The hypocrisy in the Hague

[AchtungBono]

The international court in the Hague has decided that terrorism is more important than security and ordered us to dismantle the security fence that we're putting up for our protection.

It's very interesting that they didn't mention anything about the Palestinian terrorism - which is the REASON for the fence in the first place.

Oh well......ho hum.....

P.S.: Of course you realize that the fence will STILL be built, right?

 

[Popmartijn]

But why not build the fence on your own land?

 

[AchtungBono]

But why not build the fence on your own land?

It IS our land........

 

[sarit]

But why not build the fence on your own land?

It's said that the fence is built also in west bank territories because of varies security reasons, but I agree that the argument you've mentioned can't be ignored. The rout of the fence is a huge problem and causes great damage to Palestinians every-day life. Israel's high court, btw, has ruled against a certain part of it ? the explanation was of an un-proportional measurement between the need for security and the amount of damage it causes to Palestinians human rights.

What bothers me the most about The Hague court ruling is that it's indeed one-sided. 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, and sorry for my English if this is not put out the way I intend to. 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). Israel's high court has ruled against parts of the fence's rout the other week. The problem is that the ruling came after the court in The Hague has sealed its own verdict (though before it was published). The court in The Hague ruled against the entire fence, Israel's high court ruled against a specific rout of it (a part which had a petition against it) for damaging un-proportionally the Palestinians human rights. But unlike the court in The Hague it doesn't say that Israel doesn't have the right to built it and that the fence is political-the high court in Israel ruled that the fence was built not as a "land grab" but solely for security reasons.

Personally, my instincts and conscience cause me to feel sick when people has their human rights thrown to the dumpster. The rout should be changed when causes this amount of damage. But I don't agree that it's a land grab. When a peace agreement will be signed one day there will be no logistical problem to remove the fence. Fact is - since the building of the fence started, the amount of terror attacks inside Israel has dropped dramatically.

Though not entirely. Just this morning a bomb exploded near a bus station where my buss passes every day. One woman was killed, 20 people injured. Lucky for me, I'm working after-noon shift today and not morning.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

It IS our land........

But...it quite blatantly isn't. If you want to argue Israel should have the right to build its wall on Palestinian land then that's one thing, but to pretend that isn't what happening is simply wrong.

Look at this map from the BBC website, it shows both the areas of the wall which have already been built and the route that the rest of the wall is expected to follow.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The simple fact is that the land was captured by the Israelis in the 1967 6 day war waged against her and they have a fair say over what is done there in order to prevent attacks inside Israel. It may infringe the rights of some Palestinians but it is worth it because ultimately it saves Israeli lives, it saves Palestinian lives and in the end will be the foundation for a legitimate peace deal when Arafat shuffles off his mortal coil. I personally doubt that the fence marks the future border of a Palestinian state because it is simply an intermediate term affair designed to prevent terrorism and protect the infrastructure that supports the remaining Settlements. Changes can and should be made wherever the fence has a serious effect on Palestinian lives but I don't think this ruling is very productive on this front as it is simply a political ploy by the Palestinians to use an organization sympathethic to their cause (The UN) to condemn Israel for defending herself against the vicious terrorism that the PA is so utterly hopeless against. Without terrorism the prospects for peace are strong, with a unilateral withdrawl and dismantling of most W-Bank settlements the prospect for peace increaces too.

By doing the hard work on her own Israel is setting the scene for the next phase of peace negotiations that will take place when Arafat is dead and you have some genuine leadership in the PA. The International community should support Israel for the construction of the fence, a non-agressive way to block terrorist strikes rather than condemn her and bring the real criminal Arafat to trial for his ongoing direct support of terrorism and mudering of innocent Israeli civilians all over the world.

 

[STING2]

I've always found it incredible, the lack of support Israel gets from Europeans, especially after what happened in World War II and the wars since then waged to wipe Israel off the map.

 

[melon]

It is kind of too bad how political this whole process has become. Of course, no one really expects Israel to listen to this court, and this kind of "politics" in this "court" is precisely why the U.S. will never submit to any international war tribunal. And, really, I understand why, because I'm not particularly convinced that any of these international courts are concerned with law; just politics.

I dunno...I wish that the "Holy Land" never existed. We're killing each other over dirt.

Melon

 

[Popmartijn]

I've always found it incredible, the lack of support Israel gets from Europeans, especially after what happened in World War II and the wars since then waged to wipe Israel off the map.

Well, the Europeans repeatedly want and try to help. But one word of criticism to the Israeli government and we immediately get labelled anti-semitist by them. So why bother anymore...

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

We're killing each other over dirt.

Melon

No kidding. Do people realize how incredibly ridiculous that sounds?

Personally, I've never really taken a side in the Israel/Palestine conflict. Both sides have done some crappy things.

Angela

 

[verte76]

It's unfortunate. It really is sad when there are this many lives lost.

 

[nbcrusader]

We're killing each other over dirt.

You can characterize nearly every war this way.

There is very little religion directly involved in the conflict. At this point, it has become a battle of cultural histories.

 

[Klaus]

AchtungBono:
Just because Israel has won the war it dosn't turn into israeli land.
Germany isn't the US neither is Iraq also both Countries were in war with the US and lost that war.

But if i would agree for a moment that Palestine is "your land" than all palestinensians are Israelis and therefore have the right to vote?

Sting2:
Imho the EU supports Israel AND the palestinensians. Not allways verry well and not allways the way i like it but i think their mid-east politics is less less biased than the US mid-east politics.

 

[A_Wanderer]

How any sane person can oppose a nonviolent way of fighting terrorism is a real worry to me.

The International Court of Justice is much like a Mississippi court in the 1930s. The all-white Mississippi court, which excluded blacks from serving on it, could do justice in disputes between whites, but it was incapable of doing justice in cases between a white and a black. It would always favor white litigants. So, too, the International Court. It is perfectly capable of resolving disputes between Sweden and Norway, but it is incapable of doing justice where Israel is involved, because Israel is the excluded black when it comes to that court ? indeed when it comes to most United Nations organs.

- Alan Dershowitz
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satell...cle/Printer&cid=1089441979154&p=1006953079865

 

[Klaus]

A_Wanderer:
So you're still convinced that a court should give his ok if you build a fence 2 metres on your neigbours ground?

 

[A_Wanderer]

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.

 

[Klaus]

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.

 

[A_Wanderer]

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]

And as I was saying that the matter may be dealt with in the Israeli courts.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5654915

 

[Klaus]

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

"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?

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.

 

[sarit]

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)."

 

[Klaus]

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

 

[Popmartijn]

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.

 

[Klaus]

Thanks Popmartijn