Israel: ICJ fence ruling fails to address Palestinian terror

[Gimel]

In a response to the ruling of the International Court of Justice on the West Bank separation fence, Israel said Friday that the court had failed to address the issue of "Palestinian terror" in determining that the barrier is illegal.

"It fails to address the essence of the problem and the very reason for building the fence - Palestinian terror," a Foreign Ministry spokesman said at a news briefing Friday.

Israel will not follow the International Court of Justice ruling on the West Bank separation fence, Justice Minister Yosef Lapid said Friday.

....

Lapid said Israel would honor only its own court rulings, such as the June 30 High Court of Justice ruling ordering the defense establishment to reroute a 30-kilometer stretch of the separation fence northwest of Jerusalem. The High Court held that the fence was a security barrier rather than a political one, but that Israel must balance security considerations against the needs of local residents.

More..

[bemildred]

1. Right. It addressed the legality of the fence under international law,

such as it is. That was what it was supposed to do. This resembles
a burglar convicted of burglary complaining that he should get off
because of his rotten childhood.

Edit: a classic "red herring" BTW: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

[Jack Rabbit]

2. It's not entirely a red herring

This is my favorite link to illustrate the red herring fallacy.

There is terrorism and Israel really has a right to be secure withing her borders (or within the Green Line, which has served for decades as a border and, in the absence of any final agreement with the Palestinians, should be treated as one). As I am reading summaries of the decision coming across the Net, that is the sense I am getting of the ruling.

As long as the ICJ recognizes that Israel has the right to build a security barrier, Mr. Lapid's remarks do no not hold water. Instead of a red herring, he has simply made a false statement. The only thing that the ICJ ruled is that Israel has no right to build the barrier where it is being built. I and others on this forum have been saying that for some time. There is no reason for us to change our minds now.

The ruling appears reasonable and based on sound law. As more facts come in, I may alter that statement.

[bemildred]

3. OK, "sort of" a red herring.

Edit: he is doing both, lying and introducing a distractive subject.
It seems clear to me that he brings up "Palestinian terrorism" because
he does not want to talk about the illegal siting of the fence, and
the illegal effects of the fence on those affected by it. But that
is merely my opinion. We cannot know what goes on in his little brain.