The fence and the Hag Court decision

Perhaps one reason that the court makes no mention of past incidents such as Deir Yassin or Jenin is that it's so difficult to arrive at a true version of what actually transpired.

For example, typing "Deir Yassin" into Google brings up over 18,000 references. Read them and you'll find, unsurprisingly, that they give very different accounts, depending on who's doing the telling.

Of course history is important but history written by whom? There have been atrocities committed by both sides but can dwelling upon them, re-examining them or aportioning blame for them lead the two sides forward to a happier and more peaceful future? Peace can only be achieved by negotiation and the changing of attitudes.

I note that following a decision by the Israeli high court, the wall is being re-routed. It will not be dismantled. Why not? Because quite simply, from the Israeli viewpoint it works. It prevents terrorist strikes on Israeli civilians. Any considerations of right or wrong are secondary to considerations of expediency, as is the case in nearly all issues of world politics.

My hope is that, if Palestinian strikes against Israeli civilians fail or are stopped and if Israeli 'retaliation' for such strikes ceases, then perhaps both sides will be forced into a position of having to negotiate, if they are to achieve their aims.

Steve Margolis
defy convention - make music

quote:

---

Of course history is important but history written by whom?

---

You're completely correct here Steve. A judicial decision such as this cannot be taken on the basis of selective historical snapshots and entrenched yet different views of historical events. The court wasn't asked to consider the history of Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East with a request for an opinion on who was right or wrong. It would be an impossible task, but if it were to proceed, then the war, the masscacres and the water would all have to be considered. In this instance, the court was given a specific brief and it stuck to it. Your statement about "Palestinian strikes" and "Israeli retaliation" exemplifies the problem of perspective. The father of a Palestinian child shot dead by the IDF would describe the next suicide bomb as retaliation.

quote:

---

Starting to incestigate what happenned in recent 5 years will inevitably lead to further history arguments.

---

Well, yes Omer, but I'm only saying 5 years as example. What I was trying to emphasize the court had to act with the brief by considering evidence relevant to the wall in terms of time and location i.e. the situation in the affected part of the occupied territories since the inception of the wall project. Unlike the events of the 1950 and 1960s, such matters are fresh and relatively easy to corroberate from independent sources.

quote:

---

This thread is about the court decision and that decision is about the wall, it's claimed function, why it has to exist, why it has to be where it is, to what extent people in the Occupied Territories are being directly and indirectly affected by it and on the balance of the answers to these questions whether or not it is illegal.

---

You may well be right when you suggest that my quote shows that Arye and I agree on many things, we don't know, but the quote was incomplete as the point was contained in the remainder of the paragraph

quote:

---

given it's brief the court should not concern itself to any extent with matters outside of the current occupation either in geographical, political or temporal terms. Who attacked who in 1967 doesn't answer any of the above questions.

---

Omer
The court didn't even mention who started the 1967 war. I've spent pretty much all of my adult life in the law and I can tell you from experience that the court looks to the evidence pertinent to the matter which are disclosed and nothing else. Any decision that relies in any part on evidence not pertaining to the case is leaving itself wide open to a challenge on that very basis.

The court did not disconnect itself from the political and historical context, rather it connected to the relevant political and historical context as outlined in the evidence. if the court has no evidential parameters, then the process would grind to a halt, bogged down by requests for the consideration of the most tenuous minutiae that ancient history has to offer. Surely you don't really think that they should have considered Lydda, Deir Yassin, the water disputes, the Ottomans, David and the Caananites? It's all historical context and in that ssense has as much value as the 1967 questions but it's just not relevant here. As I said earlier, the evidence that Arye feels is lacking is a matter of historical debate and can never be said to answer the relevant questions as outlined in my earlier post.

The disagreement is that Arye believes that by failing to consider certain disputed, historical events i.e. who was to blame for starting the 6 day war, the court was unprofessional and the process leading upto the decision was flawed. if one believes that, then one is undermining the validity of the decision itself. My point is that the court looked at all relevant evidence presented by the parties and that failure to consider irrelevant evidence is the sign of a thorough and efficient process leading to a valid decision. Thus the important word in the quote is relevant.

quote:

---

I share this fear, but this is a historical and political context based fear.

---

Exactly, you are confirming what I said in the quote at the top of your post. I repeat that the court does consider the historical and political context but only if it's relevant to the matter at hand. The events surrounding Deir Yassin or the 6 day war are anything but.

quote:

---

quote:
Surely you don't really think that they should have considered Lydda, Deir Yassin, the water disputes, the Ottomans, David and the Caananites?


No I don't think so. Did I say I do ?

---

Come on Omer,you're better than that. The rhetorical question emphasized that just as these incidents were irrelevant and need not have been considered by the court in this matter, so the same holds for the events of 1967.

I think that we've thrashed this one to death. Thank you again for interceding on behalf of Arye.

In fairness Omer, I imagine thta bigmick would have made the concluding remarks much earlier if there had been any indication that his argument was being understood. It appeared to me that Arye simply failed to understand logic, was unable to state the point of his intial post and just kept flannelling; indeed I was worried that latterly you, even with your best intentions, were starting to suffer from the same mindset, as big mick had to repeat the same patently clear point re. relevant evidence ad nauseum.