High Court: Gov't can resume constructing fence segment

[newyorican]

The High Court of Justice ruled Tuesday that the government can partially resume construction of a segment of the West Bank separation fence between northwest Jerusalem and Modi'in.

The court had earlier issued an interim injunction freezing the construction until it reached a decision on a petition submitted by residents of Biddu and Beit Surik, villages near the planned route.

But on Tuesday the court canceled much of the injunction, allowing construction to continue in parts of the segment in question. However, the justices also said the petitioners may still contest sections of the fence route that are particularly close to the villages.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/537751.html

So, talk peace out of this side of your face while stealing land with the hand behind your back. Typical...Land theft (the ultimate incitement) continues...

Trusting Arik is probably the biggest mistake Abbas will ever make. He'll leave you on the shore of the Dead Sea with some toothpicks for a raft.

Stealing one more inch of land will prove Israel doesn't want peace, they want "terra".

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[simcha_6]

19. Watch it, that's harsh

and an overgeneralization, I think. How'd you like it if people said Americans want all Arabs dead so they can take their oil?

[idontwantaname]

2. remember:those constructing the wall dont care about ANY courts ruling.n/t

[Yosie]

4. There are not a heck of a lot of countries

that allow an individual to "question" the actions of the government in court. Israel is one of the few in the Middle East.

How many other countries have our Title 42, Section 1983?

"Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights


Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. "

And, if Gonzales and Scalia and Thomas and Chertoff have their way -- Section 1983 in the US may be a dead issue.

Ashcroft was surveiling lawyers who had the temerity to challenge the US government by a 1983 action.

[idontwantaname]

5. umm... what?!

The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law;

<snip>

Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion;

<snip>

Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem;

<snip>

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;

<snip>

The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated régime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.

[idontwantaname]

7. Israel's Supreme Court has ordered the halt of construction too...

there are many cases of the Israeli Supreme Court ordering construction to stop. It did not stop though.

"The owners of the land took their case to the Supreme Court of Israel and received a ruling that the Wall would be re-routed to confiscate less of their land than originally planned. However, the Occupation bulldozers are continuing to work, against the orders of the Court."

http://palsolidari.web111.discountasp.net/DesktopModules/Articles/ArticlesView.aspx?tabID=0&alias=Rainbow&lang=en-US&ItemID=587&mid=10565

[Coastie for Truth]

3. Lots of Other More Reprehensible Fences

Link: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200503/cutler

"Security Fences" - Abigail Cutler, Atlantic, March 2005, Page 40

1. North Korea-South Korea
2. Belfast, Northern Ireland
3. Cyprus
4. Morocco/Western Sahara
5. India/Bangladesh
6. India/Pakistan
7. Kuwait/Iraq
8. United States/Mexico
9. Botswana/Zimbabwe
10. Saudi Arabia/Yemen

One could argue that the fences in Belfast, on Cyprus, and between India/Bangladesh,India/Pakistan, and United States/Mexico are equally reprehensible.

It can also be argued that the wall between the US and Mexico are in clear violation of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.

[Darranar]

6. Are any of those fences being built in occupied territory? n/t

[eyl]

10. Yes

E.g. Morocco in the Western Sahara
Saudi Arabia is building its fence on Yemen's territory
etc.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. Are you sure?

I've read that the Saudi fence is on the internationally recognised border (emphasis added for those who are easily confused about these sorts of things). How is that the same as Israel building a barrier inside occupied territory?

There may be something to the Moroccan one. Out of that long list of supposedly more abhorrent fences, that's the only one that appears to be constructed inside occupied territory. So my question probably more for Coastie than for you is how does another state doing the wrong thing justify Israel doing it? Or if this was one of those 'Look Over There And Don't Dare Criticise Israel Till That Other Fence Is Pulled Down!!!!' moments, here's an example of why it's such a silly 'argument'. If Israel were to be taken over by religious extremists who, as religious extremists are prone to do, decide that Israeli women really get it too good and they shouldn't have the right to vote, would that mean that every time someone criticised Israel for it, there'd be a flurry of posts going: 'Buut Saudi Arabia doesn't let women vote either!'

So what?

Violet...

[Lithos]

12. Morocco is a good example

However, the Saudi One is incorrect. Most of the outrage I've read is that the fence there is blocking the movement of bedouin who had made it a practice of crossing the border at will.

Still though, having second or third example does not make this "right".

L-

[eyl]

13. I can't refind the article right now,

but I remember Yemen's government claiming the fence cut into their territory.

Oh, and we haven't mentioned the fence India is building in Kashmir.

India's fence near Bangledash apparently isn't wholly on the border either, since India evicted villagers from no-man's-land there.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. The Saudi fence is built along an international border...

..therefore it is NOT cutting into Yememi territory. Any article or anyone that claims otherwise is wrong...

I found a paper from MEMRI about it that says the fence is being built along an international border: http://www.memri.de/uebersetzungen_analysen/laender/persischer_golf/saudi_fence_13_02_04.pdf

Oh! More examples! I think you need to reread the last line of the post you were responding to, because I don't understand what the point is in bringing up other examples of something that's wrong. Those other examples don't magically make it right...

You may have spoken of this previously, but I've been sporadic with reading the forum, but I have a question for you. Do you support the route the separation barrier is taking?

Violet...

[eyl]

15. As I said

I can't find the article again, but it stated Yemen was claiming the fence cut into its territory. For the rest, I was just pointing out some errors (pedantic? me? ;-) )

About the route I'll reiterate; I don't think the route of the barrier should necessarily be on the Green Line (I'm not saying the current route is correct - for one thing, it keeps changing all the time, so I'm not even sure what it currently is - but I don't consider the Line "holy") for the following reasons:

1) There are places where the wall can't be built on the Line for topographical or operational reasons. For example (of the latter), the concrete blocks which are the most famous images of the barrier are placed to prevent gunfire on Israelis (mostly motorists). If the shooting isbeing done from the hilltop (note, I'm referring to a place where there's a history of shooting from that hilltop, not that they might shoot from their in the future), and the Green Line runs across the valley below, placing the wall on the Line will be useless
2) The purpose of the barrier is not, strictly speaking, to defend the State of Israel, but rather Israeli citizens. As such, it needs to encompass at least those settlements close to the Line.
3) The most important reason is the Jerusalem area (where the majority of the deviations take place; almost all the Palestinians who will end up west of the barrier are residents of the city). The Green Line runs through the middle of the city. The barrier can't be built there, however; besides the civil/economic (and symbolic, and hence political) consequences of redividing the city, it would allow terrorists to launch indirect-fire weapons over the barrier, as well as allow tunneling under it (both of which are far easier in the cover of an urban environment than from open areas). It would also endanger the Jewish residents of eastern Jerusalem (especially the Jewish Quarter) and its environs. Therefore, the eastern part of Jerusalem, and its environs, also needs to be west of the barrier.

There are also political/strategic considerations, but they're much less relevent if the apparent sea change in the Palesitnian Authority's actions under Abu Mazen is real.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Some questions...

1) If you believe the barrier can't be built along the green line for whatever reasons, then why isn't it being built inside Israeli territory? Or is territory more important than human lives?

2) No state has the right to build fences outside its own territory. What next? Israel will build a fence inside Australia to protect Israeli citizens there???

3) About Jerusalem - can you explain why it's only Palestinian residents of Jerusalem and surrounds who are suffering and losing land because of the barrier, and not Jewish residents?

Violet...

[eyl]

18. Well

"1) If you believe the barrier can't be built along the green line for whatever reasons, then why isn't it being built inside Israeli territory? Or is territory more important than human lives?"

Look at a topo map of the route sometime. Moving it in would, for example, require placing Israeli towns to the east of the barrier, which would negate the purpose. In any case, most of the building beyond the Line is in the Jerusalem area; the reasons for that - and why the barrier has to exceed the Line in that area - are detailed in my previous post.

"2) No state has the right to build fences outside its own territory. What next? Israel will build a fence inside Australia to protect Israeli citizens there???"

Israeli citizens there, no. Israeli citizens in (or adjoining) Israel; yes, especially if the Australian government wasn't doing anything about it (of course, in that situation, we would have a formal state of war between Israel and Australia).

"3) About Jerusalem - can you explain why it's only Palestinian residents of Jerusalem and surrounds who are suffering and losing land because of the barrier, and not Jewish residents? "

Actually, as I recall, some Jewish property has also been expropriated for building the barrier - you just don't hear about it much. And since, as I explaned, the barrier needs to route to the east of Jerusalem (and its satellite communities), and since there are more Palestinians and Jews to the east of them, the answer to your question should be obvious (unless you prefer the barrier loop through the Jordan valley, cutting the West Bank in half, but then nost of the land could be expropriated from Jews)..

[idontwantaname]

20. illegal. criminal. ill-gotten. misappropriated. unlawful landgrab.

The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the OCCUPYING Power, in the OCCUPIED Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law

[simcha_6]

21. So too was attacking Israel in the first place...

So too was Jordan occupying it. Yet I never heard about much criticism at this.

I national government is meant to protect its citizens. Idealism in nice for academics and should be taken into account for policy, but Israel had every right to enter the illegally occupied territories in the first place- they weren't taking it from the rightful owners, and that land was being used to launch attacks. As for the fence, if it leads in five to ten years to a Palestinian State, I say, go ahead, and donate money to ACRI to make sure it reroutes to prevent hurting so many Palestinians.

[Djinn]

17. Bangladeshi fence is on the border

the border is porous in parts but that doesn't eman there isn't an "official" border - it's on this that the fence is being built. Indian villagers were evicted (called compulsory purchase in every western nation) not Bangladeshi's.

Besides the last time I looked this was the Israel/Palestine forum - we can not discuss these issues anywhere else on DU so lets concentrate on that here and talk about Bangladesh and Saudi in the FA forum?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[newyorican]

9. Some serious flailing...

in repeated failed attempt to either defend land theft, or change the subject.

Quite entertaining...

[Colorado Blue]

22. I found some good maps, I'll post them later. There are

significant topographic problems and cities involved.

Philosophically, I have a question: if I am being mugged, do I have to pay for the mugger's lawyer?

So why SHOULD the fence be on the attackee's territory, even if topographical and urban conditions allowed it?

As to the illegality, I believe that's a Catch-22. A nation attacking a nation, a fence is legal. A TERRITORY attacking a nation, a fence ISN'T legal.

Go figure.

I'll find the map and a source for the legality issue later.

Nice talking to you, I hope you have a lovely weekend:)

[idontwantaname]

23. maps? we dont need no stinking MAPS.

hey blue.
ive been to places theyre building the annexation wall.
while topo maps may be handing in nitpicking certain things they do not in any for justify why and where this wall is being built.

roads have been cut down the center by this wall. what use to be a walk across the street is now a mile long journey.
they have uprooted hundreds of thousand year old olive trees to build this wall.
the entire town of qualquilia is surrounded and cut off from its farmland.

convenience of terrain is no issue here.

its the illegal settlements and agriculture israel wants to keep for itself... much in the same vein as "grab as many hilltops as (you) can to enlarge the settlements, because everything we take now will stay ours..."

[Colorado Blue]

26. I'll reply later, just wanted to say, hello. I'm too busy now

to get back to you thoughtfully, so happy weekend in the meantime:)

[newyorican]

24. Response

significant topographic problems and cities involved.

That's been proven to be bullshit by the words of Israeli government officials. Don't take my word for it, do some research before regurgitating erroneous statements.

Philosophically, I have a question: if I am being mugged, do I have to pay for the mugger's lawyer?

No need to wax "philosophically" about it. In most cases the answer is yes. It's called a Public Defender.

So why SHOULD the fence be on the attackee's territory, even if topographical and urban conditions allowed it?

Getting closer to the genuine arrogant stance the GOI is taking in reality on this issue, and as we all know admission is the first step. This somewhat more truthful stance also shoots to hell your first point about "significant topographic problems". To address directly you attempt at making a point: Group punishment and land theft are not justified by legitimate claims against groups attacking Israel from the occupied territories. In fact, both group punishment and land theft are clearly verboten in codified international law (Geneva Convention and Rome Statutes). Beyond that, the actions are clearly immoral and incitement for further actions against the state. Attempts at justification, at this point, are not even humorous enough to illicit a belly laugh.

As to the illegality, I believe that's a Catch-22. A nation attacking a nation, a fence is legal. A TERRITORY attacking a nation, a fence ISN'T legal.

Fortunately, what you believe is legal or not, doesn't count at all in this matter. What counts is what is legal and/or illegal as codified in written and accepted law. No amount of attempted sophistry will change a simple, easy-to-understand fact. My fence on my property is legal, my fence on someone else's is not.

Go figure.

Sage advice.

I'll find the map and a source for the legality issue later.

That's nice.

Nice talking to you, I hope you have a lovely weekend:)

Oh I will, I'm off to my 3rd Yankee game of the season. Season tickets rule! You have a good time also and don't do anything I wouldn't do (which leaves pretty much all options on the table). :hi:

[Colorado Blue]

25. Nu? An attorney, the bombers need? Listen, if that's the

problem, for Hizbollah, we'll work something out!:)

Wholesale:)

AND PLEASE, do NOT talk to me about baseball. I live in Chicago, it is too depressing.

We are discussing, here, DA CUBS. Who are cursed. Seriously, the goat has been to the ballpark. People have ritual cleansings. Masses are said.

But now, I admit, there is hope. The FOUL BALL, I'm sure I don't need to tell you which foul ball, has been ground up and served in bowls of chili at Harry Carey's restaurant. Which people ATE.

It is hoped, THIS will lift The Curse. And The Cubs will go -

Nah.