The West Bank fence: an effective anti-terror bulwark?

[Gimel]

The International Court of Justice ruled Friday that the West Bank separation fence violates international law, must be torn down, and that Palestinians harmed by the barrier must be compensated.

....

How should Israel respond to the ruling of the International Court of Justice? Does the drop in bombings justify the damage done to Palestinian civilians? Should major settlement blocs be included on the "Israel" side of the fence, even at the risk of alienating the White House? Does the fence preclude future negotiations with the Palestinians?

.....


Hmmm...one sides builds a fence (a very small portion of which is a wall) in response to the other side intentionally murdering innocent civilian women and children. Not hard for this non-Jew, non-Arab, to pick a side.
Donald Smith, Tulsa, USA

....

The ICJ, presided by a Chinese lawyer, has ruled against the separating fence in Israel ? But was the famous Great Wall of China not built for defensive purposes too ? It was indeed built to protect the State of Chin against the Tsongnoo tribes coming from the North. The logical consequence of the ICJ ruling: take away the Great Wall of China too...
Esther van Praag, Zurich, SWITZERLAND

.....

Link..

Many more comments from around the globe.

[Classical_Liberal]

1. Yes, and it will serve it's purpose even better on the green line

. Admittedly this might hurt the present Israeli administration since they have basically wasted Israeli and American taxpayer money, yet again on settlers, but I won't mourn its loss.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Except that the ultra-Zionists want to keep Occupied land in perpetuity

Why do you think that Israel's lapdogs in America are already agitating about war against Syria? Could it be that Israel has no intentions to returning the Golan to Syria?

If Israel really wanted peace and wanted to reduce terrorism, it would build the wall along the pre-1967 border. The fact that it doesn't, tells volumes about Israel's imperialistic intentions in the region.

[Jerseygirltoo]

2. enough already

Gimel, this is the third thread you have started in the last hour on the same topic. Enough already

[Gimel]

3. The topic

Is that a valid comment? More news will be forthcoming. Opinions on the judgment from around the world are relevant, and there can't be enough the articles posted. Anyone tired of the I/P can go to another forum.

[Jim Sagle]

4. The other side has posted about 40 such threads.

So no, three isn't NEARLY enough.

Not that it's your call, anyhow.

[mike_c]

5. I'll bet there were lots of similar justifications for the Warsaw...

...wall as well.

I think the ICJ is correct-- the Israeli wall is a land grab, a ghetto barrier, and an act of apartheid. They wouldn't need it if they'd stop oppressing the Palestinians. The intifada is a collective act of resistance, after all. It didn't arise out of some vacuum of unjustified and irrational hatred for Israelis-- it's a response to what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians. Israelis can't face the consequences of their treatment of the Palestinians, so they seek to hide the evidence behind a tall wall. Well, it worked in Warsaw, at least for a while.

Now let's return to the usual I/P pro-apartheid circle-jerk....

[comradebillyboy]

6. since the forced transfer of the arab population is not

really feasable, the current tactic is to make life so unpleasant for the arabs that they will leave on their own. i do not think israelis are capable of forming a government that can make a real peace with the palestinians.

[Gimel]

8. I think...

that the forced transfer of Jews is the issue here.

[comradebillyboy]

9. the palestinians have some very unrealistic goals

also. they do themselves enormous damage and do too good a job of playing int the hands of the israeli hard liners. neither side has leaders that are capable of making real peace.

i am more critical of the israeli side because i tend to be sympathetic to the underdog.

finally israel has the military muscle to protect themselves from any arab threat.

[Gimel]

10. Any threat

They have the might to retaliate, but Israel can't prevent every attack. The wall/fence is the closest thing to making that possible.

Israel has the capacity to wipe out the West Bank and Gaza, no doubt about it. But that isn't "protection". That is either eliminating the threat or retaliating by total destruction. Neither of which can be done morally, because of the innocent people involved who would be killed.

On the other side, the Palestinians say they can't match Israel's military might so they resort to the repugnant means of killing civilians with suicide bomb attacks. It is more destructive to use the immoral means that to be morally restrained with greater destructive capacity.

So the top dog is the underdog in that what military might there is can't be used. While the opposition uses the most destructive in terms of innocent human life they can devise. It's a toss-up as to who's the underdog in this situation.

[drdon326]

11. One problem....

i wish i would have said that.

[Gimel]

12. Thanks, Drdon

I'll let you say it next time.

;-)

[Gimel]

13. That's quite accurate

Also they are fractured and allow the terrorists to control their diplomacy.

As I have often remarked, Sharon may not be the most liberal politician, but he's the one with experience and persuasiveness to bring the Israel side together, and get some kind of a coalition functioning, even in a crisis. Once he takes a direction, there will be results. Currently no other Israeli leader seems able to do that. He wants to get us out of this quagmire.

[number6]

14. in the long run .....NO

...