Memo from Virginia to "world court", the "world court's ruling", those who whine about Israel's security fence.
And quoting a good FReeper buddy who tell them to sheik their bouty - Allah Fubar!
Posted on 02/23/2005 6:48:03 AM PST by IAF ThunderPilot
International Court of Justice decision on security fence non-binding, State says in first official response to The Hague’s ruling;
The International Court of Justice decision slamming the West Bank security fence construction is non-binding, Israel says in its first official response to the controversial ruling.
Prime Minister Sharon and other government ministers have dismissed the decision taken by The Hague court earlier, but no substantive response to the ruling was provided until now.
Israel says it is not obligated to obey by the court decision, because it objected to the question being raised at the world court to begin with. In addition, the information presented to the ICJ was insufficient, the State says.
“The facts placed before the court were in fact dictated by the United Nation’s Secretary General,” the Israeli response charges. “The security need for the fence or a description of terror attacks and damages suffered by Israel were not presented.”
The ICJ’s decision was made public in July 2004. Later, High Court Chief Justice Aharon Barak instructed the State to respond to the world court’s ruling.
Whopping decline in terror
The 170-page long State response describes the separation fence as a “temporary security measure to halt an offensive,” and notes the decision to construct the barrier was taken in the wake of a terror wave.
“The barrier’s current route is temporary. It aims to provide a response to existing and future terror threats, until a stable political deal can be reached,” the response says.
General Security Service data included in the document show a 84 percent decline in the number of terror victims and a 92 percent drop in the number of injuries inflicted by terror attacks in the year following the fence’s construction.
Palesites are furious because they are being deprived of their prey; Jewish children. Doom be upon the palesites.
Why have a new wall when you can have angry armed Americans?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/21/border.minutemen.ap/index.html
That was Israel's FIRST response..the SECOND response will be an aerial tour of downtown Tehran and environs..
Thank you big brother! :)
Good one!
)))ping((( .........to you girl!
Good morning or afternoon to you!
The Jerusalem Post
Scholars blast ICJ barrier ruling
Scholars of varying political persuasions and legal approaches on Sunday sharply criticized last year's advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, which determined that the separation fence under construction by Israel was illegal because most of it was being built in occupied territory.
The sharpest attack was made by Dr. Karin Calvo-Goller, of the Academic College of Law who charged that the court's opinion constituted more than a "huge imbalance, it was an injustice."
According to Calvo-Goller, the question put to the court by the UN General Assembly was biased because it did not address Israel's reason for building the fence in the first place. She also charged that the 1,100 pages of documents submitted by the UN to the court included no more than a single phrase mentioning the "need to protect Israeli citizens."
She also charged that the composition of the court was biased because it included an Egyptian judge who was politically active in pressing the Arab case against Israel. Another problem was that the court ruling was not supposed to express an opinion on what should be the final outcome of the conflict, but in this case it called for Israel to return to the 1967 ceasefire lines (the Green Line), even though UN Resolution 242 left open the possibility that Israel might retain currently occupied territory in the final settlement.
Dr. Yuval Shani, of the College of Administration, maintained that there were structural weaknesses endemic to all international courts that flawed the IJC ruling.
For one thing, the ICJ did not have a sound knowledge of the facts of the case, because of the physical distance of most of the judges from Israel and the territories. Furthermore, the court was less concerned with the impact of its ruling, and therefore less sensitive to the Israeli side, because it was so far removed from the consequences of its decision.
For example, Israel's High Court of Justice accepted the army's affidavit that the fence was being built for security rather than political reasons. But the IJC did not even give "token deference" to the army's declaration. Finally, the court displayed no "rhetorical empathy" for the Israeli narrative, thereby fueling Israeli suspicions that it was biased against it.
In its ruling on the original Beit Sourik petition, the High Court expressed much more understanding of the government's position, even though it effectively rejected 75 percent of the army's proposed route in the area in question.
Hebrew University Professor David Kretzmer also criticized the ICJ ruling, even though he agreed with the court's determination that the Jewish settlements in the West Bank were illegal. But he added that just because the settlements were illegal did not mean the fence was.
According to Kretzmer, the ICJ did not maintain that the fence was an annexation fence. But it did claim that some time in the future, the route of the fence might turn out to be Israel's de facto border.
"That," argued Kretzmer, "is a highly dubious reason to determine that the fence was illegal." Furthermore, the ICJ determined that the settlements were illegal because their establishment violated Article 49 (6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which forbids the occupying power from moving its own citizens into the occupied territories. But by recognizing that the settlers are civilians and citizens of the occupying power, the court cannot deny the right of the occupying power to protect its citizens.
Kretzmer argued that if the ICJ insisted on arguing that the fence was illegal because it was being built to protect settlers, it would have had to examine every section, to determine which protected settlers and which did not. Instead of doing so, the court declared that the entire fence was illegal. "The international court did not do serious work," Kretzmer concluded.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1105845487512
Damn internationalist scum masquerading as humanitarians. The number of terror attacks and Jewish death has plummeted since the security fence has been (partially) built. This is obviously wrong to this swinish "world court", a creation of the spineless Euros who aren't manly enough to raise armies. They use "world courts" to bludgeon their enemies and they are enemies of the Jews of Israel. The European leaders are the Nazi-lites of today, using Muslim proxy warriors to destroy the Jews. Since they don't have the cojones.
Israel's right to build the fence should be unquestionable....if it follows the Green Line. The only thing that should be controversial should be the route. In any case, walls can be torn down or moved, but Israel has the duty, not the "right" to protect its people from suicide bombers.
Such a duty supercedes any "World Court" decision. They should just be prudent where they build it. At the very least, land cut off from its owners should not be stolen by the state as "abandoned".
-Eric
Dennisw,
You are a man after my own heart! You are right-on the money in your assessment of the "world court" (better known as the World Chuckleheads, related to that other international body of idoits the "world council of churches", better known as the World Council of Chuckleheads). As I recall, I didn't hear one peep from either organization on 9/11. Funny how these "humanitarians" of various kinds never say one word if something bad is done to the USA or Israel. But then, silly me, I keep forgetting that "humanitarianism" by these serpents is for everyone but the USA and Israel. Feh, bunch of scalawags, the whole lot of them!
"Good for them. If my neighbor was trying to kill my family I would build a fence too."Ideally, it should be on the Green Line. The thing is, it's highly doubtful that that is going to be the final border. Right now the Israeli government is still encouraging its people to live beyond the Green Line. It has a duty to protect them.On your neighbor's property? Think that's a good way, in the long run, to make him quit?
I don't have any problem at all with the fence if it's on the border. Once it's finalized, if it has to be moved it will be moved. Right now the Palis don't have effective control of their areas (not entirely their own fault, but reality) and protection is essential.
It should certainly be built with maximum sensitivity to the Palestinian people in the area, and for damn sure the law that allows the Israeli state to steal (and build settlements on) land considered "abandoned" for three years must be suspended in the area. It should actually be repealed, but here its a particular problem.
-Eric -Eric
Thanks, and good morning.
Ditto.
Sometimes, though, you really do need a fence.
Why? Because you say so? Since when are you an authority on Israel's rights? UN resolution 242 of talks about a partial or full withdrawal from West Bank and Gaza as part of a peace settlement. Anyhow, any peace treaty will be useless in 5-15 years due to Muslim demographics and the eternal Jihad as preached and practiced by Muhammad
MidEast Web Historical Documents - UN Resolution 242
| ... UN Security Council Resolution 242 November 22, 1967 ... Resolution 242 was to become the cornerstone of Middle East diplomatic efforts in the coming ... www.mideastweb.org/242.htm - 15k - |
As is all international law. No responsible nation will voluntarily behave in a manner contrary to it's perceived interests. Any nation which does will soon become an "ex-nation".
Statements Clarifying the Meaning of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242
Even before the beginning of the Jarring Mission (the Special Representative as mentioned in the Resolution), the Arab States insisted that Security Council Resolution 242 called for a total withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the Six-Day War. Israel held that the withdrawal phrase in the Resolution was not meant to refer to a total withdrawal. Following are statements including the interpretations of various delegations to Resolution 242:
A. United Kingdom
Lord Caradon, sponsor of the draft that was about to be adopted, stated, before the vote in the Security Council on Resolution 242:
"... the draft Resolution is a balanced whole. To add to it or to detract from it would destroy the balance and also destroy the wide measure of agreement we have achieved together. It must be considered as a whole as it stands. I suggest that we have reached the stage when most, if not all, of us want the draft Resolution, the whole draft Resolution and nothing but the draft Resolution." (S/PV 1382, p. 31, of 22.11.67)
Lord Caradon, interviewed on Kol Israel in February 1973:
Question: "This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?"
Answer: "The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary... "
Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in reply to a question in Parliament, 17 November 1969:
Question: "What is the British interpretation of the wording of the 1967 Resolution? Does the Right Honourable Gentleman understand it to mean that the Israelis should withdraw from all territories taken in the late war?"
Mr. Stewart: "No, Sir. That is not the phrase used in the Resolution. The Resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. These words must be read concurrently with the statement on withdrawal."
Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in a reply to a question in Parliament, 9 December 1969:
"As I have explained before, there is reference, in the vital United Nations Security Council Resolution, both to withdrawal from territories and to secure and recognized boundaries. As I have told the House previously, we believe that these two things should be read concurrently and that the omission of the word 'all' before the word 'territories' is deliberate."
Mr. George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, on 19 January 1970:
"I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. "I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied', and not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories." (The Jerusalem Post, 23.1.70)
B. United States of America
Mr. Arthur Goldberg, US representative, in the Security Council in the course of the discussions which preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:
"To seek withdrawal without secure and recognized boundaries ... would be just as fruitless as to seek secure and recognized boundaries without withdrawal. Historically, there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area. Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered that description... such boundaries have yet to be agreed upon. An agreement on that point is an absolute essential to a just and lasting peace just as withdrawal is... " (S/PV. 1377, p. 37, of 15. 11.67)
President Lyndon Johnson, 10 September 1968:
"We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders. Some such lines must be agreed to by the neighbours involved."
Mr. Joseph Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC "Meet the Press"):
"That Resolution did not say 'withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines'. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties."
Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law and Public Affairs, Yale University, who, in 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs:
a) "... Paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines." (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 69)
b) "The agreement required by paragraph 3. of the Resolution, the Security Council said, should establish 'secure and recognized boundaries' between Israel and its neighbours 'free from threats or acts of force', to replace the Armistice Demarcation lines established in 1949, and the cease-fire lines of June 1967. The Israeli armed forces should withdraw to such lines as part of a comprehensive agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in the Resolution, and in a condition of peace." (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 68)
C. USSR
Mr. Vasily Kuznetsov said in discussions that preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:
"... Phrases such as 'secure and recognized boundaries'. What does that mean? What boundaries are these? Secure, recognized - by whom, for what? Who is going to judge how secure they are? Who must recognize them? ... There is certainly much leeway for different interpretations which retain for Israel the right to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its troops only as far as the lines which it judges convenient." (S/PV. 1373, p. 112, of 9.11.67)
D. Brazil
• Mr. Geraldo de Carvalho Silos, Brazilian representative, speaking in the Security Council after the adoption of Resolution 242: "We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure, permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighbouring States." (S/PV. 1382, p. 66, 22.11.67)
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/peace%20process/guide%20to%20the%20peace%20process/statements%20clarifying%20the%20meaning%20of%20un%20security%20c
I guess the owner of the property is the issue at hand but if he were TRYING TO KILL MY FAMILY, I think building a wall on his property might be the lesser evil.
Were you under the impression that Israel was Jordans property?
I thought so...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.