The fence and the Hag Court decision

Perhaps a language issue - are you saying that there contained no references to Isreali missile strikes and military incursions and no references to Palestinian bombings and shootings in the recitation of facts to the Hague?

Judd

My understanding is that the Court said only that if Sharon wants a wall he needs to build it on the Green Line, or on the Israeli side of it. They object to Sharon's expropriating Arab lands with the wall.

I recently heard a d'var Torah arguing that many Likudist actions and policies violate Jewish law, citing passages from the Talmud. I expected cries from our own Likudists, and I heard them - but I expected arguments based on the Talmud. Instead I heard: well, our policy leaves a lot to be desired, but it's the best we can think of.

I deplore Arab violence and rhetoric, but I deplore Israeli violence and rhetoric, too. Sharon has misused the wall, as he has misused so much of his resources.

Regards.

Phil

Did you read the UN dossier? Are you stating that there not one mention of the terrorist threat faced by Israel??

quote:

---

the court took the facts as it was given to it by the UN.

---

Even if we disregard the oral pleadings, and the UN dossier, there were written statements submitted by almost 50 states, including sizeable submissions from the US, UK and oh, a 135 page statement from the State of Israel and similarly sized Annexes which dealt extensively with the terrorist threat.

Owada, the Japanese judge, would have wished the court to have more evidence from the Israeli side, as Israel failed to appoint a judge and refused to send any senior officials to make oral submissions, as other parties had done. It’s quite common practice for a reluctant party to proceedings to seek to undermine the result by submitting little or no evidence. Although Owada thought that the court might have made greater efforts to obtain this evidence itself (even though collecting evidence is not actually the role of the court), he went on to say;

quote:

---

In raising this point, it is not my purpose to dispute the factual accuracy of these assertions, or to question the conclusions arrived at on the basis of the documents and the material available to the Court. In fact it would seem reasonable to conclude on balance that the political, social, economic and humanitarian impacts of the construction of the wall, as substantiated by ample evidence supplied and documented in the course of the present proceedings, is such that the construction of the wall would constitute a violation of international obligations under various international instruments to which Israel is a party. Furthermore, these impacts are so overwhelming that I am ready to accept that no justification based on the “military exigencies”, even if fortified by substantiated facts, could conceivably constitute a valid basis for precluding the wrongfulness of the act on the basis of the stringent conditions of proportionality.

---

Needless to say Owada voted in favour of each decision.

Judge Buergenthal was the John Negroponte of the scene, standing against each of the decisions; that’s 14 to 1 on each decision. Let’s be clear on this, if they were asked to decide on an Israeli cull of Palestinian first born, Buergenthal would still have been against it.

Not for the first time Arye, your post is 90% completely wrong and 10% selective editing for effect.

No Suprises there, well that's allright then innit.

Fritz Von Theblindleadingtheblind

President Kerry's future decisions should prove otherwise in the real world !

The UN has mega unpaid bills by the US, is scoffed at by the US and the Hague is no different.Barring Milosowich and a few other minor fish, tax payers money is still conveniently being wasted, (Ex NATO Boss Robinson -no realation openly admiited that Ladich etc were grey areas not be had because of European history in the region etc. I have ranted before International Law does nor exist, it brings much work to lawyres discussing it, nothing else. If I critcise Uk or US whoever I am from home or abroad, if I criticise Israel in anyway whats'over, whoever I am, and wherever I speak from I am anti.Semetic !

I rest my case, nothing new whatsover.

Fritz Von Whatbutlerdidn'tsee

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
The UN has mega unpaid bills by the US, is scoffed at by the US and the Hague is no different.Barring Milosowich and a few other minor fish, tax payers money is still conveniently being wasted, (Ex NATO Boss Robinson -no realation openly admiited that Ladich etc were grey areas not be had because of European history in the region etc. I have ranted before International Law does nor exist, it brings much work to lawyers discussing it, nothing else. If I critcise Uk or US whoever I am from home or abroad, I am excercising Democratic free speech, and if I criticise Israel in anyway whats'over, whoever I am, and wherever I speak from I am anti.Semetic !

I rest my case, nothing new whatsover.

Fritz Von Whatbutlerdidn'tsee

---

Sad, very very Sad, Spoilt children come to mind , really.

quote:

---

· Arthur Lenk is a legal adviser at Israel's ministry of foreign affairs www.mfa.gov.il

---

What's the point of posting what is clearly a partial and skewed article written by a member of the offending party? Like Arye, Lenk lifts selective quotes to serve his ends. I note, for example, that he fails to mention that Owada has some reservations but is fundamentally convinced that the court had the right to rule in this matter and was correct in it's conclusions.

One doesn't need to read such disingenuous twaddle, be it from Israeli or Palestinian representatives. Whether or not you accept it, the court has passed it's ruling and it confirms what most people in the civilised world already thought.

To no surprise, Ayre has posted some partisan comments and when he gets a resounding slap in the face, backed up ( most annoyingly ) by facts and logic, he does not reply.

What a waste of bandwidth.

Mike

Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.

Mike,

I read the replies breifly and it is too late for me to answer now. At the present, as I have a new job and I don't sit in front of a computer sometimes it takes few days until I read the thread.
It is not that I throw something to the air and I don't care about what you wrote and I promise to reply soon.


Arye

Oh god here we go again....

First of all I think that the fence should go 1 meter west to the green line and I don't like the Idea that Israeli citizens are sitting in the West Bank - but this is not the issue, the issue is that an international court made a decision that seems to be taken not in a fully professional way as Shmagar describes, and he is a highly ranked professional judge who was the president of the supreme court in Israel. As Israel is a democratic country with a fully independed law system, the Supreme Court in Israel allowed the fence with instruction to the army how to do it with minimum disturb to the Palestinians.

Justin ,
The fence can solve it for both sides. If it will stop the terror, Israel will not kill the murderers. The court didn’t take it to conderation.

Phil,

There are groups in Israel from the Likud and from the right wing of the political wing who are thinking that Sharon went too far to the left wing while he tries to evacuate Gaza Strip. Few people of these groups are rabbis who are using their knowledge to inflame people to brutally act against evacuating of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Israeli police intelligent alerting that it is only a matter of time until a murder of an Israeli political person will be committed.

bigmick

I told at the beginning of my words that this is what I heard in the radio from Shamgar. He criticized the fact (as he sees it) that the court didn’t work while having the full and all the facts as it should have. This criticism is a professional one and he didn’t say anything about the decision itself. I think that your criticism on me in this case is not justified and I didn’t edit anything.

If I’m not mistaking, he said that the British judge said something in this point too. The question is (to my opinion) is about the way the judges took the decision. The decision itself may be a good one as you see it even if it wasn’t followed by a professional script by the court.

Arye

quote:

---

the court didn’t work while having the full and all the facts as it should have

---

This appears to contradict the main plank of your thread starter

quote:

---

the court took the facts as it was given to it by the UN. These facts didn’t include a word about the terror. Shamgar said that it was clear that the facts were given are not showing the whole picture

---

I recall that you are using some sort of internet translator so to clear any possible misunderstanding, can you please clarify if your point is:
1. the court had the facts but the procedure was flawed or,
2. that they didn’t have all the evidence that Isael would have wished them to have and that thus Israel believes the decision defective.

quote:

---

If I’m not mistaking, he said that the British judge said something in this point too.

---

You see this is the problem Arye. You’re saying nothing here but with innuendo you are attempting to discredit the court’s decision. He did have some criticisms, but why don’t you read his decision and then come back and tell us what he actually said in summation, especially in respect of Art.51 where Lenk attempted to mislead the reader.

Arye, I’m guessing that nobody here but you heard Shamgar’s interview so we don’t know whether you edited or not, but what I would say is that you surely you have more sense than to post something as inflammatory without checking whether or not it’s true. Global media is full to the gunwales with people bullshitting and spinning their socks off, relying on people not verifying their stories and repeating the bullshit. That is what you are doing here. You are perpetuating the lies and half-truths, either not caring about the verity of the story, or realizing it’s crap and/or misleading but either way hoping that enough people scan quickly, get your drift, plant the seed that the decision was defective and that Israel is really the good guy getting picked on again by the conspiratorial, international community. If I’m wrong, then I’m genuinely at a loss as your intention when posting this unchecked thread starter?

The inordinately expensive fence/wall is indirectly financed by the USA is it not ? please somebody explain to me otherwise, we should be told I feel!

Fritz Von Don'tintimidateforeigncontractors

ABSOLUTE HOGWASH³

quote:

---

an article I found interesting and relevant(as presumably did the editor of the Guardian.)

---

Editors often print articles from extreme and alternate viewpoints to present a balanced picture. You posted a heavily skewed article which on it’s own provided no balance, just one manipulative and disingenuous viewpoint.

quote:

---

Your comment on Owada's decision in the article is irrelevant.

---

Irrelevant to what? The thread starter and the article you presented are attempted to undermine the decision of the court by noting that 3 of the judges expressed reservations with the process or the evidence presented. I noted that whilst Lenk was happy to bang on and quote from the judge’s reservations he wasn’t so keen to quote their criticisms of the wall and the Israeli policy in this regard. Balance was needed and where needed is always relevant.

As with many cases which pass through the courts, there were indeed reservations and criticisms which I have also mentioned here, but I repeat, what is actually important is that, having read and heard all of the evidence, the overwhelming agreement of the court was that the wall is illegal and plain wrong.

quote:

---

does everything you disagree with constitute twaddle btw?

---

No. I don’t recall referring to every opposing argument as twaddle, just the stuff that is genuinely twaddle and when I’m being kind to an argument that deserves to be labelled as something more insidious. What basis would you have for thinking so?

Just so that you know which case this is, I was going to call the article exactly the kind of needlessly emotive, manipulative, duplicitous cack that one might expect from someone in his position.

FFS, “twaddle” wouldn't even press my granny’s button.

You sound like a horse designed by a committe to me !


"A CAMEL"


Fritz Von Weekend

bigmick,
I meant that the court didn't relate formally to the all facts. For example, they said that in the year 1967 Israel conquered the West Bank. This is a strange way of looking to what happened in the year 1967 in the West Bank. As far as I can remember, as Jordan started the war against Israel in 1967 - it made the international laws look in a different way.

I don't have to read the decision of the court because I don't have any education in laws to analyze it. I thought that what Shamgar said is interesting and I wrote it.
In this case, the decision may be ok - but if the court doesn't work in a professional way, you should be aware to it because maybe in another case, you will not like the outcome but you must know that the decision was followed by a professional procedure.
You amaze me by assuming that the American judge decision is a political one. Why? Why can't you think that his opinion is a professional opinion - just because it doesn't match your own opinion?
And the last question to you - Do you think that there will be a time when such a court will deal with the invasion to Iraq by the UK? If you don't think so - can you please tell me why?

Arye

Arye,

Are you suggesting the International Court did not act in a professional way in reaching a decision to which you are opposed?

Regards,

JonR

JonR,
Personally I have a problem with this fence. I don't like the idea that Israel makes a situation that doesn't allow a farmer to go to his own land. But as I said, the Supreme Court in Israel did find that the fence is a must and it structured the army rules how and were to put it.
The criticism about the way the court in Hag acted came from a person who was the president of the Supreme Court in Israel, therefore I think his opinion is important. He says that the decision of the Hag Court is lake in relating to the facts, which is the basis to decisions in western countries court houses.

Arye

quote:

---

I meant that the court didn't relate formally to the all facts. For example, they said that in the year 1967 Israel conquered the West Bank. This is a strange way of looking to what happened in the year 1967 in the West Bank. As far as I can remember, as Jordan started the war against Israel in 1967 - it made the international laws look in a different way.

---

I’m not saying that the court didn’t say what you claim, but as I can’t recall reading this example could you indicate where this statement occurs so that I can read the context? Regardless, your memory is serving you poorly if you think that Israel didn’t conquer the West Bank in 1967. Unless I’m mistaken, the actual war started with Israel launching attacks on Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan. Jordanian forces launched an unsuccessful counter attack and over the next 6 days Israel did indeed conquer the West Bank. If the court did say this, I fail to see where the problem is, or how it matters. The failure, as you see it, of the court to examine the history in it’s minutiae or to use the exact words that you would use, does not invalidate the decision.

quote:

---

if the court doesn't work in a professional way

---

What do you mean “in a professional way”? Perhaps you can you state the responsibilities of the court and how the court failed in these responsibilities and how these failures impacted the decisions. Repeating that the decision lacks in respect of the facts doesn’t really say anything. Specifically, what are these neglected facts which would have affected the decision? Are these facts which Israel might have provided the court?

You have thus far failed to show that this court has acted unprofessionally in any way, and so again one can only guess that with innuendo you are attempting to discredit the court’s decision with some sort of subliminal propaganda.

quote:

---

You amaze me by assuming that the American judge decision is a political one. Why? Why can't you think that his opinion is a professional opinion - just because it doesn't match your own opinion?

---

Well first off, how do you conclude that it’s just my opinion? Are you aware that the decisions were carried by a majority of 14-1 in the court itself and that Buergenthal was the sole dissenting vote each time? I’ve discussed this with numerous people and in spite of his laudable record on human rights and international law, not one person has expressed surprise at his dissenting vote. Anyone who has followed the use of the US veto in the UN in some 40 or so resolutions critical of Israel, including criticism of the incursion of the wall beyond the border, knows how US representatives act in international matters regarding Israel. My reference to the cull might have been extreme and emotive but considering that the US recently vetoed a resolution condemning Israeli's killings of three UN workers in the West Bank and Gaza, one has to wonder how low Israel has to sink to be censured by the US.

quote:

---

Do you think that there will be a time when such a court will deal with the invasion to Iraq by the UK?

---

I don’t know but I certainly hope so. I also hope that the government of the day will show a maturity and willingness to engage with the ICJ which has sadly been lacking in the matter that we are discussing.

Good breakfast Sir, just got up have we ?


Cheers anyway & keep up the good work ?



Fritz Von Mrdataforchairman

JonR,
Personally I have a problem with this fence. I don't like the idea that Israel makes a situation that doesn't allow a farmer to go to his own land. But as I said, the Supreme Court in Israel did find that the fence is a must and it structured the army rules how and were to put it.
The criticism about the way the court in Hag acted came from a person who was the president of the Supreme Court in Israel, therefore I think hi

Phew, well that's allright then mate, I hope the new job's still going well ?


Fritz Von Baguette

BIGMICK

quote:

---

. Welcoming the report of 8 September 2003 of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 19674, in particular the section regarding the wall.

---

AND -

quote:

---

73. In the 1967 armed conflict, Israeli forces occupied all the territories which had constituted Palestine under British Mandate (including those known as the West Bank, lying to the east of the Green Line).

---

As far as I can remember - Israel was in war with Egypt and Syria when the Jordan army started a war against Israel.

In general - you agree that this is a political court (as they will not judge the UK), you think that the American judge is a political one but the others are not.
There are many cases when a court publishes the minority opinion - not because it is not a professional one, but in order to show that events can be judged in another way.

Arye

quote:

---

As far as I can remember - Israel was in war with Egypt and Syria when the Jordan army started a war against Israel.

---

Repetition of something that’s factually incorrect doesn’t change the facts Arye. The Egyptian-Jordanian Mutual Defense Treat was signed on May 30 1967. Jordanian aircraft were attacked and destroyed in the Israeli attack of June 5. The Jordanian offensive of June 6 was in response to the Israeli attack. It’s fine by me if you choose to believe otherwise; as I have already remarked I fail to see how it matters in this regard.

quote:

---

In general - you agree that this is a political court (as they will not judge the UK), you think that the American judge is a political one but the others are not.

---

It is a court of law, what more do you want me to say? Once proceedings have been initiated, the judicial process can be more or less political depending on the actions of individual judges. The court has passed judgement on matters involving countless other countries including the US, so I fail to see why it would not judge the UK. What reason do you have to think otherwise?

quote:

---

There are many cases when a court publishes the minority opinion - not because it is not a professional one, but in order to show that events can be judged in another way.

---

Courts pretty much always publish minority opinion as each judgement form part of the transcript and are held as a matter of record. I don’t understand your point. I don’t understand the point of the quotes in your post. I don’t understand why you dwell on how the court may or may not have described the events of June 1967.

Given that your thread starter was a mixture of factual errors, spin and selective editing (possibly at source, as you claim) can you please tell me where you want to go with this? In plain, what is your point and how are intending to justify it? Again, if your aim is to discredit the decision or the court itself, you have not succeeded.