one of the partners converts) difficult. This is a real porblem, but I'm not convinced it speaks to the theart of democracy.



I don't know. But this should be seen in context - we are, when you come right down to it, at war with the Palestinians. A question, for anyone who might know - during WWII, could a resident of Britain freely bring a German spouse to the UK?



Not accurate. Jews have an easier time immagrating, because the Law of Return provides a fast-track for their attaining citizenship (I should note that quite a few European countries have comparable fast-track laws for their respective diasporas). That law, however, has nothing to do with placing limits on non-Jews applying for citizenship - it just means they can't use the fast track.



A few inaccuracies here.

First of all, the JNF doesn't sell land to anyone (unless they're well-connected) - normally, land is leased. Second, it owns only a small part of the land in Israel - most of the public land is owned by the Israeli Land Administration.

You're correct that the JNF's rules (which date to pre-state times) require it to lease land only to Jews - in theory. In practise, however, various methods are normally used to get around that - for example, the land in question is transferred to the ILA (which has no such restrictions) in exchange for an equally-sized parcel of uninhabited land.



Not sure how true this is. It's often difficult to get such permits. I know people (Jews) who've literally waited years for them.

and instead discussing them.

Thats a rarity.

About the difficulty of getting permits ? you seem to imply that it is equally difficult for Jews , in your opinion why is that ?

See , I get a feeling that a lot of laws in Israel are subservient to what benefits the Jewish ethnic group rather than to Justice and fairness.

the boneheadedness of our bureaucracy is legendary. Mind you, I'm not an expert on the processes in question - I've never personally required such a permit, and I haven't made a study of the issue - but that's my impression.

Yes, all those things are perfectly legitimate casus belli (except possibly "overflights", which I'm ashamed to say I don't know anything about).

I don't think "why should Israel bother stopping doing one illegal & immoral thing when it's doing so many others too?" is a good line of argument, though.

the recon flights over lebanon basically get the info on where hizballa 'hides" their missiles etc.

all of those sonic booms over lebanon......which has happened how many times in the last 20 years.....once? twice? during the non shooting periods....

is that israel has to do what it deems necessary and moral according to its own set of values not by someone elses. Intl law doesnt get much credit in these parts (hamas/hizballa probably has even a lower opinion than israel does of that)

Thats the question.

I think that that line of moral relativism - "One set of values is just as good as another, so I can do whatever I choose and you have no right to criticise me" is both flawed and pernicious. Imagine what would happen if you tried to apply the same approach to criminal legislation.

Whether or not international law gets much credit, it should be followed and enforced, the same as any other law. It's worth noting that while neither Israel nor the arab militants wants anything to do with international law, the Palestinian civilians almost certainly want it enforced.

If you wish to say "Israel *will* do whatever it feels like, and ignore international law" then I would fully agree with you.

But there's no place for a "should" or a "has to" or any mention of "values" in that claim; it's an implicit admission that Israel doesn't care if its behaviour is immoral, and that everyone else has a moral obligation to try and stop it.

its really quite simple:

kassams and katushas were and are flying into israel...according to intl law as defined by many israel has no real right to stop those missles.....since stopping them due to technolgoies limitations requires civilians to be killed....and that is immoral

conclusion.....intl law has a morality that prefers israeli dead over the other...if i am wrong here then please explain how israel can stop stop the kassams (katushas from lebanon) without breaking intl law.

(should i remind you that the jihadnikim dont wear uniforms, work out of civilians areas, etc)


Hence following intl law will in essence cause more israeli dead. Same can be said for the wall, if it was built on the green line, many israeli would be exposed to the terrorists attacks....same conclusion: following intl law results in more israeli dead.

so which is the more moral? intl law or israel protecting its citizens lives (laws are not always moral: nuremberg laws?).
(and yes on palestenain land....since when is land ownership more important than lives?)
______
just a side note:
If and this is a big if, the same standard was given to the palestenians there might even be something to talk about....but we all know that is not the case. For reasons that remain unclear, intl law and the palestenains never seems to be mentioned in the same sentence

thing?

When you say "Same can be said for the wall, if it was built on the green line, many israeli would be exposed to the terrorists attacks....same conclusion: following intl law results in more israeli dead." which Israeli's are you referring to? Is it the settlers? If security is their concern, why don't they move to Israel? Surely you aren't going to defend the settlers now are you? I thought they were a blight on Israel?

someone once said that israel can and should respond to the kassam and katushas within intl law......when i inquired what methods would then be acceptable (using todays technologies and tactics and accepting the limitations of such)......i never received a response.....

i never said security is the concern of the settlers....security of israeli citizens is the concern of the state. It is the states responsablity to protect them.

the green line if not the settlers?

You say international law doesn't allow Israel to respond. And then you say you asked for acceptable methods to use and weren't given any. As if that's proof of something. Isn't is Israel's response to figure that out?

You say international law doesn't allow Israel to respond. And then you say you asked for acceptable methods to use and weren't given any. As if that's proof of something. Isn't is Israel's response to figure that out?

we have figured it out....that when people shoot at us, no matter where they hide we will shoot back...i understand that to some that is illegal..so i politely and humbly ask again if you have any suggestions as to which present technologies and tactics might israel use to stop certain groups from shooting missles at israeli cities, as well as the constant attempts at bringing bombs over the border as well, that would be considered legal.

But yes, I think that *if* it can't stop the missiles without killing significantly more innocent civilians than they would then Israel has no right to stop the missiles, and the rest of the world should try and prevent it from doing so. I don't like innocent Israeli civilians being killed, but faced with a choice between a policy that will kill a number of innocent Israelis being killed and one that will lead to twice as many innocent Palestinians being killed, I find it depressing that some people even think there's a dilemma.


"and yes on palestenain land....since when is land ownership more important than lives?"

I think this is rather disingenuous - driving Palestinians out of their homes ruins their lives; building the "security fence" (horrible euphemism) on Israeli land rather than Palestinian wouldn't cost lives.


It's not clear to me how much of what the Palestinians are doing is illegal. I think it's clear that agents of the Palestinian state have a complete legal (although not moral) right to kill any Israeli soldier or leader they can, and to destroy property and infrastructure. I'm fairly sure that it is explicitly illegal to deliberately target civilians, though, which many of the Palestinian militant groups are obviously doing (although I don't know whether or not the settlers qualify).

But yes, I think that *if* it can't stop the missiles without killing significantly more innocent civilians than they would then Israel has no right to stop the missiles, and the rest of the world should try and prevent it from doing so

that translates in to letting myself, family, friends be killed.....and there is no dilemma in that.

I don't like innocent Israeli civilians being killed, but faced with a choice between a policy that will kill a number of innocent Israelis being killed and one that will lead to twice as many innocent Palestinians being killed, I find it depressing that some people even think there's a dilemma.

Are you serious? What world do you live in where nations rank policy in such a way that no distinction is drawn between their own citizens and everyone else's? A government's duty is to protect THEIR citizens. Preserving human life in general is secondary to protecting their own citizens. This is a twisted way to try an shift responsibility for the Palestinians away from the PA and onto Israel. Israel's responsibility for the Palestinians is secondary to its responsibility to its own citizens. If the PA insists on taking actions that endanger their citizens then THEY are the ones that should be held responsible. Unless Israel was neglecting an option that exposed palestinians to less danger without exposing Israelis to additional danger. Then they would be obligated to take that course of action.

In what conflict has any nation used the standard you suggest? It is not only ridiculous, it is immoral.

I think it's clear that agents of the Palestinian state have a complete legal (although not moral) right to kill any Israeli soldier or leader they can, and to destroy property and infrastructure

How so? Don't they have an obligation to meet their end of the treaty they agreed to? If not, then why would Israel be obligated to provide aid of any sort to Palestine? Wouldn't Israel be similarly allowed to cut off fuel, water, etc.? You can't expect Palestine to have the right to attack Israel and still live without consequences.

If Palestine wants to attack Israel, they can. But they would be crushed. Israel is not expected to limit their response only because the PA is limited in their means of attack. Israel's only responsibility is to protect their citizens. That's #1. No one fights a war by trying to balance out the casualties or by treating the enemy the same as yourself.

Show me where that right is outlined please.

And point out exactly where the right supercedes the terms of any peace treaties signed by both sides.

right to resist that occupation? Pretty convenient, wouldn't you say?

You said resisting occupation was a basic right. It doesn't matter what I think, or what you think, about the ethical questions raised by occupation. We aren't talking opinion, we are talking law.

Where does this "right to resist occupation", come from?

You said it's "basic stuff," right? Well, I'm not so sure. I want to see it.

There is an essential distinction in international law between the laws that govern whether or not one is permitted to use force, and the rules that apply once force is being used. 0 The legality of force – what is called in Latin ius ad bellum – is spelled out in the UN Charter and is essentially a State’s right to self-defense and a people’s right to self determination. A completely different set of rules, which have to be treated separately, is the law applicable to warfare, whether it is legitimate or not. In Latin this is called ius in bello. This in international humanitarian law.

----

Having said that, it does seem that the Palestinians have a pretty good case for the use of force. Generally it is recognized that they have a right to self-determination. But the question is self-determination to where and in what borders? Israel says that it was attacked in 1967 by its Arab neighbors and in its war of self-defense it had to occupy these territories. So then from the point of view of the ius ad bellum, it would be perfectly lawful occupation. The Palestinians say the opposite and they say they have the right to a resistance against the occupation, a right which would only exist under the ius ad bellum. As in all conflicts, which side has the right to use force is controversial. But the Palestinians don’t have a bad case, because either they can fall under the occupation point, or they can fall under the right to self-determination point.


http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/me-sassoli.html

And I am not seeing your point.

You bolded a section that differentiates between, the laws governing when use of force is permitted, and the humanitarian laws applicable to all conflicts, regardless of whether they are legal or not. What does this second part, (ius in bello), have to do with our discussion? It seems to be about humanitarian laws. We aren't discussing whether anyone broke laws like that, but whether the Palestinians have the basic right to resist occupation.

As far as that goes, nowhere in this whole link does the author point to a statute saying anything like that. Look...

The Palestinians say the opposite and they say they have the right to a resistance against the occupation

OK, but where is this "right" mentioned? It isn't in the UN Charter. All it says here is that the Palestinians said that they have it. So?

or they can fall under the right to self-determination point.

Likewise, it doesn't say anywhere that self-determination gives anyone the right to resistance. The Palestinians aren't fighting for self-determination anyway, they already have been recognized by Israel and the UN as an independent entity.

Moreover, the occupation has been validated and accepted by the Palestinians, it's part of the Oslo Accords. Nothing in the UN Charter or even the Geneva Conventions trumps agreements negotiated between two entities, both are clear on that point. And the Palestinians and Israel agreed on the current system. Nothing in the UN Charter gives any nation the right to legally violate terms of their peace treaties. For example, the western occupation of Japan following WWII was outlined in the armistice agreement between Japan and the US, right? So did Japan have the right to continue attacking American GIs because they were under occupation? No.

And there is no "Palestine" yet. Whether the settlements are on Israeli or Palestinian land is something to be determined through negotiations. There's no reason to think that the green line exists as some sort of de-facto border, and everything to the east of it "belongs" to Palestine.

But yes, I think that *if* it can't stop the missiles without killing significantly more innocent civilians than they would then Israel has no right to stop the missiles, and the rest of the world should try and prevent it from doing so.

Let's say the world adopts this policy. So then, if I am a terrorist living in Gaza, wouldn't this policy encourage me to surround my missile launchers and Qassam factories and VIP's, (and so on...) with a whole bunch of kids and civilians? (This has already been done by Hamas and Hezbollah, to great effect.)

This policy gives any army, (either national, legitimate or rogue terrorist), a guaranteed, impenetrable shield. Let's say you're a gunman heading off to fire at a kibbutz. Normally this is a suicide mission. But now all you have to do is strap two or three babies to yourself and no one can touch you! Seriously, unless everyone played by the rules, how would this work? It would just ensure that missiles were always launched from the roofs of nursery schools.

I'm fairly sure that it is explicitly illegal to deliberately target civilians, though, which many of the Palestinian militant groups are obviously doing (although I don't know whether or not the settlers qualify).

It is always illegal to target civilians. Always, always, always. Even if it is a settler. Now, why wouldn't settlers qualify as civilians? You think an 8 year old living in a settlement is somehow fair game?

And it is not "many" Palestinian militant groups who have done this. It is all of them, without exception.

It's worth noting that while neither Israel nor the arab militants wants anything to do with international law, the Palestinian civilians almost certainly want it enforced.

note the whole country of israel is being equaled to arab militiants...

please tell me how many left wing peace groups there are within the palestenian community?....and how many members are there? and what is the percentage to the total population? (let me help...almost zero)

if anything more palestenains identity with the arab militants than israelis do with the israeli right. As far as intl law goes....since fatah, hamas, islamic jihad are pretty busy breaking intl law and they are the major parties..seems to me the logic then goes that most palestenains have little respect for intl law as well.

While it's acceptable to say that not all Israelis may support Israeli policy, why is it not acceptable to say that many Palestinians don't support the extremists?

i believe its public record...the vast majority of the palestenains voted for hamas and fatah...neither group respects intl law.

Israel is a democratic state. It has a single goverment, who sets a policy, defined largely by the wishes of the majority of the electorate, to whom it is answerable. As such, for violence committed by the Israeli state, I blame "Israel".

The Palestinian militants are a bunch of warring groups, answerable to no-one except other members of their organisation. As such, for violence committed by Hamas, I blame Hamas, for violence committed by Hezbollah (not that they're Palestinian) I blame Hezbollah, and to generalise I blame "the Palestinian militants".

Incidentally, I think that the problem in Israel isn't just the right - not merely Likud, but also Kadima and elements of Labour (which just nearly selected Ehud Barak, the man who chose to throw away the last chance for peace in the ME, as its leader) all oppose any serious attempt to make peace.

seems to me the vast majority of the palestenians voted for hamas and fatah...neither of which respect intl law.....they may be a bunch of warring groups but the palestenian people never the less seem to identify with them.

i dont recall them voting in any large numbers for the "third party"...which is as far as I understand is not involved in the "turf wars". Either you respect their voting record or you dont....and if you dont it (and its possible to dive into the palestenian culture and explain the reasons have little to do with the "will of the people),...but that is a double sided sword and renders the palestenains as nothing more than mere puppets.

___

as far as israeli policy being what the people voted for, that part i agree with...i dont agree that the policy and those that carry it out (me) can be compared to "militant" who enters a house/bus and kills all the inhabitants, or shoots a car full of children at point blank range or shoots missiles with the hope of it landing on a house/school etc as policy. I cant recall the last time during a military briefing i was told that was our goal.....nor can i recall doing it or seeing others do it.



my take is on arafat for destroying palestenain culture...if you take a look at before arafat arrived, the palestenains had functioning institutions based somewhat on "rules and regulations"...once he arrived with his cronies, he instituted the "buddy rule" and took over the finances himself, not to mention putting into place multiple and competing security forces and his buddies in places of power...in effect destroying a functioning system and replacing it with "one man rule". From that no good could come and no good came: The latest report shows kidnappings and murders are way up in not just gaza but in the westbank as well.

the war was something he went for after the vote was taken. The thing about politics is, one they are in office, politicians are free to pursue their own agenda and that's not necessarily the reason they were voted for in the first place. Hamas was voted in because people were tired of the corruption in Fatah. You can't put the blame on their actions onto all Palestinians.

what did hamas do differently than what they have always done? It seems to me that their actions are exactly what they always said they would be.

And you are making an assumption as to why hamas was voted in. you have no real evidence to support that.

you are saying that the American public is not responsible for Bush's actions. The point of a democracy is that the public has power over its government's actions.

Donald said...
Israel is a democratic state. It has a single goverment, who sets a policy, defined largely by the wishes of the majority of the electorate, to whom it is answerable. As such, for violence committed by the Israeli state, I blame "Israel".

So he holds Israel responsible for its policies because it is a democracy. But Pelsar is pointing out that Palestine is a democracy as well, inasmuch as that they elected Hamas in free, fair elections. By a landslide as well.

International law is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is. There's arguments for both sides of this issue. Israel is not ignoring international law. They are supporting a different interpretation of it. And there is strong evidence to support their interpretation.

Moreover, there has never been a legally binding ruling that Israel is breaking. So we are left with these interpretations as our guidelines. Just because the UN has a specific point of view does not mean that it is the correct one or that everyone is obligated to adhere to it.

"international law which everyone in the world has the same interpretation except for Israel"....

If their argument was so compelling, then why can't they convince us?

It isn't just Israel's interpretation. There's plenty of international lawyers/justices of record that support their view.

What news network was it? It doesn't sound very impartial at all, their statement isn't even true.

There are meteorologist with highly respected credentials who don't believe that global warming is a threat. There are even medical researches who claim that smoking does not cause cancer.

And there are some international lawyers who claim the wall is legal. Like the biologist who believes in creationism or the meteorologist who doesn't worry about global warming or the physician who thinks smoking does not cause cancer --- they are on the fringe.

Out of 15 distinguished international jurist representing 15 different countries, 14 agreed that the wall was completely illegal and the one dissenting jurist, Judge Buergenthal representing the United States ruled that those parts of the Wall built to protect the settlements are ipso facto illegal because the settlements themselves are illegal:

" Status of territory and applicable law (Paras. 70-106)

The ICJ went on to indicate the law applicable to determining whether or not Israel's construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory breaches international law. Regarding the status of the territory concerned, the Court noted that the territories situated between the line indicated in the 1949 Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (the "Green Line") and the former eastern boundary of Palestine (including East Jerusalem) under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine were occupied territories in which Israel has had the status of occupying Power since 1967.

Regarding the rules and principles of international law relevant in assessing the legality of the measures taken by Israel, the Court noted that these were found in the UN Charter and certain other treaties, in customary international law, and in the relevant resolutions adopted pursuant to the Charter by the General Assembly and the Security Council. The Court relied on General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970 as an enunciation of two relevant principles of customary international law. In that resolution the Assembly, inter alia, affirmed the illegality of the acquisition of territory resulting from the threat or use of force and affirmed the right of peoples in non-self-governing territories to self-determination. The ICJ has recognized the latter as a right erga omnes, i.e., an inalienable right in the protection of which all states have a legal interest. <8>

As regards international humanitarian law, the ICJ found that both the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in times of war, <9> to which Israel is a party, and the 1907 Hague Regulations, <10> a source that is binding on Israel as customary international law, are applicable to Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories. Israel had taken the position that, since Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention says that the Convention applies only to "occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party," and since the West Bank and East Jerusalem are not within the recognized territory of any contracting party, Israel is not legally bound to apply the Convention on those places (which it regards as "disputed" territory). Relying on the rules governing the interpretation of treaties, the Court concluded that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable de jure in the Occupied Palestinian Territory given the existence of an armed conflict that had arisen between Israel and Jordan, two contracting parties at the start of the 1967 war. The ICJ noted that numerous resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council have affirmed the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention and that Israel's Supreme Court found in a May 30, 2004 judgment that the Convention applied in Rafah which is situated in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court also acknowledged the significance of the International Committee of the Red Cross ("ICRC") as an authoritative interpreter of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and noted the ICRC's repeated affirmation that the Convention applies to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.

As regards Israel's denial that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR"), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ("ICESCR"), and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, all of which have been ratified by Israel, are applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the ICJ pointed out that the protection offered by human rights conventions does not cease in case of armed conflict, save through the effect of provisions for derogation included in those instruments. Consequently, in answering the question put to it, the Court had to take into consideration both human rights law and international humanitarian law (as lex specialis).

V. Scope of applicable treaties (Paras. 107-113)

Regarding the scope of application of the applicable treaties, the ICJ concluded that the ICCPR and the Convention on the Rights of the Child are applicable both to territories over which a state has sovereignty and to those over which that state exercises jurisdiction outside sovereign territory. <11>

While the ICESCR lacks a provision specifying its scope of application, the ICJ found that it is not to be excluded that this treaty applies also to acts carried out by a state in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside its own territory. <12> Observing that "the territories occupied by Israel have for over 37 years been subject to its territorial jurisdiction as the occupying Power," the ICJ concluded that Israel is bound by the provisions of these treaties and "is under an obligation not to raise any obstacle to the exercise of such rights in those fields where competence has been transferred to Palestinian authorities." (Para. 112)

VI. Question of breach (Paras. 114-134)

Turning to the question of whether the construction of the wall has violated the rules and principles identified by it, the ICJ noted that Israel has argued that the wall's sole purpose is to enable it effectively to combat terrorist attacks launched from the West Bank and that the wall is a temporary measure. The Court recalled that both the General Assembly and the Security Council in their resolutions have referred, with regard to Palestine, to the customary rule of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. In the Court's view, it is apparent that the wall's sinuous route has been traced in such a way as to include within the "Closed Area" between the Green Line and the wall the great majority of the Israeli settlements (and about 80% of the Israeli settlers) in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem). According to the ICJ, the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law, in particular Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention <13> and binding Security Council resolutions. The Court considered that the construction of the wall and its associated regime of measures create a "fait accompli" on the ground that could well become permanent, in which case it would be tantamount to de facto annexation. In the Court's view, the wall's construction, along with measures taken previously, "severely impedes the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination, and is therefore a breach of Israel's obligation to respect that right." (Para. 122.)

The ICJ found that the construction of the wall has led to the destruction or requisition of Palestinian properties under conditions that contravene the requirements of Articles 46 and 52 of the 1907 Hague Regulations and Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. <14> In its view, the wall's construction, the establishment of the Closed Area, and the creation of enclaves have imposed substantial restrictions on the freedom of movement of the inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (with the exception of Israeli citizens) and have had serious repercussions for Palestinian agricultural production, access to health services, educational establishments and primary sources of water, and have changed the demographic composition of the territory concerned in violation of applicable provisions of international humanitarian law, <15> human rights treaties, <16> and Security Council resolutions. <17"[br />
link: http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh141.htm#_ednref2

comes from the UN or affiliated bodies. And I find the UN to be extremely biased regarding all things Israel. Have you read the ICJ ruling? Their interpretation of some of these statutes and the methodology they used makes their outcome a foregone conclusion.

For example, they only accepted testimony from anti-Israel sources such as the PLO and the Arab League. (No states or orgs were allowed to testify in defense of Israel.) They ruled that Israel could not claim self-defense under Article 51 because Palestine is not technically a state. (Yet they allowed Palestine to previously give testimony as a state.) The whole thing was retarded.

I do not agree with everything outlined in this refutation of the ICJ ruling, but I find it an interesting place to check out the basic arguments.

http://www.mythsandfacts.com/media/user/documents/Eli%20Hertz%20Reply%204-21-05D.pdf

Let me know what you think.

Here are some opinions on the ruling from other justices.

http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/ICJ_fence.htm


The UN has a history of rabid bias against Israel, evidenced by their ruling concerning zionism and racism, the fact that Israel is the only state not afforded the right to sit on the security council and that committee after committee have been formed to investigate/condemn Israel yet not a single one has been created to investigate other aspects of the conflict, that might give some sort of balance to the reporting.

But then, the UN is a political body. How many Islamic and Arab states are there that vote as a block on all matters Israel? Do you believe that this environment is one of balance or open-mindedness on the Israel front?

Every independent-international human rights organization holds the same opinion.

I am familiar with the basic just of the argument that since the West Bank has not since the Mandate been internationally recognized as part of a state...certain things follow. However independent bodies do not by it; either independent human rights bodies or independent legal bodies.

I will have to read the arguments you linked above later when I have time

Curious to get your opinion on the report I linked. If you get a chance, kick it back on that.

and every other credible human rights organization that deals with international humanitarian law.

The dissenting opinions were interesting.

The dissenting opinion by Thomas BUERGENTHAL as I mentioned above still has a lot of qualifications and though dissenting does not totally disagree with the dicision in its entirety. Judge Buergenthal, representing the United States, still acknowledges that much of Israel's actions in regard to the wall are legally problematic. He certainly does not declare that the wall is legal either. He does offer his opinion that those parts of the wall that are built for the sole purpose of protection of attacks carried out inside the green line that originate from outside the green line might be legal. But even that has not been determined. He does acknowledges still that the wall is on Occupied Palestinian Territory. He also acknowledges that any parts of the wall which are built to protect the settlements are ipso facto illegal because the settlements are illegal. " As a matter of law, it is not inconceivable to me that some segments of the wall being constructed on Palestinian territory meet that test and that others do not"

http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/ICJ%20-%20Buergenthal.htm

No one that I know of objects in principle to the building of a wall. They object to building it on Occupied Palestinian Territory. They object to the way in which it confiscates land and completely disrupts the economic life of a major portion of the civilian population and causes massive hardship.

Try this...

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/ReplyOnlineEdition/

"No distinction rests between genocide and the undoing the state of Israel by the International Court of Justice. To suggest denying Israel's right of self-defense in favor of Palestinian terrorism is a crime against humanity"

come on...

At least I don't have to guess what wing of the Zionist movement they represent.

Forgive me if I find the International Committee of the Red Cross and B'tSelem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights more credible. But I'm just kind of old fashion and square.
___________

p.s. but when I saw that front page stuff I did a quick google search on Eli E. Hertz, the author...judging by the stuff he rights, he is supports the extreme rightwing of the settler movement and is opposed to any Palestinian national rights or civil rights in principle. He's on the ultra-right of the "redeeming Eretz Israel" crowd; basically an extremist nut.