| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Israel-Palestine | |
| Israeli Court Orders Rerouting of Barrier | |
| 2004-07-01 | |
| Israel's Supreme Court sided with the Palestinians in a precedent-setting decision Wednesday, ordering the government to reroute part of its West Bank separation barrier near Jerusalem because it causes too much suffering. The ruling - the first major legal decision on the barrier - cracked a cornerstone of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to disengage from the Palestinians by 2005. Palestinians Israel's deputy defense minister, Zeev Boim, said the ruling would delay completion of the barrier, which Israel says it crucial for keeping out suicide bombers. "Now there will be a court appeal on every meter (yard) of the fence," Boim told Israel TV's Channel One. The court said the barrier must be rerouted, even at the cost of Israeli security. Several officials decried the ruling as a security menace, but the Defense Ministry - which oversees the barrier's construction - said it would comply. The court also forced the government to return land that has been seized and compensate the Palestinians for their financial losses, making it less likely the government can finish the project by next year as planned. Army planners met Wednesday evening to discuss the fallout from the court ruling. The ruling focused on a stretch of barrier near Jerusalem that would have separated some 35,000 Palestinians from their crops. Foundations had been laid along parts of the 25-mile section, and earthmovers had leveled ground and uprooted trees elsewhere in preparation for construction. With Wednesday's decision, similar lawsuits are likely for other parts of the 425-mile complex of fences, concrete walls, trenches and razor wire. "We won't stop here," said Mohammed Dahla, a lawyer for the petitioners. "We will continue our legal struggle against this wall."
| |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #30 You didn't understand me. I said that the wall wasn't a border, wasn't being drawn as such, and wasn't considered as such. But for all intents and purposes, it ends up being such. No Israeli court would be likely to impose a different standard of justice to anyone living within the wall's protected area but still outside of any official border. And somehow the wall's position affects which Palestinians the Israeli court has jurisdiction over? I never heard of that. Well naturally it would, since the wall doesn't follow exactly the route of the Green Line. Unless you have a different idea for those that live outside of the Green Line but inside of the wall's route... |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-07-02 12:28:02 PM |
| #29 do you believe for one minute that Israel would reroute so that those Paleos were inside Israel? You didn't understand me. I said that the wall wasn't a border, wasn't being drawn as such, and wasn't considered as such. This means that the "rerouting of the wall" has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the Paleos in either side of the fence are "inside" or "outside" Israel. Since it's not a border. An Israeli court has no obligation to "serve" Paleos not under its jurisdiction And somehow the wall's position affects which Palestinians the Israeli court has jurisdiction over? I never heard of that. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-02 8:38:19 AM |
| #28 If the whole thing was about one group of lawless barbarians defeating another group of lawless barbarians, then what'd be the point and why would we give a damn either way? Because the fact is, it's NOT one group of lawless barbarians defeating another group of lawless barbarians by any stretch of the imagination, regardless of what tactics are employed by those seeking to defeat the barbarians. This shouldn't be difficult to figure out. (And *no*, it's not just the Palestinian's choice. All the settlements and the wall's planned route itself goes against the "neighbouring nation" plan, regardless of whether the Palestinians are sane or rabid) There's been more than enough chances to resolve this problem in a reasonable and peaceful manner. The fact is, it hasn't been, and most if not all of the difficulty has originated from the Paleo side. So this seeming effort by Sharon to force the issue to a resolution one way or the other strikes me as quite appropriate. The alternative is more of the same ineffective Paleo footdragging, which is out of the question. The Supreme Court's decision seemed to me to suggest that it considers the Palestinians of the West Bank a lawful part of Israel, that's why the wall's position must serve the Palestinian people. That all depends on where those Paleos live. The wall was said to cut those people off from the olive orchards. Well, now that the court ordered that the wall be rerouted so as to not cut them off, do you believe for one minute that Israel would reroute so that those Paleos were inside Israel? An Israeli court has no obligation to "serve" Paleos not under its jurisdiction; the court's decision was solely to minimize suffering, as mentioned in the article. And as I said previously, it's a humanitarian gesture not likely to be reciprocated by the Paleos. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-07-02 1:36:51 AM |
| #27 Chill, guys! What the Israeli SC has ruled on is the temporary, expedient fence that you described, Verlaine. Its path has been planned to maximize defensible Israeli territory, as much as possible beyond the indefensible Green Line. This give Israel plenty of room to redraw as becomes desirable/expedient/required by their SC. You have to understand, Israel does not want to own the hostile Paleo population. And if giving in a little on the path of the Fence will keep the Paleos from fighting against the existence of the Fence until it has been completed, then who has really won?!? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2004-07-02 1:35:14 AM |
| #26 Let's not kid ourselves, there's only one issue here: the control of Jerusalem. Apparently, the Jews still aren't ready to fight for our (Jews and Christians) holy city. Someday they'll have to. (And then Jesus will return to settle it once and for all...) |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-07-02 12:00:57 AM |
| #25 Reminded of the title of a book: "THIS WAY TO THE GAS CHAMBER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN". _________________ Civility gets you only so far... |
| Posted by: borgboy 2004-07-01 11:58:28 PM |
| #24 "That Israel and the USA are lawful democractic societies is a fact. This fact, however, is our weakness not our strength for defeating lawlwess barbarians " This fact however is the only thing that makes said defeat or victory meaningful. If the whole thing was about one group of lawless barbarians defeating another group of lawless barbarians, then what'd be the point and why would we give a damn either way? "it's between Israel and entities outside Israel that wouldn't otherwise be inclined to abide by any Israeli court orders or decisions," One of these days Israel is gonna have to decide whether the West Bank is inside or outside Israel, whether it truly wants a neighbouring Palestinian nation or not. (And *no*, it's not just the Palestinian's choice. All the settlements and the wall's planned route itself goes against the "neighbouring nation" plan, regardless of whether the Palestinians are sane or rabid) The Supreme Court's decision seemed to me to suggest that it considers the Palestinians of the West Bank a lawful part of Israel, that's why the wall's position must serve the Palestinian people. If the walls were being drawn as a border, you'd only care about people on your side of the fence. The wall as built isn't a border. "That which we are, we are. " "...one equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." Ulysses, Tennyson. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-01 9:15:11 PM |
| #23 Would you ignore a SC decision to save ONE life??? Is liberty (which is not possible without law) not worth life? The questions are, whose life is at risk, and why? The one little problem with the situation in the original article is that it's not a situation where some Israeli ethnic or religious minority's rights are being trampled on in the name of security for all Israeli citizens. It's not some sort of dispute between internal factions; it's between Israel and entities outside Israel that wouldn't otherwise be inclined to abide by any Israeli court orders or decisions, which seemingly would make the logical choice a no-brainer. In the end, the Israeli courts have issued a lawful decision, but it's troubling to contemplate its seeming willingness to sacrifice security to appease some individuals whose countrymen would probably not hesitate to exploit similar future decisions for the purpose of spilling more Israeli blood. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-07-01 6:31:29 PM |
| #22 BTW, the only evidence of a security loss due to rerouting is the delay that will cause. Well, chaverim (friends), Sharon did NOT start the wall when he first came into office. Evidently conflicted with his ideological and political goals. Would you suggest that Israelis ignore HIM?? Why give him (and the Israeli right) a pass that you dont give the SC of Israel? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-01 5:49:31 PM |
| #21 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety... Ben Franklin, neither a soldier nor a lawyer (though he associated with both soldiers like Washington and Hamilton, and lawyers like Adams and Jefferson) |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-01 5:45:30 PM |
| #20 First - remember - im not saying this is particular decision is right. I AM saying that right or wrong, it is right to follow it. Would you ignore a SC decision to save ONE life??? Is liberty (which is not possible without law) not worth life? If it is not, then the US would still be colonies of Great Britain. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-01 5:43:28 PM |
| #19 Israel was not founded as a law abiding democracy for the benefit of its neighbors, but for the benefit of its people. Okay then, keeping that in mind, why reroute the path of the wall to placate Paleos at the cost of the security of its own citizens? I wouldn't have had a problem with rerouting the wall on humanitarian grounds (and being as how it's the Paleos involved here, very THIN humanitarian grounds) if it was determined that the change would not result in a substantial increased security risk. But the court went even further than was really necessary and said that wall had to be rerouted even at the cost of Israeli security. Rather unwise, to put it mildly. That which we are, we are. In the face of an enemy that would not hesitate to slit your throat if given the opportunity, such a stand could end up having a cost in Israeli blood. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-07-01 5:12:50 PM |
| #18 That Israel and the USA are lawful democractic societies is a fact. This fact, however, is our weakness not our strength for defeating lawlwess barbarians who are conducting a holy war and who are enlisting new recuits every second because of the religious appeal and tribal loyalties. I would suggest to you that Israel being fair and just with the Palestinians is not going to "defeat" the latter's innate hatred for all Jews. It's soldiers who will protect Israelis and not lawyers in the end. It is fear of Israel's might that will save Israel from the hordes that surround them and loathe them, not the respect for Israel being a lawful democratic society. You take a med, #17, and it's called Thorazine to quell delusional thoughts. Ulcers can be cured these days, but it's not the case for schizophrenia. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-07-01 3:58:10 PM |
| #17 . I double over with ulcer spasms whenever I read/hear "our side" preening about our superiority over the barbarians at our gates because of our rule of law and respect for the judicial/legal interpretations of those laws. Ouch! go take some meds then. Cause the US under Bush and Israel under Sharon are going to preen about being lawful, democratic societies. Sorry if this troubles you. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-01 3:42:28 PM |
| #16 at a time of real national emergency and I would say that Israel is faced with a very big national emergency ie. survival, how will moving the fence a few miles west endanger national survival? Thats not to say that the decision was a good one, but I hardly see at as one that justifies the govt dispensing with a SC decision. When during WW2 did FDR set aside a SCOTUS decision? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-01 3:40:04 PM |
| #15 Holding up that difference for all to behold is of little value when the enemy at the doorstep is more than willing to employ any and all methods at their disposal to exterminate you. Israel was not founded as a law abiding democracy for the benefit of its neighbors, but for the benefit of its people. That which we are, we are. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-01 3:18:41 PM |
| #14 I totally agree with you, #13. I double over with ulcer spasms whenever I read/hear "our side" preening about our superiority over the barbarians at our gates because of our rule of law and respect for the judicial/legal interpretations of those laws. Ouch! It's judges and lawyers in the West[and if I am not mistaken Israel and the USA are numbers #1 and #2 for being "blessed" with the highest rate of lawyers per capita] who are the barbarians' greatest weapons against our survival. Do any of you think we would have won WWII if Roosevelt had not declared an emergency and used the War Powers Act to suspend civil rights ie. muzzle lawyers and the justices of the Supreme Court? Who do you think is clapping loudest today because of Israel's Supreme Court decision? Sharon or Arafat? Listen, I am a devoted believer in an individual's rights and freedoms and absolutely hate big government and its control over an individual, BUT BUT at a time of real national emergency and I would say that Israel is faced with a very big national emergency ie. survival, I think that Sharon should be able to use emergency powers to set aside the judgement of the Supreme Court, if he and his cabinet come to an agreement that this judgement puts Israelis at risk. Now if Sharon and his cabinet do not want to risk their political careers for this decision OR if they sense that the majority of Israelis agree with the decision, then I say that Israelis must live with the consequences of allowing un-elected wizards in black robes to micro-manage their future. That is, if the general public in Israel has no desire to have common sense prevail re: the building of their defense system and give acquiescent feedback to their politicians and their PM, then the Supreme Court should not be blamed for the consequences. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-07-01 3:18:36 PM |
| #13 Thats the difference between our side and the jihadis. Holding up that difference for all to behold is of little value when the enemy at the doorstep is more than willing to employ any and all methods at their disposal to exterminate you. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-07-01 11:36:32 AM |
| #12 verlaine - this fence IS theoretically expedient - by putting the expedient line where you want the ultimate border to be, you press the Pals to make concessions to move it. If you put the expedient fence on the green line, you implicitly recognize the green line as border. Without saving any particular resources, if youre going to put in a fence strong enough to really save on deployments beyond the fence. Haim Ramon, of the Labour party, supported a fence closer to the green line - Sharon seems to have decided that the advantages in negotiating position and easing security not just of west of green line Israel, but of the large settlements just east of the green line, was worth the diplomatic cost of putting the fence further east. Im not prepared to say he was mistaken. Note - the SC of Israeli has NOT said the entire fence must go back to the Green Line, theyve only forced the rerouting of a section. I havent followed the specific legal issues the Court addressed (note that Israel, like UK, has an "unwritten" constitution consisting of certain "basic laws" passed by the Knesset) However Israel IS a country of laws, and Supreme Court decisions WILL be respected. Thats the difference between our side and the jihadis. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-01 11:06:42 AM |
| #11 I wasn't clear. I'm aware that very little of it is a wall, which is why I didn't use the word. My point is why not put up an expedient barrier (wire, trenches, temp. fence, sensors, mines -- as the location dictates) somewhere immediately, to gain immediate control over cross-border movement (the whole point of the barrier exercise). Put the temporary barrier on the Green Line to avoid any legal/political complications, while beavering away on the "real" or longer-term barrier, whose routing is the subject of the I. Supreme Court's decision. What am I missing here? It's like neglecting to put up a tarp or plastic cover over a whole in the roof until you do the real repair -- meanwhile, the rain comes in. In this case, "rain" means dead children and grannies. I give up, I don't get it. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2004-07-01 10:27:25 AM |
| #10 Yes, actually, only 4% is a wall, the rest is a fence, as per Gaza. |
| Posted by: Anonymous5089 2004-07-01 9:28:18 AM |
| #9 To Verlaine Most of the problem is the land not the barrier is a fence. Only parts it is a wall. |
| Posted by: Bernardz 2004-07-01 6:42:47 AM |
| #8 Actually, this is not the first time the Israeli SC has ordered the Security Fence rerouted. Sorry I don't have the reference (it is much too early in the morning!), but it was reported here on Rantburg at the time. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2004-07-01 6:35:27 AM |
| #7 Jen, Jerusalem is not a purely Israeli city, never has been |
| Posted by: Humpty Dumpty 2004-07-01 4:53:01 AM |
| #6 Israel's Supreme Court justices' need a greater understand that since Israel's national security barriers have been erected, border cross over Arab/Islamic suicide bombings have been greatly reduced down to almost nothing, in terms of the terrorist rampaging of before these required steps were taken to ensure public safety from demented individuals from the jihadee gangs. In relation to mucking up the works, newer, higher, deeper and thicker security walls are required, so not one Hamas jihad cultist, or any other unbalanced Arab wanker is able to self detonate on a rush hour intercity bus full of people trying to go to and from work. |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-07-01 4:45:46 AM |
| #5 Looks like Israel's Supreme Court isn't too different from ours...dammit! They think they're being compassionate to terrorists when all it's doing is giving them another out to kill us again. The Israelis will have no peace until they get all the "Palestinians" as far from Jerusalem as possible. This decision wasn't too smart. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-07-01 1:53:52 AM |
| #4 Our Constitution is, as Justice Jackson famously put it, not a suicide pact. It seems Israel's is otherwise. |
| Posted by: someone 2004-07-01 1:48:52 AM |
| #3 An expedient or temporary barrier should have been up a year ago. Trenches, wire, guard posts, sensors, mines -- these can be done quickly. Put it on the Green Line, whatever. Remove it when/as the more serious barrier is completed. Since the political decision's been made to build a barrier, I cannot understand why Israel doesn't throw up an expedient one immediately, while route adjustments and construction on the real barrier continue. Someone explain this to me? Lives are at stake. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2004-07-01 1:45:57 AM |
| #2 Perhaps if the splodeydopes would injure the judges or their families "in a severe and acute way," they'd get their collective heads out of their asses. Unfortunately, probably not. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-07-01 1:40:40 AM |
| #1 The court did not shoot down the barrier itself but rather the chosen route, which it said "injures the local inhabitants in a severe and acute way." Nice of the Israeli court to show a little compassion, but the reality is that the Paleos would be unlikely to return the favor. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-07-01 1:33:27 AM |