Comments on: The Wall, 10 years on / Part 2: Wall and Peace

By: Jan

Jan — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 21:34:21 +0000

@David – and you have far more countries to which you can return – maybe the one in which you or your parents were born.

The Palestinians have been living on what you call your land for far more generations than the vast majority of Jews who came from Europe and America. But you had to kick them out. Otherwise how could you have had a Jewish state if a significant proportion of the population was not Jewish.? Think about that.

I long ago gave up my so-called “right of return” as long as my Palestinian friend, born in Jerusalem, cannot return to the land where she was born and where her family home still exists.

By: Leen

Leen — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:46:06 +0000

It is one of the biggest misconceptions that the Apartheid wall stopped the suicide bombings and stopped the intifada. The problem is people gloss over the facts.
Suicide bombings were rife during 2000-2002, those were the bloodiest years in term of suicide bombing. The route was announced in 2003, and only began building late 2003-2004. In fact the route was only approved by mid 2004, and again revised in 2005. What people who are in favor of the wall forget to mention that up until 2012, the wall is only 60% built, meaning that 40% of route is exposed, allowing potential suicide bombers to enter Israeli cities, yet suicide bombings were reduced in 2004-2005.

Furthermore, in 2004-2005, the armed wing of Fatah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas also announced a ceasefire, including a stop to suicide bombings. That contributed to the stopping of suicide bombings more than the building of the wall, because it is important to note that the wall was more or less starting to being built. Not to mention in 2005, Arafat died and that generally contributed to the end of the intifada, because after that the Palestinians were focused on internal matters and factional divisions began to emerged. It has little to do with the ‘securiy’ wall.

By: Jack

Jack — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:16:41 +0000

Adi,
“the Palestinians and according to the maps presented by the Palestinians themselves”
The solution has been clear for decades, world supported and in international law, 1967 borders. Israel refuse though. The palestine papers offered Israel to keep a majority of settlements, Israel rejected the offer.
-
“Israel is obligated to provide security to its citizens living in the settlements in the West Bank. It is a fundamental problem that the ICJ chooses to rule based on what it wants the situation to be rather than what the situation actually is.
”
Now you are just desperately repeating stuff, check me and Haggai’s input on this above.

By: Adi

Adi — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:34:20 +0000

Haggai, Jack, The settlements are there and they are not going anywhere until and probably after an agreement is reached, even according to signed agreements between Israel and the Palestinians and according to the maps presented by the Palestinians themselves. Israel is obligated to provide security to its citizens living in the settlements in the West Bank. It is a fundamental problem that the ICJ chooses to rule based on what it wants the situation to be rather than what the situation actually is.
.

The argument that Israel has no valid security interests in the West Bank is like arguing that Israel is legally obligated to allow Israeli citizens in the West Bank to be killed by Palestinian terrorists.

By: Jack

Jack — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:34:09 +0000

Adi,

“because deviating from the green line allows Israel to more easily defend the large settlement blocs that are over the line which are targets for terrorists and which contain citizens Israel is obligated to defend.”

Do you realize how insane that argument is?
Let me give you an equal bizarre argument.

“Rapists should be allowed to have guns so they could protect themselves when they rape”.

As Haggai correctly pointed out, you cant justify a ILLEGAL (wall) act with a ILLEGAL act (settlements)

By: Haggai Matar

Haggai Matar — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:52:09 +0000

Adi – the ICJ repeated the stance accepted by all nations of the world that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are a breach of international law. You cannot justify an illegal wall in occupied territory by using illegal settlements as the excuse.

By: Rita Odeh

Rita Odeh — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 05:51:14 +0000

peace talk…
the third crow
of a rooster

Is peace a dream? Will it come true? Or, is the world heading towards “Evil”?
Please, drop by my blog to check out my thoughts about the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.

By: Adi

Adi — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 02:25:22 +0000

Haggai, Jack, because deviating from the green line allows Israel to more easily defend the large settlement blocs that are over the line which are targets for terrorists and which contain citizens Israel is obligated to defend. Had the ICJ recognized that Israel has an obligation to protect its citizens it would have accepted the deviations from the green line due to security considerations and only had a problem with the route where it could not be justified by security.
.

Aresteides, your position is that Jews don’t belong in Israel and should be kicked out and Israel has no right to defend itself, so arguing with you is pointless.
.

One thing that remains obvious and not even disputed here by supporters of the Palestinians is that the wall/fence was built as a direct result of the second intifada. Also not in dispute is that the intifada was launched by the Palestinians in an attempt to weaken Israel.

By: caden

caden — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 23:25:45 +0000

International law, if there is such a thing outside of tariffs and copyrights is a very amorphous and ephemeral concept. You latch onto it like a mantra. It doesn’t exist. There are nations and nations have interests.

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:50:09 +0000

Caden,
Give you something else than international law? Pretty much statuated my argument. Thanks.
-
Please give me more reasons why international law should be abolished, but be more creative, you can do it.