UN: Israel must tear down West Bank barrier

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Israel must tear down its West Bank separation barrier, a senior U.N. official said Wednesday, marking five years since the International Court of Justice declared the barrier illegal and a violation of Palestinian rights.

The barrier separates Israel from the West Bank and in places cuts into Palestinian territory. Israel started building it in 2002 to stop a wave of suicide bombing attacks by Palestinians, who infiltrated across the cease-fire line.

Palestinians charge the complex of walls, trenches, barbed wire and electronic sensors is a land grab that cuts people off from their property and basic services."

<snip>

"At a news conference in Jerusalem to mark the anniversary, the U.N. released a statement concluding that the completed barrier would close in 35,000 Palestinians and wall off another 125,000 on three sides. About 2.4 million Palestinians live in the West Bank.

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, said the barrier is only part of the problem.

"The wall is but one element of the wider system of severe restrictions on the freedom of movement imposed by the Israeli authorities on Palestinian residents of the West Bank," Pillay said. Israeli must "dismantle the wall" and "make reparations for all damage suffered by all persons affected by the wall's construction," she said."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ggfeHuCx1F-cDZ0byvQx89U8UmMAD99ABMOO1

[imdjh]

1. "Israel started building it in 2002 to stop a wave of suicide bombing attacks "

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Hey, if you can't get along with your neighbors, you build a fence -

but you build it on your own fucking property.

We should maybe build a wall between the US and Mexico - ten miles inside Mexico's borders?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. The fence follows defensible terrain...all of which is under Israeli control

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. '...under Israeli control" does not equate with Israeli property.

Effectively, the entire west bank is 'under Israeli control'. It is NOT about 'defensible terrain', it is about the terrain they want to defend - that is why the wall cuts through orchards, rather than going around them; why it makes loops to surround settlements inside Palestinian territory when a shorter, more defensible wall would exclude those settlements.

NONE of that wall should exist outside the pre-1967 territory of Israel. If a settlement is excluded, tough shit.

It is as simple as that.

[imdjh]

7. Why are you using 1967 as a guideline?

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Because the '48 border lines were fundamentally flawed, what with

the British turning over control of some areas to Palestinians which should, by agreement on majority population, have been turned over to Israel. The areas held by Israel in response to the invasion by 5 Arab armies, such as the Jerusalem corridor, held firm as official borders from 48 to 67. The UN resolutions concerning the occupied territories consider the '67 borders, not the '48 borders, as the legitimate borders to Israel and the Palestinian state.

That's why.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. The 67 borders are not viable for either party and need to be adjusted

They make no more sense than the 48 borders.

[Chulanowa]

5. Under Israeli control, sure...

But that doesn't make it part of Israel, now does it?

[imdjh]

6. If Mexicans were attacking across the border in the way the Palestinians have...

... I would indeed support creating an uninhabitable zone on the Mexican side of the border. As it is, some Mexicans do indeed try to kill across the boarder, but it's not nearly on the same scale as what the Palestinians have done.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. And in doing so you would violate every concept of international sovereignty.

You can control YOUR side of the border. You have NOTHING to say about what happens on the other side.

[imdjh]

10. Horse manure

[azurnoir]

11. you quite conveniently leave out the part where

the US is occupying Mexico, expropriating Mexican land at will, doing the same with Mexican water resources.........

Why is that? Your scenario is a farce

ETA I added an h to were in the title line

[imdjh]

12. Translate that into complete thoughts and get back to me.

[azurnoir]

13. Reread andd try honesty

[imdjh]

14. No, you need to make a coherent point if you expect a response. Otherwise, you're just doing...

... a drive by and are unworthy of a response.

[azurnoir]

15. No you can not honestly answer can you?

but lets try again in your "when Mexicans attack" scenario this appears to be happening in a vacuum, unlike the situation in the West Bank

[imdjh]

16. Just waiting to see if you are going to be ignorant, foolish, or childish.

[azurnoir]

17. still cannot answer huh so insult instead LOL n/t

[imdjh]

19. You have yet to make a valid point, it was a reasonable conclusion. nt

[azurnoir]

21. The point is that in your imaginary scenario

you do not include an American occupation of Mexico as exists in the case of Israel and the West Bank and it is the West Bank that the OP is about
clear enough for you?
or will you continue to dither

[shira]

20. if mexico were sending in suicide bombers and rocketing cities, the USA would have every right to

occupy and build a barrier 10 miles inside mexican territory.

you're reversing cause and effect.....the rockets and bombings are not a response to the barrier; the barrier was a response to that....and the w.bank is not sovereign Palestinian territory, it's disputed until there is a peace agreement.

remember UNRES242, secure and defensible negotiated borders?

[azurnoir]

22. you are dithering also

and like the other poster conveinently leave out a brutal occupation which Mexico would have every right to defend against.

[shira]

23. gee, and that occupation exists only due to land-grabbing schemes - right? has nothing to do with

defense against more 1967-like aggression?

guess all the creators of UNRES242 are morons and you're the only one who knows her ass from a hole in the ground. :eyes:

[azurnoir]

24. Lacking real substance you too resort to insult

Seems that things have changed since '67 whether or not you like it, Israel has signed treaties with 2 of the najor aggressors in that conflict Jordan and Egypt 242 did not give Israel permission to build a security on the West Bank

[shira]

25. sorry, UNRES242 speaks of negotiated secure and defensible borders and NOT an israeli withdrawal

to the exact 1949 armistice lines.

they are armistice lines only, not borders.

facts good.

instinct, bullshit and intuition not as good.

[azurnoir]

26. you are the going on about 1949 armistice lines

neither I or the article mentions it. The facts are that Israel refuses to set a border and is ever expanding to the West Bank, and that the ICC has ruled against the wall

[imdjh]

18. .......