Puerto Rican activist arrested in Israel

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Israeli police arrested a well-known Puerto Rican activist on Friday after he climbed a tower near Israel's West Bank separation barrier and planted a Palestinian flag on it, police said.

The protest by Alberto de Jesus took place during the weekly demonstrations by peace activists against the barrier near the town of Bilin in the West Bank."

<snip>

"De Jesus, also known as Tito Kayak, is famous for leading protests against U.S. Navy exercises on Puerto Rico's Vieques Island.

He was to be taken to court Saturday night and would likely be deported, police spokesman Moshe Fintzy said.

During the protest on Friday, de Jesus climbed a surveillance tower and hung a Palestinian flag on it, said Fintzy. He then refused to come down, and only left the tower after lengthy conversations with police and other protesters, Fintzy said."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4735713.html

[The Magistrate]

1. So All Would Seem In Order, Sir

Person engages in civil disobedience, violating a law, is peaceably arrested, and the matter will go to the courts, which are expected to be lenient.

[Tom Joad]

2. Whose Law? The Wall was ruled illegal under international law.

It is Israel that engages in unlawful acts, and it should be held accountable.

[The Magistrate]

3. For A Civilian, Sir, To Scale A Military Facility

Is generally a violation of something: disorderly conduct is always useful in such matters as a catch-all....

[Tom Joad]

4. It is an illegal facility. It has no legal standing. The disoderly conduct is on the part

of those that build it, on those within the Israeli regime that continue to order it built.

[The Magistrate]

5. Meaningless Noise, Sir

Occasional attendance at demonstrations ought to have given you a better understanding of the basis for the charge than that. The conduct of the Israeli government is quite orderly....

You are stretching a bit much on the basic question, as well. There is an advisory opinion stating the view that the security barrier is, in its present position, a violation of various international laws. Enforcement, however, is up to the Security Council, and no means of enforcement has been suggested, or would be likely to pass out of that body. The advisory opinion is not, as you seem to imagine, equivalent to an old Saxon declaration of Outlawry, putting someone into a state in which any man could kill him without consequence, and even his family was barred from blood-vengeance. The fact is that the security barrier, for better or worse, is going to remain in existance: it has shown too great a utility in checking militant infiltration to be willingly discarded by the Israeli state, and no one is going to compell them to discard it.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. It's not a matter of discarding it...

It's a matter of rerouting it so that it isn't built inside Palestinian territory and in doing so showing what a great utility it is in cutting off Palestinians from their school, farms, and sometimes the rest of their towns....

Enforcement, however, is up to the Security Council, and no means of enforcement has been suggested, or would be likely to pass out of that body.

Of course with the US willing to automatically veto any attempt at enforcement coming via the Security Council, and in doing so ensuring that Israel can ignore international law, it would be pretty much a dead end for the advisory opinion to have left the only avenue of enforcement open to the SC. Which is why it didn't do that, and why it's unacceptable to have an attitude of 'oh well, Israel aren't going to do anything to carry out their obligations, so let's just say it's here to stay and say some good things to say about the structure'. From page 63 of the advisory opinion:

All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention;

[pelsar]

8. Gaza is our prime example....

(and lebanon is as well)

why the fence is soo goood: it doesnt let those who want to terrorize israel the free ability to plan, manufacture, transport and shoot missiles.......the fence which disrupts their movement combined with checkpoints simply proves the point that it works:

no kassams or mortars out of the westbank....

(it probably also keeps the westbank from following gazas examples of "self-rule")

[breakaleg]

10. why didn't you build the wall on your own land? It's a simply question.

[msmcghee]

11. As many times as necessary I will repeat for you . .

. . the land it is on is not Palestinian land. It is on disputed land that could become part of Israel or Palestine some day. It depends on the results of negotiations as called out in UN Res. 242.

It is not Israel who has refused to negotiate with the Palestinians. It is the Palestinians who have refused to negotiate with Israel because - in their own words - doing so would implicitly recognize the legitimacy of the state of Israel.

In the meantime Israel, the legal occupiers of the WB, also according to 242 and other UN Resolutions, has a legal responsibility to maintain law and order and to prevent Palestinians from attacking any other state - including Israel.

The wall's purpose is to maintain that order - as is shown by the great reduction in successful terrorist attacks emanating from the territories. Whether you agree or not with the legality of the wall as per the World Court advisory opinion on that - it is not on Palestinian land. It is on disputed land that could become part of Israel or Palestine some day.

Reality might suck - but you can't escape it.

[The Magistrate]

29. What Is Indisputable, Ms. McGhee

Is that the barrier is not erected on Israeli land. The possibility that, through negotiation involving purchase in either cash or land elsewhere, it might become Isralei land in future, does not suffice to make it remotely Israeli land at present. Nor is there any dispute that the land in question was assigned by the United Nations, when it partitioned the Palestine Mandate, to the Arab Zone, nor do any dispute that it is outside the Armistice Line that has become the customary border fo Israel from its admission to the United Nations. Given these facts, it becomes very difficult to see where any real dispute over the status of the land actually arises. It is legally under Israeli military ocupation, but under the regulations governing military ocupation, the settlements the barrier is laid out to enclose are not lawful, and the nearest thing to a controlling legal ruling on the question holds that the barrier on its present route does not fall under the right of an occupying power to utilize land for the security of its ocupying forces. Legal military occupation does not remotely resemble sovereignty, or enable annexation by fiat.

[msmcghee]

31. If the land was under a traditional occupation, . .

. . as the rules regarding occupation of land taken in war were written to cover, i.e. one state over-runs and occupies the territory of another state while at war with it, then you would be correct.

However, as we both know, the land had no prior recognized status as belonging to any state whatsoever. Nor does it now. It is land occupied as the result of war the status of which is under dispute - it is awaiting the resolution of that dispute.

You might argue that the conventional rules regarding territory occupied in war do apply in this instance. I have not seen any such UN Resolution to that effect. Res 242 seems to supersede any such precedents in any case - by specifying fairly completely what the terms of this occupation are and how it will be ended.

Neither is there any assertion that Israel is not willing to comply with Res 242 - and thereby delay such a resolution. All such refusals have been and are part and parcel of the Khartoum Resolutions - the three no's - and their more recent re-assertions by various Palestinian entities over the years.

Where the land was previously apportioned has no bearing on the matter as all previous claims to the land were effectively superseded by Res. 242. The only previous case that could remotely apply is the Partition Plan - that was rejected out of hand by the Palestinians and all Arab states in the region.

The only question left is whether Israel has the right, while legally occupying that land, to erect the barrier. The World Court advises that it does not. The Security Council has taken no action on that advisement.

[The Magistrate]

32. Two Points, Ma'am

The regulations on military occupation nowhere qualify themselves by reference to occupation of a land and people that is part of a state. All that is necessary for them to apply is that the land not be part of the sovereign territory of the occupying power, and that it be under the military control of the occupying power.

Resolution 242 specifies nothing about any prior claims concerning the land in question. It does clearly accept as legal Israeli military occupation, at least prior to a regional settlement of hostilties involving Israel and its various neighbors. It does clearly envison that the final settlement lines might not be precisely the Armistice Line on which the '48 fighting was concluded, modified in places by M.A.C. negotiations in the immediate wake of the armistice. That is far from the same thing as superceding the original intent of the United Nations in the '47 Partition. That was, at bottom, for two states, one Jewish and one Arab, and the land now under Israeli military occupation is part of the Arab Zone.

[bemildred]

35. The old ways are best Sir.

If you can take it, it is yours. If you can defend it, you get to keep it. Kill all the military age males you lay your hands on, and send everyone else off into foreign servitude. All this business about rules and international law obviously isn't going to pan out. It is not the first time an attempt at international order has crumbled and collapsed.

[The Magistrate]

36. But Due Regard, My Friend, Must Be Paid The Tyrannies Of Current Fashion

The attempt, at least, to improve upon the ancients must be made: we are Westerners, after all, and that is what we do.

But it is certainly true that some ends require particular means be employed if they are to be achieved, and such ends cannot really be sought by those unwilling to employ those means....

[bemildred]

37. I am struck by the failure of people to understand why scrupulous

adherence to the principles of "international law" and the "laws of war" and so on are in their best interests. The argument is not new. I read it in Thucydides not long ago, and eloquently put too. If it does not protect your enemies, it does not protect you. But the argument never seems to be persuasive to those who fancy themselves on the top of the heap at the moment. The United States itself, which was instrumental in the creation of the present system, flagrantly violates it whenever it chooses, for the sake of expediency. I don't think the flaw is in the law, I think the flaw is in us.

[The Magistrate]

39. Indeed, Sir, The Flaw Is In Us

Part of the problem, of course, is the lack of real enforcement. In several street affrays of mine, awareness police would soon enough be along was a decided influence on my actions, as my preference is to sleep at home on all occassions....

[bemildred]

41. Very true, but enforcement, or the lack of it, is "us" too.

My own self-control is based primarily in a decided lack of interest in what does not belong to me. But a well-founded fear of the consequences has its place.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. Well-founded fear of the consequences has worked in the past...

It was the growing attention of the UN on South Africa and the threat of international sanctions that got the Australian govt worried that its treatment of the indigenous population and it's rather discriminatory immigration policy could put them under the same scrutiny and led to changes happening. Unfortunately when it comes to Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians, there is no fear of consequence because the US routinely vetoes SC resolutions concerning Israel and the Occupied Territories, and there seems to be the mindset that US power will never wane and it will always cover for Israel...

[bemildred]

45. Oh don't be silly, The US is omnipotent. Everyone can see that ... nt

[pelsar]

13. multiple reasons...

that would expose israeli citizens to being attacked....those in the settlements

the wall divides up the westbank...encircles cites (qaquilia).....restricts the ability to produce missiles, plan attacks etc (see gaza....)


the final borders are to be negotiated...not just "given back"....no sense in exposing our major cities to missile attacks (do you have some kind of guarantee that hizballas version of the sheba farms wouldnt happen in the westbank?)

[breakaleg]

15. In other words, it was a land grap. Thanks for clarifying.

[pelsar]

16. we took it in a war...

no guilt....the jordanians shouldnt have attacked us.....

whereas I did answer your question.....you did not answer mine...... (perhaps explain why you didnt?)

[breakaleg]

17. The UN doesn't recognize land 'won' by war. Try again.

What question? All I saw was a series of disconnected phrases.

[pelsar]

18. the question you missed

do you have some kind of guarantee that hizballas version of the sheba farms wouldnt happen in the westbank?


and why would we expose our cities and citizens to a westbank version of gazas kassams or hizballas katushas?

_______

the UN does recognize the need for secure borders....lebanon and gaza are not secure borders.(nor does the UN protect us)

[breakaleg]

20. So I went back and re-read your posts

and couldn't find that question. I point this out because you have a habit of complaining that people never answer your questions. Perhaps they can't find them either.

In either case, I have no guarantee. What does Hebollah have to do with the West Bank and it's wall?

So, you aren't happy with the land on which Israel resides so you'd like to take some of your neighbor's so you'd feel more secure? Nice try. It doesn't work that way. Israel's "needs" (or wants, really) don't trump everyone else's. This seems to be an underlying concept which you can't seem to grasp. It permeates many aspects of this conflict and your position in defending Israel's actions.

[pelsar]

21. yes our needs do take precedent

when they involve our lives......history has show us that we have to take care of ourselves

your right there is no security that when we pull back the kassams wont be flying over....but why should we risk it? and its our right and our govts right to make sure that we are safe......


seems to me you've forgotten how we got there (the westbank)...we were attacked and the goals were wiping out our country...the whole thing....that is what you seem to always forget
Hamas, the PA govt, seems to want to continue that.


...and another question:

...and if we were to pull back and islamic jihad/Hamas isnt satisfied and starts lobbing missiles...then what? (this is a copy of what hizballa is all about)

[breakaleg]

23. Of course from your perspective, your needs take precedent.

That’s natural. But if you want support on an international stage, if you continue pursue your needs at the expense of Palestinians, you won’t get it. Again, that’s fine, if you are prepared to always and forever use your military to stand between you and them. Breeding hate is what you are doing.

Do you wonder why the kassams come? It would be naive to think that you can oppress a people for years, then one day stop the oppression (for example) and expect that there would be no repercussions. Simply saying that 'we left' is not enough to erase the memory and damage that was done.

[pelsar]

49. then what?

Do you wonder why the kassams come?


and when he kassams start falling on israeli cities as the repercussions: (glad to that someone finally accepts one scenario as a possibility)

_________
your recomendations to the state of israel will be?

[breakaleg]

50. Why ask me? It's clear you have already decided how this converstation is going to play out.

You don't need me for this.

And you didn't address my post.

[pelsar]

52. to understand your view- because i dont

to say kassams will fall over israel is half of the equation....i would like to know what you think is the other half?..what should israel then do about it?

the other half of your post is related...i want to clarify this part first...

[pelsar]

54. so this is where the discussion ends?

your scenario is (as i understand since i dont see an answer to the question...perhaps i'm being a bit impatient?)

israel pulls back the 67 border (as per your recommendation), the palestinains start or continue to fire kassams in to israeli cities

and you cant seem to suggest what israels reaction should be to protect it citizens...or perhaps you believe x amount of israelis should be killed to make up for past sins?...i dont know, since i'm just guessing as the discussion seems to have suddenly ended.

so what do you think israels reaction should be if any?

[eyl]

55. OK, I'll list it again

1) Topography: There are places that you physically can't build the wall on the Line.

2) Border areas: in some places, towns near the Line are at risk if the barrier runs along it; for example, if there's a hill on the Palestinian side, a barrier in the valley will do little to stop cross-border gunfire.

3) Jerusalem: this is the area in which the majority of the deviations from the Line take place. A barrier on the Line would run through the middle of the city. That means the "far side" provides plenty of cover for infiltrators with mortars or trying to tunnel under it.

4) Settlements: whatever the status of the settlements, there is still an obligation to protect the people living there, regardless of their legal status.

In any event, the Oslo and road map processes may make a crucial difference in what immediately follwos from the status of any particular West Bank settlemetn. It is one thing for a judge to assume or conclude that a particular settlement, or indeed all settlements, on the West Bank are illegal. It is another matter to preclude any measure of interim portection while their status or removal is settled through diplomatic means....It would be inconsistent with this central and constitutive diplomatic process, endorsed by the international community and the Security Council, to conclude that in the interim...no means can be provided for the preservation of the lives of civilians and noncombatants

Wedgwood, The American Journal of International Law vol 99 p. 61

[breakaleg]

57. Check this out.

From B'Tselem:

http://www.btselem.org/english/Publications/summaries/200512_Under_the_Guise_of_Security.asp

Under the Guise of Security: Routing the Separation Barrier to Enable Israeli Settlement Expansion in the West Bank


The report provides an in-depth analysis of the expansion plans of four settlements and the connection between the plans and the route of the Separation Barrier. The report also presents the principal findings in eight other cases in which the settlement's expansion plans significantly affected the Barrier's route.

The report shows that not only were security-related reasons of secondary importance in certain locations, in cases when they conflicted with settlement expansion, the planners opted for expansion, even at the expense of compromised security. This desire for settlement expansion led to an increase in the violation of Palestinians' human rights.

This from the full text of the report. I suggest you read the whole thing. It outlines specific cases, the action taken by the courts, and the progression of excuses each time veering away from the security excuse towards admission that settlement expansion is the real concern.

http://www.btselem.org/Download/200512_Under_the_Guise_of_Security_eng.pdf

Another instance in which the state admitted that the reason for running the barrier far from the Green Line (about seven kilometers) is related to the expansion of a settlement is the case of Zufin, a settlement situated north of Qalqiliya. This case is a clear example of the crack in the security argument, as well as the transition from denial to total admission of the connection between the barrier’s route and the expansion of settlements.

In October 2002, Palestinian residents of ‘Azzun and a-Nabi Elyas petitioned the High Court against a section of the barrier that was to be built east of Zufin, which threatened to detach them from their farmland situated west of the barrier. In her decision, Justice Dorit Beinisch accepted unchallenged the state’s contention that running the barrier inside the West Bank was necessary to create a "warning space":

The seam zone is intended to block suicide terrorists and other terrorists from crossing into the State of Israel… If and to the degree that the barricade that is built does not completely block the infiltration of terrorists, the purpose of the barrier is to delay infiltration into Israel for a period of time that will enable forces to reach the area of infiltration, and thus create a geographic security space that enables combat forces to chase after terrorists before they enter the state’s territory.

Accordingly, the court denied the petition and the barrier was built along the originally planned route. However, in light of the severe impairment of access to their lands since construction of the barrier in July 2003, residents of ‘Azzun and a-Nabi Elyas again petitioned the court. Represented by HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual, the petitioners requested the court to order that the barrier be dismantled or moved to a place that does not block access to their farmland. Unlike its response to the previous petition, the State Attorney's Office emphasized that the barrier had to be built along the route chosen "to protect the southern and eastern parts of the Israeli community Zufin." The State Attorney's Office went further and admitted that, "In planning the route in the area, consideration was given to the existence of a plan that is under preparation, but has not yet gained official approval." This admission is of extreme importance, not only because it deviates from the limitation that the state imposed on itself in Beit Sourik (that it only takes into account an approved outline plan), but also because it concealed information from the court and the public.

Fourth, the state argues that to protect security forces that patrol the barrier, a route was chosen that provides "topographic control" of the area to the greatest extent possible. However, the desire to surround areas intended for settlement expansion conflicts with the desire to protect the security forces. In other words, the optimal topographic route in certain areas may be along a line closer to the existing built-up area of the settlement. This situation exists in three of the case studies presented below (Zufin, Neve Ya'akov, and the Modi'in Illit bloc). Also, the State Attorney's Office failed to mention that logic dictates that the shorter the route, the greater the safety enjoyed by the forces patrolling it. The degree of danger is, in part, a function of the amount of time that the forces are exposed to danger, and the number of soldiers exposed to danger. As we shall explain in the following chapters, inclusion of areas intended for expansion of the settlements has led in almost all cases to a longer barrier.

[eyl]

59. Problem is, that's not what I'm arguing

Yes, there are places where the route was planned inappropriately, which is where the Supreme Court petitions come in (and I should note that the route has been significantly altered due to those petitions). But that is not the same as saying that there is no valid security reason to deviate from the Green Line - which the Supreme Court recognized.

[Violet_Crumble]

60. There is no valid security reason to deviate from the Green Line...

And that reason is because building the barrier on Palestinian territory is illegal, and illegal measures can't be used as a valid security reason. Their very illegality rules them out...

[pelsar]

61. illegal measures can't be used as a valid security reason.????

i have never read such utter nonsense in my entire life.......the wall works........the roadblocks work, the assassinations work......some may not like the fact that they actually do work, and when they werent being used, israelis were being blown up......but they do work.....that makes them "valid" in terms of security.

[eyl]

63. That's a circular argument

International law regarding occupation permits a certain amount of deference to a state's security needs (the ICJ's summary dismissal of any such arguments nonewithstanding). So there is a certain line beyond which it is permissible to build a defensive structure on occupied territory; therefore, such a structure would not be illegal because it is based on a valid security concern.

Anyway, that is, again, not my argument. You may be of the opinion that the security reasons for deviating from the Line are not sufficiently compelling to justify doing so, but that doesn't mean those reasons don't exist.

[breakaleg]

64. But the issues is, why build it on their land, when building it on your land would have

preventing these issues from coming up, if for no other reason than to redraw the map, steal land that Israel wants permanently? It doesn't make sense for Israel to open itself up to criticism unless there was an ulterior motive.

[eyl]

65. Just a few posts up

I gave specific reasons why there are places where placing the barrier on the Line would provide less security. You may feel that those reasons are not sufficient to justify deviating from the line (and thus raising the criticism) but they do exist.

[breakaleg]

67. Did you read the link I gave you yesterday?

In that, they detail one of the settlements where they've extended the line not just to include the settlement, but also plans for additional settlements in that area. In that case, they've chosen to put the wall in an area of lower elevation than the neighboring Palestinian village. They explain that if they didn't want to include all that land, there are places closer to the existing settlement where the elevation is higher, and would provide more security.

So, why choose to put the wall where there is LESS security? Where the elevation is lower than the surrounding Palestinian villages on the other side? To steal land for new settlements, that's why.

You really should check it out. It certainly debunks all those excuses we see out there.

[eyl]

68. I did. Did you read what I wrote in post #66?

Furthermore, just because in some cases ulterior motives trumped security when the route was determined it does not follow that that occured in all cases - especially as the Supreme Court ruled that the deviation from the Line was justified in some cases.

[breakaleg]

62. If facts won't sway you, then I guess nothing will. nt

[eyl]

66. Sway me to what?

Let me try rephrasing: the fact that there are ulterior and invalid motives for the routing of the barrier does not preclude the existence of valid reasons to route it beyond the Line (and vice versa, of course)

[breakaleg]

69. If the only reason was security, it would have been on Israeli land.

And the fact that is isn't, that it does steal land, calls into question whether security was ever the reason.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eyl]

71. I have given you several examples

why there are valid security reasons for placing the barrier to the east of the Line. I notice you have not actually challenged any of those reasons; your response has been limited to pointing out that in some cases there were ulterior motives for its routing.

(in your last post, in fact, you've made your case even harder; to make your case according to the argument you've just brought forth, you now have to prove not that there were ulterior motives in some cases, or even in all cases, but rather that there are no conceivable security reasons for placing the barrier outside of sovereign Israeli territory)

[Englander]

58. Wedgewood?

Would that be Ruth Wedgewood, noted conservative & supporter of the Chimp's crusade in Iraq?
And pretty much anything else the George W. Bush presidency decides to do, regardless of the legality?

Legal authority exists for a strike on Iraq
by Ruth Wedgwood
Financial Times
March 14, 2003

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/281

[Tom Joad]

19. The fence is good for Israel because it steals Palestinian land.

[msmcghee]

22. See # 11 above. n/t

[Tom Joad]

24. No one except Israel calls it disputed land. But thanks for your input.

[msmcghee]

25. Thankfully, there is one party to the conflict . .

. . willing to face reality - square on.

[Tom Joad]

26. Israel is willing to steal farmland with US taxpayers funding.

We could use it to help farmers here. Rather than hurting farmers in Palestine.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. exactly...Israel is within its right to build the wall...on Israeli land

link: http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp

Map of the Separation Barrier in the West Bank

"On April 30 2006, the Israeli government approved an updated route for the Separation Barrier. According to the map published by the Ministry of Defense, sections of the revised route will run close to or along the Green Line, thus reducing the harm caused to the daily life of Palestinians living in proximity to the route.

Despite these improvements, the new route does not eliminate the “fingers” which reach deep into the West Bank to surround the Ariel and Qedumim settlements. In addition, a new section of the Barrier has been added around Ma'ale Adumim and the settlements near it. In these locations, the government approved the route in principle. More detailed plans will be developed and will require approval by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense. Given the central location of these settlements, constructing the barrier around them will have widespread ramifications on the freedom of movement for the Palestinian population in the West Bank. "

Map of The Separation Barrier and Checkpoints in the Jerusalem area


"The government's plan calls for the separation barrier to surround East Jerusalem and detach it from the rest of the West Bank. The decision to run the barrier along the municipal border, and the weak arguments given to explain that decision, lead to the conclusion that the primary consideration was political: the unwillingness of the government to pay the political price for choosing a route that will contradict the myth, that "unified Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel."
______________

Map of the Separation Barrier, Sept. 2006, PDF:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/Separation_Barrier_Map_Eng.pdf

Map of the Separation Barrier and checkpoints in the Jerusalem area, September 2005, PDF:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/Jerusalem_Separation_Barrier_Eng.PDF


.

[msmcghee]

12. See # 11 above. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

46. I also saw the following posts explaining why it wasn't a very good argument n/t

[pelsar]

14. Not if it leads to war....

imagine Gazas kassam and hizballas katushas on Tel Aviv, Jerusalem......

all because israel pulled back and the PA, or what ever its incarnation, cant stop is various jihadnikim..then what?

(since i've been here, that question has never really been answered..one poster did say that after a while if israel doesnt react the kassams will eventually stop.....he/she didnt stick around very long)

[Tom Joad]

28. When will Israel stop its war of terror against the people of Palestine?

[Behind the Aegis]

30. When will Palestine and the Arab world stop its war of terror against Israel?

[Violet_Crumble]

42. I know a family who are going to end up caught between the barrier and the Green Line...

They live five minutes away from Bethlehem, but when the approved barrier route is completed, Bethlehem will be on one side of the barrier and their village will be on the other. I'm assuming that the Green Line would already be heavily fortified and Palestinians can't travel beyond it into Israel, and once the barrier is completed in that area, they won't be able to travel beyond that either, so they'll be trapped in a small area where there are no hospitals, or ability to travel within the West Bank at all...

[Tom Joad]

48. Yes, many Palestinians will be caught between the Apartheid Wall

and the West Bank. They will have no legal standing in Israel, they will not be citizens. But they will not be able to travel in the West Bank, or at least that will be severely limited.

So what are they to do?

For some that does not matter in the least. It is not surprising that those that oppose human rights see no problem with that at all. It's just the way it is, get used to it, they seem to say. They deny the humanity of the Palestinians.

What about this idea of "security"... that's what the wall is supposed to be about. Why is Israel imprisoning these Palestinians on the Israeli side... doesn't that defeat the purpose? I thought the idea was to keep Israelis on one side and the Palestinians on the other. Isn't it a more reasonable explanation is to see the reason for the placement of the Wall as designed to grab as much land as possible, having very little to do with security. It is to create facts on the ground, to dispossess Palestinians of their homes and farms.

As i see it, people are getting tractored out by the Cats. and i am damn sick and tired of it, and damn sick and tired of being sick and tired.

http://www.endtheoccupation.org/

[The Magistrate]

27. That Paragraph, Ms. Crumble

Takes a great many words to prescribe nothing at all.

The illegal situation is recognized by no power as matters stand now, in that no one takes the course of the barrier for a legal border, not even, officially at least at present, the state of Israel, nor does any power, including the United States, do anything concrete to aid or assist the maintainance of the barrier. Mere money assistance to the state at large, and diplomatic support for it, does not qualify. The cited, and carefully qualified, obligation to influence Israel to compliance with the regulations does not liscence, and cannot liscence, the use of force, the real measure of sincerity, or any interference with Israeli sovereignty. The people who wrote that knew perfectly well it was pious noise, and no more.

[Tom Joad]

33. "Security"?? It is land theft of Palestinian farmland in broad daylight

and we damn well know that.
Let's get to the point, without the "noise".

[The Magistrate]

34. Of Course It Is Theft Of Land, Mr. Joad

It is also a very effective provision against infiltration of militants into Israel proper and sizeable settlement blocks inhabited by Israeli citizens. It is often the case something serves two purposes at once, you know. If Arab Palestinian militants had ceased attacks on Israel, the thing would likely never have been built at all.

[breakaleg]

38. But that line of thought won't get you very far.

It does protect from Israel proper - today. But if Israel gets their way, they will one day include those settlement blocs into Israel proper. Will they then decide they need to steal more land to give them another buffer where there are not Palestinians? And after a time, to cement their hold on that buffer zone, they will settle that land. Or perhaps, Israelis will take it upon themselves to settle that land and the IDF will not stop them. And on it goes.

Why not stop it now, before all of the West Bank is gone?

[The Magistrate]

40. If Hostilities Continue, Ma'am, That Is Exactly What Will Happen

And those on the losing end of it will have no one to blame but the rejectionist militants, and their own support of same, for that outcome. The soundest course is to deprive your foe of any plausible excuse for bad behavior, and whichever side grasps this first will emerge best from the troubles.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. Israel will hold a large part of the blame if that happens...

And quite rightly so. Hostilities are not some one-sided thing and Israel has done its fair share in contributing to the hostilities....

Even if all resistance amongst the Palestinians were to stop, the Israel PR machine would merely trumpet it as a success for the barrier, targetted assassinations, and other 'security' measures, and would argue that they must continue or else the hostilities would just start up again. As it is there are no plausible excuses for some of Israel's behaviour, yet that hasn't stopped Israel from emerging better from things...

[The Magistrate]

47. There Will Be Plenty Of Blame To Go Around, Ma'am, Certainly

But people are best advised to look to their own behavior and its consequences, rather than that of other people, since one can do something about one's own actions, and little or nothing about other people's. Thus, it better behooves the people of Arab Palestine to search themselves, and do what they can to improve their poltical performance and material situation, which boils down to renouncing violence against Israel. The things you project would have very little traction, even in Israel, let alone the world at large, in the face of an actual condition of peace, marked by the dis-armament of the militant bodies, and the huntingdown of any die-hard remnant by P.A. policemen.

[pelsar]

51. Even if all resistance amongst the Palestinians were to stop

then the israeli people would, those that are against the settlements, which are the majority would probably vote in a govt that is far more accommodating. All of those israeli/palestinian groups that stopped working together because of intifada II would probably start again....

--------

Even if all resistance amongst the Palestinians were to stop, the Israel PR machine would merely trumpet it as a success for the barrier, targeted assassinations, and other 'security' measures,.....face it.....if all resistance stopped it would be precisely for those reasons, the fact that their violent resistance was a failure...which it is, at least according to their shrinking land mass and standard of living, inter society conflicts......

[pelsar]

53. the failure of the roadblocks...

the raids, etc was the reason it was built...way too many "open areas" for the suicide bombers to sneak through.....and they did.

and its obviously very effective as a "layer" of the security rings

[eyl]

56. You've missed something

The whole basis of the ICJ's claim to jurisdiction was that they were ruling in an advisory capacity. As such, however, any enforcement - including the issuing of the paragraph you've cited - were properly under the authority of the Security Council and not the Court - which essentially issued a contentious ruling in the guise of an advisory ruling.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.