Powell says Israel proved fence reduces terror

[Gimel]

New York's two senators, Democrats Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer, joined Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Gillerman, in front of UN headquarters on Friday to denounce the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling on the West Bank separation fence.

"It makes no sense for the United Nations to vehemently oppose a fence which is a non-violent response to terrorism rather than opposing terrorism itself," Clinton said to a crowd of about 100 people.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said that Israel has proved that since the separation fence was built it has managed to reduce infiltration by terrorists, Israel Radio reported early Saturday.

The UN's turning the to ICJ was inappropriate, Powell said, adding that the court's ruling on the legality of the fence was not binding.

Link..

Note that two Democratic Senators demonstrate opposing the ruling on the fence.

[Betty The Younger]

1. You go Hill! And Charles, I love you man!

Bite me powell. Who cares what you think. After your lying testimony at the UN re: Iraq your word means nothing even if I agree with it.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. I think they should both take the time to read the ICJ ruling...

Because what they're saying is every bit as ignorant and stupid as what Powell utters...

Violet...

[Gimel]

21. In Paragraph 116

The only mention of terror attacks occurs in paragraph 116. Nice review of the background situation. Not.

[Betty The Younger]

37. Stupid unless your on the recieving end of what a suicide bomber carries.

Hillary, Schumer and even that lackey Powell understand that simple fact.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. Maybe you should try reading the ruling...

Then you'd have to agree that some of the comments being made about it are incredibly ignorant. The Court ruled on the legality of constructing a barrier in occupied territory, and it was the path of the barrier that was ruled on. Maybe you could explain to me, as no-one else has been able to, why if Israel is constructing a barrier to supposedly protect itself against suicide-bombers that goes deep into the West Bank and leaves over 200,000 Palestinians on the Israeli side of it, why it couldn't have protected itself against suicide-bombers by constructing the barrier as close to the Green Line as possible? If it had done that, there would be no violation of international law, and none of the human rights violations that have happened with the route Israel has chosen....

Sorry, but using violations of international law (which attacks on Israeli civilians are) as a justification for violating international law isn't acceptable to most decent folk. Israel has every right to take measures to ensure its security, but those measures should be ones that are legal. After all, if it's okay for Israel to violate international law and inflict suffering on a civilian population, why can't the US or any other state do it as well?

Violet...

[CookieD]

46. Violet, do you have a link to the ruling?

There's also a dissent from the lone American judge. I have not read the entire opinion or dissent; only snippets from news stories.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. Here it is...

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm

The opinion of the US judge was interesting, because he dissented on whether the case should have been heard, but basically went on to agree with the ruling anyway. One other judge dissented on only one part of the judgement. I think the entire thing's worth reading, because some sections of the media seem to have trouble in even understanding what the question was that they were ruling on...

Violet...

[Jim Sagle]

2. Also note that those VERY SAME two Democratic Senators RAWWWWWWWWWK!!!!!!

:party: :toast: :bounce: :thumbsup: :hi:

[lefty_mcduff]

23. But does Powell RAWWWWWWWWWK as well?

Or is he a war-mongering liar?
Not sure I'd want him on my side...

[Jim Sagle]

24. He's just the stopped clock that's right twice a day.

[js301]

3. Your point being?

[Gimel]

4. The ICJ ruling

was politically motivated and fails to recognize Israel's obligation to control violence in the territories, ie. police the territories.

[Classical_Liberal]

6. Wrong. Israel can still build the fence on the green line

The claim on the part of pandering Hillary, Chuck Shumer, and Colon Powell that this is against the fence altogether is what is truely politically motivated. The court on the other hand is being fair. What is worse is that Hillary and Chuck are pandering to people who will definately vote repuke. The prosettler Jews are not Democrats.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Political motivation...

It's a rather stupid defence to use. After all, the people who trot out that line are going to have a very hard time finding any ICJ ruling that couldn't be described as political...

Violet...

[Gimel]

22. What can and cannot be done

is up to the builders, not the opposition.

[Classical_Liberal]

30. It suppose to be up to the people who that land belongs to

That is the point. If you are going to get Machiavellian it will work against you. Boycotts are the next step.

[IndianaGreen]

31. Since we Americans are footing Israel's bills and protecting her ass

at the UN, it is time that we cut our ties to the budding apartheid state and let you guys bear the full cost of the Occupation and the settlements. Let's see how well your economy does when Uncle Sam is no longer there.

[number6]

41. "What can and cannot be done"

is up to the oppressors ....

[js301]

8. Powell and the Dems are right

I think the two senators are correct. The fence has done a lot to reduce the terrorist attacks against Israel.

[Classical_Liberal]

10. It will do a better job on the green line where it doesn't create

defacto annexation of territory that doesn't belong to Israel. Powell, Shumer and Clinton are committing sins of omission.

[js301]

13. OK

I'll agree that the locating the fence inside what is supposed to be Palestinian territory is a bad move, but the fence has done the job it was designed to do.

I put the vast majority of the blame for the current situation in Israel on Arafat. Clinton got the Israelis to offer him 95% of what he wanted, but he was too stubborn to take it. The blood of all those Israelis and Palestinians killed since is on his hands.

[Classical_Liberal]

14. Arafat didn't make the Israelis locate the fence in the future

palestinian state. Also the offer wasn't as generous as Barak claimed.

Please read

http://www.gush-shalom.org/generous/generous.html

[Classical_Liberal]

5. The court doesn't oppose the fence. It opposes where the fence

is located. Hillary and Chuck Shumer are pandering. So is Colon Powell. The fence can still be built on the green line. Anyway the US no doubt will veto this since both parties are completely corrupted by aipac and defense industry money. However that won't save Israel from the boycotts that are coming.

[leftistagitator]

7. And this is why there will never be peace in Israel.

As long as they have both major parties backing whatever actions Israel does without question, there is no incentive whats so ever for them to meaningfully sue for peace. It's one thing I agree with Nader on, the Democratic Party is killing the Israeli Peace movement, and we're doing it willfully. This wall is built on Palestinian land and is built without concern for the starvation, disease, and death it will inflict on Palestinians. I suppose in the end it doesn't really matter. As there was no stopping the slaughter of the Native Americans, there is no stopping the slaughter of Palestinians. Justice and basic human goodness are simply worthless concepts which have never existed and will never exist on this God-forsaken world of ours.

[Classical_Liberal]

12. Read Jack Rabbit's recent post.

I guess the EU will back this up even if the UN doesn't. If the EU doesn't, it's citizens will.

[mike_c]

9. well, if Colin Powell says it, it must be true....

Like those mobile labs in the sat photos.... :puke:

Lies repeated often enough can become memes, but not truth.

[Jack Rabbit]

11. The court's ruling is sound

EDITED to fix links

Israel was building the fence in occupied territory. This was less for Israel's own security, but for the security of settlements constructed in violation of Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Israel has a security problem, but it can be resolved by constructing a security barrier on or closer to the Green Line and withdrawing Israeli nationals now in occupied territory within that confine. Although some may object to the Green Line as an international border, it has served that purpose for decades and should be thought of as one. It is certainly a boundary more agreed upon and recognized than any arbitrary point that Sharon would draw. It is the starting point for any negotiations for a final border.

There may be no Palestinian state at this time, but there is a Palestine. It is the West Bank and the Gaza. It is occupied territory and, as such, Israel cannot treat it as a conquered province to do as she pleases. The days when states go to war and unilaterally expropriate territory are past. To paraphrase UN Resolution 242, acquisition of territory through war is inadmissible. The rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention apply.

Nowhere does the court deny Israel the right to build a barrier for protection. They have simply set limits on building that barrier in a way that violates the human rights of Palestinians. Mr. Powell's statement is therefore spurious. It is unfortunate that the two senators were so quick to embrace it.

[Lithos]

15. That is an excellent summation

And thanks once again for the links.

L-

[Jack Rabbit]

16. You're welcome

And it reminded me to fix those links.

[madrchsod]

18. anything for money and votes

principals don`t matter when your a politician...

[Violet_Crumble]

25. And that's why the claims that 'terror' wasn't addressed are lame...

btw, I've read through it now, and it looks like a very sound ruling to me....

Anyway, because the Court didn't deny Israel the right to build a barrier for protection, but dealt solely with the path it was taking, claims that the Court is ignoring terrorist attacks on Israeli soil are quite silly. If the barrier had been constructed along the Green Line, a ruling saying that Israel mustn't build a barrier would raise some big questions from me as to why Israel can't build a barrier on its own territory to try to ensure security. As none of those now trotting out the predictable 'buuut terrorism wasn't addressed' have not once even tried to explain why constructing a barrier along the Green Line would not provide security for Israel, I tend to see those claims as being knee-jerk reactions to a decision that clearly proves the path of the barrier is illegal. Also, for those who make those claims, they seem to be trying to say that if security can be raised as an issue, then international law and human rights violations carried out in the name of security can be totally ignored. Which would mean that they would also think that the US can totally ignore international law when it chooses, as long as it uses the excuse of fighting terrorism. And if international law should be ignored depending on the circumstance, what's the point of it existing in the first place, and being turned to by the same folk who ignore it when they decide international law does indeed suit their purposes?

Violet....

p.s. edited to fix garbled sentence full of cruddy grammar...

[Violet_Crumble]

26. And what makes them even lamer is this...

140. The Court has, however, considered whether Israel could rely on a state of necessity which would preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall. In this regard the Court is bound to note that some of the conventions at issue in the present instance include qualifying clauses of the rights guaranteed or provisions for derogation (see paragraphs 135 and 136 above). Since those treaties already address considerations of this kind within their own provisions, it might be asked whether a state of necessity as recognized in customary international law could be invoked with regard to those treaties as a ground for precluding the wrongfulness of the measures or decisions being challenged. However, the Court will not need to consider that question. As the Court observed in the case concerning the Gabèíkovo‑Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), “the state of necessity is a ground recognized by customary international law” that “can only be accepted on an exceptional basis”; it “can only be invoked under certain strictly defined conditions which must be cumulatively satisfied; and the State concerned is not the sole judge of whether those conditions have been met” (I.C.J. Reports 1997, p. 40, para. 51). One of those conditions





was stated by the Court in terms used by the International Law Commission, in a text which in its present form requires that the act being challenged be “the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril” (Article 25 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts; see also former Article 33 of the Draft Articles on the International Responsibility of States, with slightly different wording in the English text). In the light of the material before it, the Court is not convinced that the construction of the wall along the route chosen was the only means to safeguard the interests of Israel against the peril which it has invoked as justification for that construction.

141. The fact remains that Israel has to face numerous indiscriminate and deadly acts of violence against its civilian population. It has the right, and indeed the duty, to respond in order to protect the life of its citizens. The measures taken are bound nonetheless to remain in conformity with applicable international law.

142. In conclusion, the Court considers that Israel cannot rely on a right of self‑defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall resulting from the considerations mentioned in paragraphs 122 and 137 above. The Court accordingly finds that the construction of the wall, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law.

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm

Violet...

[Gimel]

28. This is blindness itself

"the state of necessity is a ground recognized by customary international law" that "can only be accepted on an exceptional basis";

The construction of the fence/wall has effectively stopped suicide bombing attacks, grave crimes against humanity, and only its completion will maintain a state of detente between the two national entities.

[Classical_Liberal]

33. I am not happy with a state of detente

Peace is what is necessary, and that will only come with two states. A wall can still be built to protect Israelis in Israel. This detente you want is a large Prison camp for Palestinians.

[Gimel]

34. a prison camp

Only if they persist in attacking Israel and harboring the terrorist in their midst. Otherwise, the gates will be open. and the wall will come down. Apparently they can't do that, so they see the wall as permanent.

[Classical_Liberal]

39. If Israel was concerned with the security of the settlers it wouldn't

have put them there. They should remove them to Israel, if they want those settlers to be protected by the fence. Otherwise the boycotts and sanctions will start.

[Classical_Liberal]

40. That is collective punishment and racism

It is also demanding something that cannot be satisfied, which is that no Palestinian gets upset over land theft again. The land is not Israels and if Israel were really concerned with the security of the settlers they wouldn't have put them there. Israel is more concerned with stealing land, which is the real purpose of the fence. The settlers could be protected by being brought back to Israel and building the fence where it belongs on Israeli territory.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. I think for some it's more about punishment than security...

And there's really nothing wrong with creating a large prison camp for Palestinians as long as the excuse of security can be trotted out. The suffering the barrier has and is causing is a righteous punishment for those nasty, terror-supporting Palestinians, after all. They behave and stop resisting and having these foolish dreams of their own state and then MAYBE the barrier will come down. More than likely the thing will remain where it is. After all, it's construction is obscenely expensive and any call to remove it in the future would be met with a chorus of 'but if it gets removed those terrorists will get into Israel and the chunks of the West Bank we've annexed!! The Peace Fence (wish I could do that little TM symbol) must stay!!! ;)

Violet...

[Classical_Liberal]

32. This means that the Haaretz charge and Abraham Foxman's

charge that the court didn't address the terrorism Israel has faced are as false as the charge that court ruled against all wall including those on Israeli land.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. Yep...

I figure that even if those folk have read the ruling, they're indulging in a fair bit of creative interpretation and selective blindness about what the ruling actually said :)

Violet...

[Gimel]

27. Here it is

Of course you may say that no one has addressed this issue, as usual, such as your statements about AI which I have clearly recommended reading many times, but to no avail. The false generalizations will continue, to be sure.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x74047#74126

[madrchsod]

17. build up the wall !

..if the israeli nation wants to wall themselves in go for..then there won`t be anymore need to send them 4billion+ of our hard earned money to blow the shit out of the palestinians.. it`s a win-win situation for everyone. see how easy it is to solve the problem..build a wall and your problems just go away!

[IndianaGreen]

29. Powell also said that Iraq had mobile WMD labs

Powell's credibility is close to zero!

[Aidoneus]

38. Hey, those weather balloons could've been menacing!

If one was on LSD.. the weather balloons would look as bright as our new second sun, aiming a death ray directly at you. So Powell does, in fact, have a great deal of credibility:--if you're on LSD.

As for Clinton and Schumer.. well, it may not be polite to say, but they do have re-elections at some point and really must play up to their sponsors. That, and they're fairly useless on the best of days without the added peculiarities of the particular subject.

[CookieD]

42. Many of us seem to agree the fence is OK. The only question

is where the fence should be located. Should it be located along the Green Line or should it encompass what is now considered Palestinian territory?

IMOP, if Israel elects to annex small portions of territory for security purposes then it should be prepared to compensate the Palestinians accordingly. Not only is this the most pragmatic solution but I predict it is the solution all sides will eventually adopt. Israel has a right to protect itself and, frankly, most nations faced with continued border invasions targeting innocent civilians would respond far more forcefully.

If Mexican Nationals were crossing the California border and blowing up school busses in San Diego, what do you think the United States would eventually do? Would the world community try to stop us from responding, even if our military chose to respond with devastating force?

[Jack Rabbit]

43. Some exchange of settlement land is the a major part of the Geneva Accord

The Geneva Accord is the unofficial peace treaty negotiated by former Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin and former Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo. It exchanges some land on which settlements are not situated for land along the Israel-Palestine frontier, mostly south of Jerusalem near the Negev.

The document is a much better plan then the Road Map, which was pretty much designed to fail. Of course, the right wing in both countries won't have anything to do with it. Beilin was accused of treason by right wing Knesset members and Abed Rabbo's house was shot at by terrorists.

Nevertheless, the final peace agreement will probably resemble the Beilin-Abed Rabbo Accord.

[IndianaGreen]

44. Israel should give up Arab Jerusalem, all of it!

The Bible/Torah/what-have-you should never be used as the basis for policy. Myths do not belong outside of the church/synagogue/mosque!

If there is to be a Wall, let it be build on the Green Line. Let Israel give up Arab Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, and the Syrian Golan. Bring the settlers back to Israel proper, or return them to America.