Up Against The Wall ! Israel !

international | crime and justice | opinion/analysis

Wednesday July 14, 2004 22:52

by Ray Williams

People who attack the World Court for its July 9 Ruling on the Israeli wall in the Occupied Territories should beware.

In doing so, they are calling into question the United Nations Charter, and the whole foundation of international law and humanitarian conventions and treaties: which in the end are the legal basis of the state of Israel's international recognition, and, in a broader sense, everyone else's best hope for a global order that does not rely on anarchistic violence and force majeure.

The court in The Hague said in its ruling that the 600-kilometer wall, about a third built, "severely impeded" Palestinian rights to self-rule. It curves at points deep into the West Bank around Jewish settlements built on land occupied in the 1967 Middle East war. The court said the wall violated international humanitarian law and called on the UN Security Council and General Assembly to stop the barrier's construction.

It is not often that the court comes out with such an unequivocal opinion. Just because it ruled against Israel and, by extension, its US protector, on every point, does not invalidate the reasoning for the rest of the world.

Rather it is a wake-up call to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his supporters in the United States to reconsider their stands and return from orbit. You cannot cherry-pick international law, enforcing the parts you like on others and denying those that impinge on your interests.

The one dissenting vote was American judge Thomas Buergenthal, who said the opinion did not take into account Israel's need to protect itself against terrorism. His opinion was seconded by many American politicians seemingly more mindful of the coming presidential election in November than of ensuring a sound and peaceful world order.

In any case, Buergenthal's statement was economical with the truth. The court considered the issue of Israel's security needs and the threat of terrorism in some depth and length in its 56-page opinion - and it concluded that if Israel wanted to build the wall, it could do so entirely legally, on its own side of the "Green Line". However, it could not do so on illegally occupied territory. Indeed, the court specifically excluded the small section of the wall built in Israel from its judgment.

Presumably well-lobbied beforehand, most of the US media reports about the case have sought to qualify the court's opinion as "non-binding". Of course, an authoritative statement of international law, issued by a 14-1 majority, is non-binding only if you do not accept the applicability of international law.

In reality, it would be difficult to get a more authoritative decision, not least since this opinion is being delivered to the General Assembly of the UN - with part of the opinion being that states party to the various conventions have a duty to enforce them on Israel.

The combination of the court and the General Assembly is the route that led to the independence of Namibia and sanctions against South Africa. It is the route that led to the eventual independence of East Timor - and a route that has kept Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara unrecognized by any other country in the world.

It may be slow - but such opinions are binding on all law-abiding countries. Indeed, it was the General Assembly that voted for the partition of mandatory Palestine into Jewish and Arab states.

The other defense is to attack the decision as one of a kangaroo court. Just before the hearings, Howard Meyer, an authoritative historian of the World Court, pointed out that the lead counsel for Israel would "be Dr Shabtai Rosenne, an Israeli diplomat and longtime observer of the ICJ [International Court of Justice]". As a student of the court, he has written more books about its procedures and its rulings than anyone.

In 1989, four years after the US walked out of the courthouse in Nicaragua's case, Rosenne wrote in an introduction to a new edition of one of his works on the court that it had "rendered important services in the evolution of international law through the United Nations and in the peaceful settlement of disputes, more in the last decade than in the first 30 years of its existence ... it has performed a major service to the international community as a whole because the need to bring international law into line with present-day requirements is real and urgent".

As Meyer points out, "Some kangaroo!" It does not help the detractors' case that the Israeli Supreme Court itself ruled last month that the route of the wall violated international humanitarian law, even it did not go so far as to rule occupation and settlements illegal.

It is hardly biased of the court to find that the Occupied Territories are indeed occupied and that the settlements are illegal. That is the position that the UN has always taken, and even the US had supported explicitly until very recently. The Israelis beg to differ, but then Saddam Hussein decided unilaterally that Kuwait was his 19th province and the world disagreed with him. In the end, the world tends to win.

The Palestinians by now may be a little bewildered. If they had sent people to place bombs next to the wall, or launched armored bulldozers against it, they would have been roundly condemned for terrorism. So they go to court and find both themselves and the judges condemned for bias and worse.

In fact, there is a lot of material in the opinion that may well provide sound precedents for future disputes.

First of all, the court decided that it did, indeed, despite the US and the Israeli opposition, have the right to consider the question, and that the UN General Assembly indeed had the right to ask it to do so. In this, as in all its other issues, it cited numerous precedents for its reasoning.

Then the judges voted by 14-1, with Buergenthal dissenting in each case, that:

The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying power, in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated regime, are contrary to international law.

Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with Paragraph 151 of this opinion.

Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem.

The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated regime, taking due account of the present advisory opinion.

In a very important clause, Buergenthal was joined by the Dutch judge in his dissent, but it was nevertheless passed 13-2.

All states are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all states party to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949, have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that convention.

However, the decision has many other implications that should concern all who want law-based solutions to the world's problems.

The court had already allowed Palestine as an entity all the privileges of a state in representation to the court and it refers to Palestine throughout on a par with Israel as a party to the proceedings.

It had then further gladdened Palestinian hearts by vindicating their whole position of reasserting international law and UN decisions on the issue, as opposed to US and Israeli attempts since Oslo to relegate the conflict to a bilateral issue, excluding the UN.

"Given the powers and responsibilities of the United Nations in questions relating to international peace and security," says the opinion, the wall was of direct concern to the organization and while it welcomed the "roadmap" and negotiations for a settlement, it qualified such negotiations as being "on the basis of international law".

Interestingly, it also finds that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights applies to all people over which a state has jurisdiction, which means that they apply to the Occupied Territories - and so one must conclude would also apply to the US in such places as its detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, although the court does not wander that far that explicitly.

It also affirmed the applicability of other conventions that the Israelis have signed to people in the territories.

As a coup de grace, the court notes that the wall's route has been drawn to include over 80% of the settlements - and it rules that the settlements are illegal, a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as repeated Security Council resolutions have also termed them, not merely "unhelpful" as the Bill Clinton reformulation of the US position has it.

In a further blow to the expedient US position that decries the "Uniting For Peace Resolution", which allows issues stalled by vetoes in the Security Council to be dealt with by the General Assembly, the court ruled that the procedure was indeed valid - and obligingly cited precedents from the time that the US and others had pioneered the procedure.

The Palestinians had of course used just this procedure in the face of yet another US veto in the Security Council to ask for the opinion from the court. An expedient Clinton administration declared the procedure as "no longer applicable".

The next step is for the reconvening of the Special General Assembly, probably on July 15-16 to receive the report. As the draft resolution for that session has it, "Considering that acceptance of advisory opinions issued by the International Court of Justice is essential to the rule of law and reason in international affairs", so most states will vote to accept the resolution, since to vote otherwise would indeed be tantamount to a vote to dismantle the UN charter.

The resolution asks the UN Secretary General to compile a register of property damage caused by the construction - which is innocent sounding but allows a suit for damages.

However while restating the opinion, the draft mostly leaves the issue hanging like a sword of Damocles - until after the American election, when the diplomatic mills will begin to grind.

However, it does reiterate focus on the court's finding that states have a duty to apply international law when it is flouted.

After all, how can democratic governments outside the US, and particularly in the European Union, explain to their people their failure to "ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law", when told by the world's highest court that they have an obligation to do so?

The resolution will certainly strengthen pressure inside the EU to take a stronger line against Israel's behavior, and the EU is a far bigger trading and commercial partner for Israel than the US.

The nightmare for Israel is of course South African-style sanctions, both state imposed and consumer boycotts.

But the way to avert that is simple, and mandated by the court. "Mr Sharon, tear down this wall."

(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)

save preference

Comments (34 of 34)

Jump To Comment:

Irelands free!!

by Nordie

Sat Sep 04, 2004 17:16

Aye, Irelands really free. I see that just the way I see a British army barracks every day near my house.

No, Arafat isn't a Michael Collins. A Michael Collins whose acceptance of the British crumbs caused a civil war in which he ordered the first shots to be fired. And, right enough though, Collins had actually a better deal than what Arafat was offered. There was no hope for a real independent state with Israeli controlled colonies in the middle of it.

And if Arafat not accepting the 2000 insult was a crime against the Palestinians then that must surely mean that the occupation is a horrendous crime also.

Free Staters

by Noel

Sat Sep 04, 2004 16:43

Arafat 'Doing a Michael Collins'.

I guess this refers to Michael Collins (along with many others) achieving the Free State.

That would be the Free State which evolved into the Republic of Ireland.

That would be the Republic of Ireland which has democratically elected government, is a member of the European Union, is a member of the United Nations.

That would be the Republic of Ireland where freedom and liberty for it's citizens is enshrined in it's constitution.

So, Arafat would be lynched by the Palestinians for daring to 'do a Michael Collins' and achieve the above?

The rejection of the Taba proposals was a crime against the Palestinian people.

ahhhhh, the insights

Sat Sep 04, 2004 13:41

No, they would have lynched him if he'd done a Michael Collins and accepted the Israeli's offer of a free state in 2000.

Look, I give up. You win. You're obviously a great man for the insights so I accept now that Arafat rejected the Zionist offer of a fake country and unworkable state so his wife could spend money and he could live in shit while he thought about her doing it. I've already said that, so stop bullying me. I now accept that as the reason for the Intifada. Someone should tell the Palestinians. I nominate you to go out to the Gaza Strip and do the good work. Good luck with it, genius.

IDF protection

Sat Sep 04, 2004 13:28

Or maybe the cunning old fox knows the angry Palesinians will lynch him and his nepotistic cronies if he sets foot outside.

you're right

Sat Sep 04, 2004 13:24

Sorry, I meant to say his imaginary personal billions.

But, you're right, he does just reject Israel's insults so that his wife can win at Longchamps or sumfink and he can sit in his hellhole thinking about her doing it. The Intafada is all a great conspiricy by Arafat cause he loves his life as a leader of his people who has to live in a burned out building while waiting for an Israeli bomb to drop and finish him off for good. He must be mad!

Imagine all possessions....

Sat Sep 04, 2004 11:07

Imaginary millions?

I suppose his imaginary wife, living in imaginary luxury is winning imaginary fortunes at Longchamps.

The unfortunate Palestinian victims of this tragedy are ill served by this despotic leadership. And smug self righteous liberals are perpetuating his role.

Arafat of the Land

by gb

Sat Sep 04, 2004 10:46

GB_Evox at yahoo dot ie

Arafat is a corrupt despot. You don't have to be a member of the Dublin County Chapter of Mensa to see that even within his own remit he is widely distrusted. He's the Charlie Haughey of the middle east - a sad old man who should come clean and pack it in. The Palestine Authority is a joke as long as he is around, appointing his family members and other munchkins from his entourage to positions of power in that rotten borrough.

the real sin of the right wing is their gross stupidity

Sat Sep 04, 2004 02:27

Yes, Noel, that was it surely. Everyone knows. And sure he's still only asking for a viable Palestinian state and not accepting the crumbs from Israel's table because he really loves being forced to continue to live in hell in his battered compound in Ramallah where he uses his imaginary personal millions to swan about as if some playboy of Western Bank world. You've got it down right boy, you see whats really going on.

Billionaire Arafat's not for turning

Sat Sep 04, 2004 00:12

The reason Arafat rejected the Taba (2001) proposal was simple; to end the conflict was to end himself.

Nominally, the reason given for rejection was the failure to secure right of return for Palestinian refugees. Arafat knows no Israeli government will ever allow it's country to be swamped by millions of hostile Palestinians.
Effectively ending itself as a Jewish state.

Having said that, Arafat has since stated that if the Taba proposal was offered again he would probably take it. But Arafat is regarded as a liar, even in the Arab world.

Play the ball not the player

by Indymedia Ireland Editorial Group - Indymedia Ireland

Fri Sep 03, 2004 21:44

It has been necessary to edit out some personal insults which detract from an otherwise useful exchange of views. Technically any comments containing personal abuse should be deleted according to our publishing Guidelines. This policy will be enforced on the discussion as they don't contribute information. Thanks. 1 of IMC Ireland.

no all, know nothing

by nordie

Fri Sep 03, 2004 21:33

I take it you're talking about the 2000 Camp David talks. Here's what Israel offered the Palestinians:

Essentials of the Camp David II Proposals by Israel
1. Palestinian Statehood and Conditions
A Palestinian state would be established in most of the West Bank and all of the Gaza strip, with these conditions:

The state would not have an army with heavy weapons,
The state would not make alliances with other countries without Israeli approval and would not allow introduction of foreign forces west of the River Jordan.
Israel would be allowed deploy troops in the Jordan Valley if Israel were to be threatened by invasion from the east.
Israeli aircraft could overfly Palestinian airspace.
Israeli would install early warning stations in the mountains overlooking the Jordan valley and other areas.
Palestinians would control border crossings with Jordan and Egypt along with Israeli security observation.
The Israelis would retain management over water sources in the West Bank while approving a limited quota to the Palestinians.
Israel would lease areas in the Jordan Valley or maintain temporary sovereignty over them for up to 25 years.
2. Refugees
The Palestine refugee problem would be solved in the following way:

Israel would not accept any legal or civilian responsibility for their displacement.
Israel would allow the return of around 100,000 refugees under “humanitarian” grounds in the form of family reunions and considers such a step as compliance with UN Resolution 194.
According to one source, the Palestinian State would be limited in the number of refugees it could absorb to half a million refugees according to a fixed timetable. This is not confirmed by other sources and is problematic, since a much larger number of refugees, well over a million, already live in camps in Gaza and the West Bank.
An international fund would compensate refugees. Israel, the U.S. and Europe are to contribute. According to one source, this fund would also provide compensation to Jews who were forced to leave their possessions in Arab countries when they fled to Israel.
3. Jerusalem

Palestine would obtain sovereignty over suburbs in the north and the south of Jerusalem that would be annexed to the West Bank, including Abu Dees, Alezariye and eastern Sawahre.

Within East Jerusalem, in (Beit Hanina-Shuafat), there would be a civilian administration affiliated with the Palestinian Authority with the possibility of linking it to West Jerusalem through a municipality covering both sectors. The Palestinians would run a branch municipality within the framework of the Israeli higher municipal council while depriving them from planning and construction jurisdictions.

The proposals allowed for Palestinian, Arab, Islamic and Christian administration of holy sites in the old city of Jerusalem. The Palestinians would be allowed to hoist the Palestinian flag over the Islamic and Christian shrines along with a safe passage linking northern Jerusalem, which would be annexed to the West Bank, to those areas so that Palestinians and Muslims would not pass through lands under Israeli sovereignty.

4. Land Area of Palestine
The initial area of the Palestinian state would comprise about 73% of the land area of the West Bank and all of Gaza. The West Bank would be divided by the road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea and a corridor on either side of it. This would form two relatively large Palestinian areas and one small enclave surrounding Jericho. The three areas would be joined by a free passage without checkpoints, but the safe passage could be closed by Israel in case of emergency. According to Palestinian sources, there would be another division between the area north of the Ariel and Shilo settlements along the trans-Shomron highway built by Israel.

In later stages (10-25 years) Israel would cede additional areas, particularly in the mountains overlooking the Jordan valley, to bring the total area to slightly under 90% of the area of the West Bank (94% excluding greater Jerusalem).

The major settlement blocks adjacent to Jerusalem and in the Jerusalem corridor would be annexed to Israel: Efrat, Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Edumim. The town of Ariel and the corridor along the trans-Samaria highway would be annexed to Israel. The Jewish settlement town of Qiriat Arba would remain under Israeli administration in the heart of Palestinian territory, with a single road through Palestinian territory reaching it from the south. Isolated Jewish settlements including the settlement in Hebron, would come under Palestinian jurisdiction and would probably be abandoned.

Not exactly their own country, more a council tenancy which would have caused civil war among Palestinians if accepted. Arafat is no Michael Collins.

And, aye right enough, Israel wants peace. Its showed the world this by doubling its settlemnts during the ninties even when it was meant to be tearing them down and its shows it even today by building thousands of new homes all over the West Bank and creating conditions in which their land grabbing makes a Palestinian state impossible.

And, right enough, a higly intelligent man like Arafat dosen't want peace but instead works toward the highly unstable condition which the Palestinians are in today and thinks that if there is enough bombs go off in Israel then the Israelis will decide on lemming like behaviour by throwing themselves into the sea and therefore giving the Palestinians all their land back. That surely is his strategy, isn't it?

Who wants peace?

Fri Sep 03, 2004 21:00

Ever heard of the 2001 Taba/Camp David talks?

That was where Yasser Arafat rejected an historic peace deal, regarded as very generous even by Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia.

Instead his alternative was murder the Jew.

Israel wants peace. The Palestinian leaders want to drive the Jews into the sea.

Get it.
Got it?
Good.

talk to me

Fri Sep 03, 2004 20:47

Could you explain what I'm wrong about and what I'm prejudiced about?

Read a history book

Fri Sep 03, 2004 20:40

Nordie,

Read any good books lately?
Read any books lately?
Read any books?

Take a history lesson and drop your prejudice.

hey, person

Fri Sep 03, 2004 20:25

Hey, person, if Israel was just concerned about the safety of its citizens then it would stop building colonial settlements in the West Bank and pull every last one down. If it was really interested in a peace which could have the chance of bringing safety to its population then it would try and make a genuine agreement with the Arab world instead of just trying to placate the moron minds of pig-people (who don't really want peace either but like to fool themselves they do) by talk of removing a whole 8,000 nutters from Gaza and a few tiny settlements from the West Bank. If Israel was really only concerned with the safety of its people it would retreat completely to the land it stole with the help of the world before 1967 and build a mile high fence around its borders and allow the establishment of a Palestinian state comprising of a whole 22% of historic Palestine which, while not promising anything, might bring long term peace to the region. Yes, if Israel was concerned about its people it would do all these things instead of continuing to build on the West Bank and attempting, along with the darkest forces of Christianity in America, to drag the world into war again. A war Israel and her allies are sure to win and so bring about the establishment the pure Zionist dream of a Greater Israel and complete domination in the region which will lead to war after war after war in the long term. And the pig people will lap it up, even when their families are dying. Just because they're so stinking inside. Just like the Jewish loopers who bring their children to live in Gaza and the West Bank and the savages who support them.

Fuck, even 14 of the 15 UN judges are wrong in your opinion. Except you'd know they're not if you would just listen to your soul but you just love seeing buses blown apart too much to do so.

A person's thoughts

Fri Sep 03, 2004 16:32

The placement of the security barrier was devised by the military to minimise the potential for mortar attacks on towns and settlements.

The Israeli high court has ruled that some of the barrier must be re-routed, although they acknowledge this will increase the risk of mortar attacks.

Israel is more concerned with the security of it's people than the procurement of some land. Hence the return of the Sinai to Egypt following the 1979 peace treaty.

Fences are no protection

by kokomero

Thu Sep 02, 2004 15:25

against a determined individual, in fact they simply make spectacular acts more likely given that many attempts will be unsuccessful. Real protection will come from a peace-settlement and the establishment of a Palestinian state. The Israelis are both arrogant and naive and are guilty of putting the cart before the horse and there will be no peace in the Middle East until they change their tack.

I like this article...

Thu Sep 02, 2004 00:46

...about the people who support this fence by simply calling it a 'security barrier' but choose to ignore the land grabbing that comes with it. They just won't talk about that part. They just won't.

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_11185.shtml

No need for the wall. No way. No how.

Wed Sep 01, 2004 23:44

"the aparthied wall doesn't have a reason to be put up, so take it down..." - Ah... Mad

Sorry, speak up, I couldn't hear you. There were two deafening explosions on buses close by.

bringing down the wall...

by Ahmad Tawakol

Mon Aug 30, 2004 19:17

ahmad at tawakol dot com

"Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up" - Robert Frost.

the aparthied wall doesn't have a reason to be put up, so take it down...

Antidote to Issraeli propaganda

by Ali H.

Sun Jul 18, 2004 16:15

To demonstrated to the reader how the belligerent Israeli attitude toward the Arab population was deeply rooted among the early Zionists, let us contemplate the following Zionists quotes:

· Ahad Ha'Am, the leading Eastern European Jewish essayist, wrote after his three months visit to Palestine in 1891:

" ....[the Zionists pioneers believed that] the only language the Arabs understand is that of force ..... [They] behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency."

· Ben-Gurion concluded that no people on earth determined its relations with other peoples by abstract moral calculations of justice:

"There is only one thing that everyone accepts, Arabs and non-Arabs alike: facts." The Arabs would not make peace with the Jews "out of sentiment for justice," but because such a peace at some point would become worthwhile and advantageous. A Jewish state would encourage peace, because with it the Jew would "become a force, and the Arabs respect force." Ben-Gurion explained to the Mapai party "these days it is not right but might which prevails. It is more important to have force than justice on one's side." In a period of "power politics , the powers that become hard of hearing, and respond only to the roar of cannons. And the Jews in the Diaspora have no cannons." In order to survive in this evil world, the Jewish people needed cannons more than justice.

· Moshe Dayan, one of the early founders of the Haganah and the Israeli Defense Force, wrote in 1955:

"The only method that proved effective, not justified or moral but effective, when Arabs plant mines on our side [in retaliation]. If we try to search for the [particular] Arab [who planted mines], it has no value. But if we harass the nearby village . . . then the population there comes out against the [infiltrators] . . . and the Egyptian Government and the Transjordan Government are [driven] to prevent such incidents because their prestige is [assailed], as the Jews have opened fire, and they are unready to begin a war . . . the method of collective punishment so far has proved effective."

· Israel's leaders drew the wrong lessons from the War of Attrition with Egypt in 1969. Mordachai Gur, who became chief of staff in 1974, wrote in the IDF monthly (July-1987 edition):

"There is not doubt that our victory in the War of Attrition was very important, but did only one conclusion follow from it---to sit and do nothing? That we are strong and if the Arabs want peace, they have to come to us on their knees and accept out terms? . . . This was the great political and strategic mistake---the reliance on force as the almost exclusive factor in the formulation of policy."

· As Nahum Goldmann wrote, once president of the World Zionist Congress, in his autobiography, that Israel's reliance on force is becoming the center of its political problems for many years to come, he stated:

" . . . The [1948 war] victory offered such a glorious contrast to the centuries of persecution and humiliation, of adaptation and compromise, that it seemed to indicate the only direction that could possibly be taken from then on. To brook through nothing, tolerate no attack, but cut through Gordain knots, and to shape history by creating facts seemed so simple, so compelling, so satisfying that it became Israel's policy in its conflict with the Arab world."

It is unfortunate that many Israelis and Zionists often justify their TERROR and RACISM, which is sadly generating Arab terror and racism in response. It is even more tragic that an increasing number of Palestinians and Arabs are starting to believe that "Israelis and Zionists understand the language of force too."

Civilized people, regardless of their backgrounds, must deplore such racist remarks regardless who says it. And until Israelis and Zionists learn that they should not use the gun to communicate with their Arab neighbors, Palestinians' version of Zionism will be on the rise.

It is very sad, but often true:

Racism breeds racism, and terror breeds terror.

ray...

by Cian - none

Sat Jul 17, 2004 22:13

What is a "sound and peaceful world order"?

No peace in Middle East

Sat Jul 17, 2004 11:39

noel_o_connor at o2 dot ie

The big picture, putting aside our obvious hatred of Israel, is where to go now?
Golda Meir said 'there will be peace in the Middle East only when the Arabs love their children more than they hate Israel'
Luckily for all us anti-Israelis (not anti-Semites of course), there is little chance of this. The good Arab people of the Middle East teach their young the true faith.

up against the wALL

by mr sad/angry

Sat Jul 17, 2004 00:39

'ism' this and 'ism' that when all this tragic region needs is peace justice and rights 4 all.

UN aid convoy attacked

by Eoin

Thu Jul 15, 2004 15:15

UN relief convoy for besieged Palestinians in Gaza strip comes under fire

Israel doesn't believe anybody elses rules apply to them

Thu Jul 15, 2004 13:26

New Zealand jails Israeli 'spies'

The Israelis pleaded guilty but denied they were Mossad agents New Zealand has imposed diplomatic sanctions on Israel over the activities of two alleged members of the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad.

The Israelis were sentenced to six months in prison for trying to obtain New Zealand passports illegally. Prime Minister Helen Clark said that such acts by what she called Israeli government agencies were a violation of New Zealand sovereignty. The Israelis, Uriel Zosha Kelman and Eli Cara, deny working for Mossad.

The New Zealand government views the act carried out by the Israeli intelligence agents as not only utterly unacceptable but also a breach of New Zealand sovereignty and international law
Helen Clark New Zealand Prime Minister
They did plead guilty to attempting to gain New Zealand passports illegally and working with organised criminal gangs.

Ironic

by Joe

Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:05

The mis-use of the term anarchy is quite ironic give that at least one Israeli anarchist has been shot (injured not killed) while taking part in 'Anarchists against the wall' actions designed to prevent construction and/or break open gates on the wall.

The don't have much os a web presence but if you go to google and put "anarchists against the wall" in as the search term you'll find numerous articles on and by this group.

Look it up yourself

by Yossarian

Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:54

Anarchy would be the result of the application of anarchism. Both refer to the same idea, absence of rulers. States, being hierarchical entities cannot practice anarchy. They can and often do practice violence and mayhem.

If you want to know what anarchists believe in, look it up. Google anarchist faq or use the attached link...

Anarchy or anarchism?

by Genuine Question

Thu Jul 15, 2004 10:29

How does anarchism differ from anarchy? Is it not anarchy when states do whatever they please, flouting laws put in place by the international community to protect weaker states?

Cut and paste

by Ray

Thu Jul 15, 2004 09:17

Should be in media updates

Another brick in the wall...

by Elaine

Thu Jul 15, 2004 02:33

Don't know the implications for CRH but got this from aljazeera.net regarding the re-routing of the wall...

"We will heed the ruling of our supreme court, not the ruling of the ICJ," he (Yosef Lapid, Israel's justice minister) said, referring to the recent decision of Israel's High Court of Justice ordering the government and the Israeli army to alter the course of the wall in order to minimise Palestinian hardship.

Israel's top court had ruled on a relatively small section of the elaborate network of fences, ditches and concrete wall that Israel says it is building to keep out Palestinian bombers but which Palestinians say has wreaked havoc on their lives and turned Arab population centres into virtual prison camps.

v.interesting

by paul c

Thu Jul 15, 2004 01:39

a very good report apart from the unfortunate use of anarchistic....

so before his report disappears

did i read today the israel has decdided to re-ruote the wall entirely , for its own reason of course to the green line...

does this have any implications for crh?

Well Done!

Thu Jul 15, 2004 01:11

Excellent report. Now bring on the boycotts.

"anarchistic violence"?

by anarchist

Thu Jul 15, 2004 00:32

Stopped reading after that.

Way to piss off people who also oppose israel's wall

Idiot

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Voltaire Network

Up Against The Wall ! Israel !

Comments (34 of 34)