1 posted on
12/08/2003 11:42:35 AM PST by
Phil V.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
To: Phil V.
One world body has to consult with another, before issuing their opinion?
Oh, I see, this is how Breyer, O'Connor, and Bader-Ginsburg see things, too.
2 posted on
12/08/2003 11:44:44 AM PST by
Pan_Yans Wife
("Your joy is your sorrow unmasked." --- GIBRAN)
To: Phil V.
Gee I wonder how they will rule? /scarcasm.
To: SJackson
![The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition](http://static.jpost.com/images/2002/site/jplogo.gif)
UN votes 90:8 to send fence to Hague
JPost.com Staff |
Dec. 8, 2003 |
The United Nations General Assembly voted Monday to request that the International Court of Justice deliberate on whether Israel is legally obligated to halt construction of the security fence.
Ninety voted for the motion, eight against, including the United States, Israel, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Uganda and the Pacific islands Naui and Palau. Seventy-four abstained, including the members of the European Union.
EU Ambassador to Israel Giancarlo Chevallard defended the abstentions, saying that European states could not vote against the proposal in order to maintain open channels with those states that support the idea, and that the European vote would regardless be unlikely to affect the inevitable outcome.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that Israel will, should the need arise, present its case before the IJC and argue that the fence is a legal barrier designed to protect lives.
This is "the fence that Arafat built," UN ambassador Dan Gillerman said Monday. "Arafat built the fence, and his terror initiated it and made the fence inevitable. If there were no Arafat, there would be no need for a fence," he said.
He also attacked the world body itself, saying, "We don't think that it is up to the United Nations or any other international body to determine the legal aspect of this measure," adding that none of Israel's neighbors "have an independent legal system comparable to ours."
The IJC's opinion would not be binding, said Ruth Lapidoth, a professor of international law at Hebrew University. "It is an advisory opinion," she said. "It is only a question of public relations." Such cases usually take between 4 and 15 months, she said.
The Palestinian UN observer, Nasser Al-Kidwa, started pushing for the resolution after Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a November 28 report declaring that Israel had failed to comply with a General Assembly demand to halt construction of the fence, which juts into the West Bank.
Earlier Monday, Shinui called for a vote to change the security fence's route. If the fence were closer to the Green Line, the party argued, it would be "more of a security fence and less of a political fence."
4 posted on
12/08/2003 11:49:55 AM PST by
Phil V.
To: Phil V.
Why not just let the Muslim middle east world vote on whether or not Israel has the right to defend herself against internal terrorists...
Wait till the UN decides that America must "give back" the southwest territories it stole from Mexico....and Russia....and France...and the Indians....and gives reparations to former so called slave descendants...etc etc etc...
Of course the UN can also then prosecute any former GIs for War crimes in Vietnam and Korea..
it feels obliged to as well....
5 posted on
12/08/2003 11:50:15 AM PST by
joesnuffy
(Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
To: Phil V.
I say go with concrete, stone, or brick instead of wood. Longer lasting and less maintenance. Also my opinion is that topping it with a nice row of barbed wire, while not aesthetically exciting, is most effective and preferable.
Maybe the Hague can recommend what color to paint the wall...
6 posted on
12/08/2003 11:50:35 AM PST by
Diddle E. Squat
(www.firethebcs.com, www.weneedaplayoff.com, www.firemackbrown.com, www.firecarlreese.com)
To: Phil V.
This paragraph summed it up nicely:
"This is the fence that Arafat built," said Gillerman. "His terrorism initiated it and made its construction inevitable. If there were no Arafat, there would be no need for a fence."
To: Phil V.
74 of 172 abstain? That's interesting.
To: Phil V.
Predicted court opinion: the fence is a bad thing, because it prevents Palestinians from exercising their legal right to kill Jews.
To: Phil V.
Israel should use this latest outrage as justification to withdraw from the UN. There's no way it could make things any worse for Israel, and any future anti-Israeli resolutions will look like sour grapes on the UN's part.
To: Phil V.
Perhaps they can also inquire about "no man's land" in Korea, or the ex-Berlin Wall, or the fences between the US and Mexico.....
Those will truly be timely decisions
14 posted on
12/08/2003 12:23:38 PM PST by
xzins
(Proud to be Army!)
To: Phil V.
The UN should use a ranking system similar to the BCS method used for college football. As such, the USA should have exponentially higher weight placed on its vote and therefore trump the majority of votes from the 90 idiot countries that opted for the resolution. Size does matter.
To: Phil V.
"Opinion won't be legally binding"Nor will it be enforceable.
We already know the world's opinion espcially Europes opinion on Jews.
17 posted on
12/08/2003 12:40:09 PM PST by
Kay Soze
(How does the "W" fit in at a gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism ?)
To: Phil V.; SJackson; Yehuda; Nachum; Paved Paradise; Thinkin' Gal; Bobby777; adam_az; Alouette; ...
Will no one allow Israel to defend itself?
![](http://www.haaretz.com/hasite/images/iht_daily/D081203/gilerman_eng.jpg)
Israeli UN ambassador Dan Gillerman, speaking to the UN on Mon. ahead of a vote asking the int'l court to rule on the West Bank fence. (S. Azran)
18 posted on
12/08/2003 12:55:14 PM PST by
yonif
("If I Forget Thee, O Jerusalem, Let My Right Hand Wither" - Psalms 137:5)
To: Phil V.
The United Nations General Assembly approved on Monday a Palestinian-initiated resolution asking the International Court of Justice to issue an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel's construction of the separation fence. Ninety nations voted in favor of the draft, eight opposed and 74 countries abstained. WTH??
Will some one .. any one tell WHY the UN is still around??
19 posted on
12/08/2003 12:56:01 PM PST by
Mo1
(House Work, If you do it right , will kill you!)
To: Phil V.
We really should quit the UN. And kick them out of NY.
To: Phil V.
Still Life:
![](http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1695000/images/_1697088_elmo150.jpg)
Puppet with muppet
25 posted on
12/08/2003 1:13:04 PM PST by
O.C. - Old Cracker
(When the cracker gets old, you wind up with Old Cracker. - O.C.)
To: Phil V.
"This is an attempt... to delegitimize the right of the Jewish people to have a Jewish state that they can defend." Israel should have never signed the Clinton contract to give up land for peace. Once Clinton got Israel to validate a Palistinian state through the Oslo Accords, it was all over for Israels future. They made a pact with the Devil.
To: Phil V.
"This is the fence that Arafat built"![](http://www.glennbeck.com/ads/555a.gif)
30 posted on
12/08/2003 1:52:46 PM PST by
lonevoice
(Legal disclaimer: The above is MY OPINION)
To: Phil V.
Israel has little experience with the ICJ. It approached the court in 1957 to pursue a claim against Bulgaria, after an El Al plane was shot down over the Eastern bloc country two years earlier. But the case was dismissed because Bulgaria was not willing to accept the court's authority. No brainer. Israel need not play this game.
31 posted on
12/08/2003 2:00:33 PM PST by
RobbyS
(XP)
To: Phil V.
I hope they vote it is bad so that Israel can give the Hague the middle finger, and prove the internationalist' irrelevance
32 posted on
12/08/2003 2:02:01 PM PST by
Porterville
(No communist or french)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson