Israel Wall

[Hugo]

It doesn't say that at all.

Yes, it does, and you just proved yourself wrong because paragraph 1, which you quoted, specifies that "the parties" (plural) must refer the case to it. Israel did not, therefore the court was in violation of its own Statute because only one party (singular) brought the case before it.

This issue is just a smokescreen by the Palestinians to try and draw attention away from the fact that they have violated virtually every treaty and agreement they have signed and are acting in flagrant disregard for the roadmap they agreed to.

Am I to assume then that you know more about international law and the workings of the ICJ than the people running it do?

No, I'm assuming that the Israeli, US, British, Canadian, Australian, South African and Russian UN delegates, besides 23 others, know as much about international law and the workings of the ICJ as the people running it do, and they have a serious dispute with the ICJ over this. Those delegations all submitted affidavits to the ICJ arguing that the issue does not belong in the court. They were not all "US lackeys", either, as they included all 15 member-states of the European Union and 10 waiting to join.

Oh, and as an amusing aside, Cuba's delegate to the ICJ said that Israel was committing "an act of genocide." Takes one to know one.

one would expect that such a glaring violation of the court's own statutes would be seized upon by Israel.

And it was. Israel submitted a 131-page affidavit arguing that the court had no right to rule on a political dispute, that the judges were not impartial (one was an Egyptian who had previously expressed great bias against Israel) and prepared a three-page security brief arguing that the wall is justified under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Do you accept my apology, and consent to continue this debate?

The former, yes, unreservedly. The latter, perhaps another time.

[Big Blue Machine]

Israel wall should be up, to protect Israel from terrorists and bombers.

[KrustyKidd]

Can anybody tell me why Israel is putting up the wall on the Palestinian side of the border? I mean, as a right leaning person I can't figure out the pro in this.

I have one theory and that is that they get it up and then by fact of the wall on Palestinian land, it forces the Palestinians to deal with them when they are in control and safe.

As a land grab, most Israelis feel the settlers are out to lunch to begin with and have no love for them. Also, who the hell wants to own land with a buch of people on it wanting to kill you, in this case, less is more.

Thanks.

[Hugo]

Can anybody tell me why Israel is putting up the wall on the Palestinian side of the border?

Yes. They are not. There is no "border". The Green Line is a temporary boundary pending resolution of a permanent border between Israel and Jordan.

The Israeli Supreme Court rules that to build the fence on the Green Line would make a political statement that Israel is not interested in. Rather than recognise a temporary and transient border, they instead decided to build a fence that took into account topography, populations and threat assessment.

There are three places where the fence deviates by about a mile to the East. These spots encompass the settlements of Enanit, Shaked, Rehan, Salit, and Zofim. There is one other spot where the fence deviates by about four miles, to protect the towns of Alfei Menashe and Elkanah, whose populations include 8,000 Jews.

Note also that the fence actually lies on the west of the Green Line (i.e. in Israeli territory) in several places.

No territory is being annexed. The Israelis have made every effort to avoid including Palestinian settlements within the wall, and the land in question is seized by the military authorities, not annexed, and remains the legal property of the original landowner. Every owner is legally entitled to file an objection, and Israel has set aside funds totalling $22 million for compensation to Palestinians.

In June, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the fence was too far into Palestinian lands. Despite the fact that moving the fence compromised the security of Israel, the government immediately complied. This was in addition to a Supreme Court ruling in February that shortened the fence by 60 miles.

As a land grab, most Israelis feel the settlers are out to lunch to begin with and have no love for them.

That was not my experience when I was over there. The West Bank is a Jewish homeland and most of the settlers are Jews who yearn to return to their historical roots.

I have one theory and that is that they get it up and then by fact of the wall on Palestinian land, it forces the Palestinians to deal with them when they are in control and safe.

The settlements and the fence are designed to show the Palestinians that they cannot sit this one out and hope to win by default, and to force them to come to the table and actually follow some kind of peace process. So far, the Palestinians have rejected every offer and broken every treaty.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

You claim

There is no "border".

and yet you quote

the fence was too far into Palestinian lands.

and

a Supreme Court ruling in February that shortened the fence by 60 miles.

so how can one dicker over that which does not exist?

[Hugo]

Because the Green Line, whilst unofficial, is a de facto boundary.