Israel Court Orders Barrier Shift

[Pert_UK]

"Israel's High Court has ordered changes to the route of the West Bank barrier, saying it is hurting Palestinians.

It said the route around Jerusalem must be changed to reduce hardships, even if that meant less security for Israel...

The landmark ruling by the High Court of Justice affects a 30km (19-mile) section of the barrier to the north-west of Jerusalem.

Opponents who lodged the case said it would disrupt the lives of 45,000 people living in 10 villages by cutting them off from farms, schools and jobs, according to the petitioners' lawyer Mohammed Dahla.

The three-judge panel decided an alternative route was possible. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3852385.stm

[Forkboy]

1. Good

[Jim Sagle]

2. Sucko

[lefty_mcduff]

5. Why is it 'sucko'?

n/t

[Jim Sagle]

6. I dunno - why is it "good"?

[The Magistrate]

7. It Is Good, My Friend

Because it demonstrates powerful elements within the Israeli polity resisting the annexationist portions of the intent behind construction of the security barrier. Not only does Israel have every right to fortify its boundaries, it is probably a good strategy for it to do so, in current conditions. It is wrong, however, for the current Israeli government to take advantage of this to pursue the de facto annexation of sizeable tracts of land that are no real part of Israel, by enclosing them within this barrier. It is said, of course, by many who support the contruction of the barrier, that it is merely temporary, and most who do so are doubtless sincere in pressing that argument, but it seems a very dubious one to me. The temporary has a way of hardening to permanence in that region....

[Jim Sagle]

8. Your reasoning seems sound. I'm just concerned that the Palestinian side

will see this as just a concession to be pocketed.

[The Magistrate]

9. They Probably Will, Sir

But the right thing ought to be done just the same, if only to put the other fellow deeper in the wrong by compare....

[geek tragedy]

10. Isn't the entire point of the fence

that the Israelis don't care what the Palestinians think? Jeer or cheer, the fence goes up.

[Jim Sagle]

11. No, the point is that Israelis are sick of being killed.

[geek tragedy]

15. And the fence is a unilateral step instrument towards that goal

They aren't negotiating with the Palestinians regarding the wall. Its presence is intended to moot Palestinian anger/hate towards Israel.

[Classical_Liberal]

16. If it ok to be an asshole to prove you don't care what Palestinians

think why not just line them up and shoot them? YOu used to claim you favored a Palestinian state? What happened?

[Jim Sagle]

19. The Palestinians will get a state any time they decide to declare one.

No one is stopping them.

[Classical_Liberal]

20. Oh you mean those settlers won't disagree, and the

damned IDF will just leave, and Ariel will just take down the wall because they declare a state? If your eyes are blue they're turning brown right now. :eyes:

[Jim Sagle]

21. I didn't say they could immediately get the boundaries they think they're

entitled to.

But they could announce a state where they are without renouncing any territorial claims. It's an obvious step to take yet they never have. Makes one wonder if they really want their own state or they just want Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Where they are minus all those illegal settlements?

And Israeli-only bypass roads? Sorry, but you make it sound like they really have a nerve wanting any of their own territory. Also, they have made it very clear that they recognise Israel. The letters of mutual recognition have been posted here many times. Would you like the link again so you can read it for yrself, Jim?

Violet...

[Forkboy]

12. Thank you,Sir,for summing that up for me

in much nicer language than I might have used :)

[The Magistrate]

13. My Pleasure, Sir

Always a pleasure to be in agreement with you, my friend!

[Gimel]

14. Changes the route

Listening to further discussions on this, the ruling does say that Israel has the right to build the fence, even in the areas called Judea and Samaria, but that it should balance the level of hardship imposed on the Palestinians against the security needs. Danny Neve of Likud has stated that opinion that it goes too far in this respect, while some leftist have felt not far enough, or were pleased with the results. More petitions are expected due to this ruling.

The Court ruled that, were the reasons for building the Fence political, then the Fence would violate public international law. But the Court rejected petitioners' claim that the reasons for building the Fence were political. The Court accepted respondents' claim that the Fence was built for reasons of national security. Those reasons could justify taking possession of plots of land in the West Bank.

JPost article

[lefty_mcduff]

18. I never said it was good.

In fact, I never voiced an opinion either way - I don't know why you're asking me that. You claim the decision is 'sucko' and I asked you to elaborate.

[Gimel]

3. The court's ruling

The changes in this section of the fence will then satisfy it's critics, and stop all terrorist attacks. Not.

[tinnypriv]

4. No surprise

Even Israel's own Justice Minister (no dove) contends that the route of the fence is 'totally indefensible'. Hardly shocking that the courts agree.

Something that would be shocking: the IDF paying some attention to the ruling.

Mofaz has already openly proclaimed contempt for the civilian authorities, as has Sharon (the latter in a previous context, but the attitude generalises).

[Classical_Liberal]

17. I don't understand why this is a big deal

the fence will still not be built on the green line where it is supposed to be.