Bill
February 23rd 04, 07:59 PM
In article >,
"Oelewapper" > wrote:
> Israel's barrier
>
> The International Court of Justice will hear arguments on Monday on the
> legal consequences of Israel's wall - a barrier of concrete blocks, sniper
> towers, electric fences, razor wire and trenches surrounding Palestinian
> towns and villages in occupied Palestinian territory.
> .
> The Israeli government justifies the wall as a security measure. Yet, if the
> wall were truly about Israel's security, it would have been built on the
> Green Line - the border between Israel and the Palestinian territory that
> Israel has occupied since 1967. A wall on the Green Line would have been
> shorter, less expensive, more easily patrolled and, most important, legal.
> .
> But the wall is not about Israel's security - it is about taking as much
> Palestinian land as possible while caging in as many Palestinians as
> possible. This is why the wall is being built well within occupied
> Palestinian territory and in such a way as to divide Palestinian population
> centers not only from each other, but also from adjacent agricultural and
> water resources.
> .
> The northern West Bank village of Qalqilya is surrounded by a concrete wall
> eight meters, or 26 feet, high - cutting off the town's hospitals and
> schools from nearby villages. In occupied East Jerusalem, slabs of concrete
> were erected in the middle of Palestinian neighborhoods, dividing
> grandparents from their grandchildren, children from the schools, and
> workers from their offices.
> .
> Unsurprisingly, not only will approximately 92 percent of the nearly 400,000
> Israeli settlers illegally living in Occupied Palestinian Territory remain,
> but the wall ensures that they will have more Palestinian land into which to
> expand their settlements.
> .
> The wall results not only in the de facto annexation of Palestinian land,
> but also in the coerced migration and displacement of more than 13,000 of
> the Palestinians living in what Israel calls the "closed zone" - the portion
> of the occupied West Bank between the wall and the Green Line. Recent
> military orders require Palestinians living in the closed zone to obtain
> permission from the Israeli occupation army in order to stay in their homes.
> Nothing guarantees that such permits will be issued or that they will be
> honored or renewed.
> .
> By contrast, Israeli settlers living in the closed zone in violation of the
> Fourth Geneva Convention need no such permits. Indeed, the Israeli military
> orders permit any Israeli to settle in occupied Palestinian territory while
> the resident Palestinians require Israeli permission to live on and farm
> their own land.
> .
> Israel's strategy of stealing Palestinian land while denying rights to the
> Palestinian people is nothing new. What is new is that the International
> Court of Justice hearing represents the first time in recent history that
> Israel's violations of international law are subject to the scrutiny and
> rulings of an independent judicial body.
> .
> Israel is not accustomed to playing by the rules. Indeed, it denies that any
> rules apply to it. Since its creation in 1948, Israel has relied on its
> military, economic and diplomatic power to disregard international laws,
> more than 40 United Nations Security Council resolutions, its own signed
> agreements, and, most recently, the U.S.-backed peace plan known as the road
> map.
> .
> In Israel's view, its occupation of Palestine and its violation of
> Palestinian human rights are not subject to any law but are simply matters
> to be "negotiated" between the Israelis and Palestinians - as if the
> conflict were between two equal parties with equal negotiating leverage. An
> Israeli call for "negotiations," while denying the applicability of
> international laws and treaties, is a not-so-subtle strategy for allowing
> Israel, as the powerful occupier, to impose its will on the powerless
> occupied. We have all witnessed where such a strategy leads.
> .
> The opinion of the International Court of Justice will provide an
> opportunity to correct the imbalance of power between Israel and the
> Palestinian people in the land Israel occupies. By providing a rare,
> detached analysis of Israel's actions and reaffirming the laws applicable to
> a military occupation, the court will offer a legal framework - and not a
> power dynamic - for evaluating Israel's wall.
> .
> The court's ruling should serve to guide the international community's
> efforts at structuring new peace initiatives based on applying the law, not
> circumventing it.
> .
> By contrast, a failure by the international community to respect the court's
> opinion would reinforce the message to Palestinians - often lectured to
> abandon violence and pursue peaceful diplomatic action - that a nonviolent
> legal means of addressing their grievances is not an option available to
> them. Extremists would argue that such a failure left no option but
> violence - and the cycle of occupation and the violent resistance that
> occupation breeds would undoubtedly continue.
> .
> Saeb Erekat IHT Monday, February 23, 2004
> The writer is the Palestinian Authority's minister of negotiations.
>
>
The poster is Usenet's Minister of Inappropriate Crossposting
"Oelewapper" > wrote:
> Israel's barrier
>
> The International Court of Justice will hear arguments on Monday on the
> legal consequences of Israel's wall - a barrier of concrete blocks, sniper
> towers, electric fences, razor wire and trenches surrounding Palestinian
> towns and villages in occupied Palestinian territory.
> .
> The Israeli government justifies the wall as a security measure. Yet, if the
> wall were truly about Israel's security, it would have been built on the
> Green Line - the border between Israel and the Palestinian territory that
> Israel has occupied since 1967. A wall on the Green Line would have been
> shorter, less expensive, more easily patrolled and, most important, legal.
> .
> But the wall is not about Israel's security - it is about taking as much
> Palestinian land as possible while caging in as many Palestinians as
> possible. This is why the wall is being built well within occupied
> Palestinian territory and in such a way as to divide Palestinian population
> centers not only from each other, but also from adjacent agricultural and
> water resources.
> .
> The northern West Bank village of Qalqilya is surrounded by a concrete wall
> eight meters, or 26 feet, high - cutting off the town's hospitals and
> schools from nearby villages. In occupied East Jerusalem, slabs of concrete
> were erected in the middle of Palestinian neighborhoods, dividing
> grandparents from their grandchildren, children from the schools, and
> workers from their offices.
> .
> Unsurprisingly, not only will approximately 92 percent of the nearly 400,000
> Israeli settlers illegally living in Occupied Palestinian Territory remain,
> but the wall ensures that they will have more Palestinian land into which to
> expand their settlements.
> .
> The wall results not only in the de facto annexation of Palestinian land,
> but also in the coerced migration and displacement of more than 13,000 of
> the Palestinians living in what Israel calls the "closed zone" - the portion
> of the occupied West Bank between the wall and the Green Line. Recent
> military orders require Palestinians living in the closed zone to obtain
> permission from the Israeli occupation army in order to stay in their homes.
> Nothing guarantees that such permits will be issued or that they will be
> honored or renewed.
> .
> By contrast, Israeli settlers living in the closed zone in violation of the
> Fourth Geneva Convention need no such permits. Indeed, the Israeli military
> orders permit any Israeli to settle in occupied Palestinian territory while
> the resident Palestinians require Israeli permission to live on and farm
> their own land.
> .
> Israel's strategy of stealing Palestinian land while denying rights to the
> Palestinian people is nothing new. What is new is that the International
> Court of Justice hearing represents the first time in recent history that
> Israel's violations of international law are subject to the scrutiny and
> rulings of an independent judicial body.
> .
> Israel is not accustomed to playing by the rules. Indeed, it denies that any
> rules apply to it. Since its creation in 1948, Israel has relied on its
> military, economic and diplomatic power to disregard international laws,
> more than 40 United Nations Security Council resolutions, its own signed
> agreements, and, most recently, the U.S.-backed peace plan known as the road
> map.
> .
> In Israel's view, its occupation of Palestine and its violation of
> Palestinian human rights are not subject to any law but are simply matters
> to be "negotiated" between the Israelis and Palestinians - as if the
> conflict were between two equal parties with equal negotiating leverage. An
> Israeli call for "negotiations," while denying the applicability of
> international laws and treaties, is a not-so-subtle strategy for allowing
> Israel, as the powerful occupier, to impose its will on the powerless
> occupied. We have all witnessed where such a strategy leads.
> .
> The opinion of the International Court of Justice will provide an
> opportunity to correct the imbalance of power between Israel and the
> Palestinian people in the land Israel occupies. By providing a rare,
> detached analysis of Israel's actions and reaffirming the laws applicable to
> a military occupation, the court will offer a legal framework - and not a
> power dynamic - for evaluating Israel's wall.
> .
> The court's ruling should serve to guide the international community's
> efforts at structuring new peace initiatives based on applying the law, not
> circumventing it.
> .
> By contrast, a failure by the international community to respect the court's
> opinion would reinforce the message to Palestinians - often lectured to
> abandon violence and pursue peaceful diplomatic action - that a nonviolent
> legal means of addressing their grievances is not an option available to
> them. Extremists would argue that such a failure left no option but
> violence - and the cycle of occupation and the violent resistance that
> occupation breeds would undoubtedly continue.
> .
> Saeb Erekat IHT Monday, February 23, 2004
> The writer is the Palestinian Authority's minister of negotiations.
>
>
The poster is Usenet's Minister of Inappropriate Crossposting