The hypocrisy in the Hague - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-13-2004, 03:11 AM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:22 PM
I think that the UN Court is not the place to settle the dispute over certain points of the fence. The entire structure is not a land grab, there are factors to consider principly protection of Israeli citizens living in settlements and along the infrastructure that supports those settlements, geographic features and millitary considerations are also important. I will not dispute that the fence is a problem for some Palestinians but those disputes should be taken into the Israeli courts (the only place where an Arab citizen can get justice from his or her own government) rather than an unfair and biased system of international law that we have today. It is not a simple land grap, it is a response to terrorism and the reason that it extends into Palestinian territory is because it is designed to protect all Israeli's including those that live in the settlements, as the unilateral withdrawl takes place and settlements are dismantled the fence may be adjusted but until then there should be no major problem with the fence either in principle or in practice. It serves a purpose and it does it very well, an inatimate object is able to do more to fight terrorism than the Palestinians ever were and any undue criticism of the purpose or existence of a fence is counterproductive for the cause of peace in the Middle East (I know Klaus disputes the route of it and not its purpose, I must remind that the map does not indicate the route of roads that service settlements or the topography of that small region).

I said it before and ill say it again, this is one more bit of hypocracy on behalf of the "international community" that attempts to reward Palestinian terrorism by trying to force Israel to stop defending herself. I mean China telling a country to stop building a wall to keep barbarians out, lets get real and try to bring the real criminals to justice and force a peace deal rather than continue this bullshit runaround of condemning Israel and excusing terrorism.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-13-2004, 06:21 AM   #17
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 12:22 PM
A_Wanderer:
So you think the ICC is biased an the Israeli high court is unbiased?

Well i think the ICC is the best possible place for such controvercies. And (maybe to your surprise) they said almost the same which was allready ruled by the Israeli high-court.

And terrorism isn't rewarded just because the international comunity still respects the rights of palestinensians.
It's not the fault of palestinensian citizens that Mr Sharon ignored all warnings and built the fence on foreign teritory.
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-13-2004, 07:03 AM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:22 PM
I honestly believe that the international criminal court is a biased organization because in terms of diplomacy the UN does favour the Palestinians above every other people without land and grants them undue attention compared to other stateless nations and condemns Israel in disproportionate manner to its actions, I draw attention to the Zionism is Racism Resolution, The Attention that Israel gets before the Security council (more than half of all emergency meetings of the security council have been in regards to Israel, this seems to be a little out of proportion when you consider that it has started absolutely no wars in its history, it is a very small country and it is an open liberal democracy), the appauling Racism Conference in Durban that turned into a comittee for anti-setmitism (word was created to describe anti-Jew within europe even though Arabs are a Semitic people) and all of the outrageous resolutions and statements made by the UN about sniper campaigns against children, mass graves in Jenin and ethnic cleansing that are outright lies that were never retracted. I reitierate that the fence cannot be built in the pre-67 border because there are now roads and settlements within that captured territory that must be protected, this is protecting Israeli Civilians living on what is unfortunately claimed Israeli territory. I personally think that these settlements are an obstacle and should be dismantled but the fact is that they are there and as Israeli citizens the settlers deserve the full and proper protection in their own homes and along the roads that they use to get around their own country. Considerations for the path of the security fence must be made by the Israeli government in light of legal challenges but they can never have their own security threatened by unwarrented external political interference by the kangaroo court that is the ICC, to put it in context I have about as much respect for the ICC that Klaus may have for the "military tribunals" for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The fact that the arab complaint about the fence was heard and ruled in favour by the Israeli court shows that an independent judiciary is much better to accomidate the security considerations as well as the humanitarian ones in regards to the law. To have an "international court" which is strongly biased and rules along the opinion of the countries own governments is a total crock and does absolutely no good. The key difference between the ICC and the Israeli High Court is that the ICC has a ruling that says to dismantle the fence, this is simply insane however adjusting the route of the fence by challenging within Israeli courts is a much better way to solve individual problems such as where the fence cuts through farms and the Palestinian disputes the compensation.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-13-2004, 08:06 AM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:22 PM
And as I was saying that the matter may be dealt with in the Israeli courts.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5654915
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-13-2004, 08:45 AM   #20
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 12:22 PM
A_Wanderer:
I'm sorry but i think the Israeli court is more biased than the ICC.

So back to the great wall in the mid-east:

http://news.amnesty.org/mav/index/ENGMDE150682004

Quote:
"The Opinion of this world court underscores that Israel's right and duty under international law to take measures to stop potential attackers from entering Israel does not justify building such a fence/wall inside the West Bank. The construction has destroyed agricultural land and the livelihood of tens of thousands of Palestinians for the benefit of unlawful Israeli settlements..
The problem with the israeli settlements in the west-bank is:
They are all illegal.

And remember this "biased" "anti israeli" UN is the reason why israel exists.

So why had the ICC to take care of the situation also the Israeli high court reacted allready?

Quote:
While a positive development, Amnesty International notes that the Israeli Supreme Court ruling concerns only a very small section - less than 40 km out of more than 600 km - of the total route of the fence/wall; and, unlike the ICJ, the Israel Supreme Court failed to address the overarching and underlying illegality under international law of the Israel's construction of the wall inside the Occupied Territories.
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-14-2004, 07:19 AM   #21
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Israel
Posts: 112
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Klaus, just a few things:

Israel's high court ruled against a specific part of the fence because only that part was appealed against (by Israelis and Palestinians). If other parts of the fence will be appealed against Israel's high court will have its saying on them just as well.
The judges can't just wake up one morning and rule against/in favor everything that popes up in their heads, right?
The Hague verdict referred to the entire fence because there its entire rout was 'on trial'.

Thinking that Israel's high court is biased is understandable, but very wrong. Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think that you are to familiar with this high court, its agenda, and its reliability over the years or the reputation of the judges who sit there. Unlike some countries (USA for example, correct me of I'm wrong), Judges in Israel don't get elected by citizens, but by committees (including supreme court judges). In these committees, politicians are members-but a minority. Judges, lawyers and academic represents (of law faculties of course) are the majority. Practically, the politicians don't really influence the choices of judges who are appointed. This system may have some disadvantages of its own, but if there is one thing it does guaranty is that the verdicts are never ever influenced by the fear of holding on to the job, or by what might the government or even the general public will think
Over the years, this high court has proved to be incredibly brave and courageous with its rulings, and very human rights oriented. Inside a public service system in Israel that to many is extremely corrupted, the high court is probably the last place that most Israelis still respect and trust.

And as for ICJ - biased? I don't know, maybe living in Israel changes your perspective just a little bit, even if you are a judge.

I've written this in an earlier post:

"What bothers me the most about The Hague court ruling is that only one clause regarding the Palestinian terror is mentioned, and that's within a verdict that almost has a length of the latest Harry Potter book.

To me, the court in The Hague loses a lot of its credibility after this one, and not at all for the mere ruling "against" my country. It seems a bit odd that the judges voted exactly according to their countries standing on the issue (with everyone but the American judge ruling against the fence). It supposes to be a sort of a high court not the UN."

And another thing:"The world court in The Hague is not there for bypassing a country's own court ruling and legal system (and that's not just an opinion)."
__________________
sarit is offline  
Old 07-14-2004, 07:47 AM   #22
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 12:22 PM
sarit:

you're absolutely right, i just mentioned that the only reason why the icc acted is because the israeli court "just" ruled about parts of the fence.

And i don't think the israeli court is biased but with a_wanderer's argumentation it would be easy to call the israeli high-court more biased than the ICC.

the ICC in La Hauge just ruled about the fence, not about the palestinensian terror, same like the high-court in israel "judges can't just wake up one morning and rule against/in favor everything that popes up in their heads, right?"
It's no ruling against Israel, it's no ruling in favor of terrorists. These judges are no politicans the only question they had to solve if it's legal for israel to build the fence at the place where it was built.
Now the judges ruled and it's job of the international comunity to find out how a legal defense against terrorists can be done without violating laws and without destroying lifes of innocent civilians. (That's why they have to pay money for the destroyed olive-trees to the farmers).
It's a shame for both sides (Palestine and Israel) that they didn't try to convince with facts but mainly with "if you're not voting for us you're an racist" - arguments in this court
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-14-2004, 08:24 AM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 12:22 PM
A small clarification here, the ICJ (International Court of Justice) is not the same as the ICC (International Criminal Court). The latter one has just been installed and deals with the prosecution of those suspected of war crimes. The ICJ deals with international justice cases.

Both are based in The Hague, so the confusion is understandable.
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 07-14-2004, 08:35 AM   #24
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 12:22 PM
Thanks Popmartijn
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com