July 09, 2004

• Does anyone know what the law is that precludes the building of the Wall? Barring political and social opinions one way or another on the construction, I find it odd that the UN has a law that precludes a country from building a physical barrier on its border. The article itself doesn't specify or cite the law itself.
• I believe it's because the wall isn't on Israel's border, Fes.
• 'Sorry! The address you have clicked on does not exist.'
• Huh! That might be an issue, at that. I'd always assumed that the wall was being built between traditionally Israeli territory and traditionally Palestinian territory...?
• Exactly. The wall travels into greenline territory. but to answer the original question: And how will the US treat the court's decision at the UN? Same as it has in the past, unquestioning support for Israel, and a veto of anything that comes to the Security Council that in the slightest way moves against Israel.
• The wall travels into greenline territory. Isn't that all part of Israel though? And yes, I too think the US will veto the finding. I'd be surprised if they didn't, in light of past support.
• scartol, a quick google suggests the judgment has not been officially released yet - electronicintafada claim to have a leaked copy. Also: Reuters. Or am I a bit behind the times?
• Isn't that all part of Israel though? I guess that depends on where you think Israel begins and ends. If you believe that the Occupied lands are indeed Israel's, then the wall is in Israel.
• Beyond the debate about the international validity of the Greenline as a border delineating sovereign states, is the question of precisely where the fence was built. In many cases, particularly nearest Jerusalem, the fence cuts off Palestinian villages, isolating them in cul-de-sacs of Israel proper, where administrative and security institutions prevent access to essential services in other Palestinian sectors (this is mentioned in the Reuters article and echoed in the BBC world news reports as one of the court's central concerns). Another interesting quote: "We will abide by the ruling of our own High Court and not the panel in The Hague with judges from the European Union who are not suspected of being particularly disposed toward Israel," Justice Minister Yosef Lapid said earlier Friday. (from the Reuters article) Interesting that a valid legal opinion can only come from judges suspected of predisposition towards one of the parties -- the idea, generally being that the hallmark of a valid opinion was precisely the independence of it?
• I would be surprised if they make any motion toward removing the wall. However, this ruling puts the US in a hard place. As it was reported, if the US ignores (or vetoes) this ruling, nations of the world (or at least the ones that make up the ICJ) would regard the move as a total disregard for international "opinion" and it could very well throw the US deeper into the devil's pit. Other reports indicated that even the israeli's recognize that the geographic position of the wall changes the shape of Palestine. which begs the question, isn't that invasion? (even more). To be honest, I do believe the palestinians are being dicked over. without US help, Israel would have probably been shred to pieces by now, so, someone enlighten me, what is the US's interest in Israel?
• Warrior: The US's interestin Israel is Jewish votes in US elections.
• I'm not sure that washes, rocket, since traditionally Jews vote Democratic, and Democrats have traditionally been against Israeli intrusion into Palestinian land.
• Isn't that all part of Israel though? Actually, it's all Palestine.
• ...and it could very well throw the US deeper into the devil's pit. The thing is, Busch & Co. really don't care. I mean they don't care a lot. That's the thing that's made it pretty darn hard (and humiliating) to be an American for the past 4 years. If this administration gets elected again (and by what's happening, again, in Florida, that looks like a possibility), I'm getting the hell out of here.
• f8x: The Jewish vote, though traditionally Democratic, has about a 30% swing component (those who may switch party loyalties). For the two major parties, courting that vote is a 'no-lose' situation, since being pro-Israel will win Jewish votes without losing non-Jewish voters, who don't consider it a vote-defining issue. Criticising Israel will only lose you votes.
• minda25, kind of like Alec Baldwin implied?
• rocket: unless you're Noam Chomsky, right?
• Is Noam Chomsky a politician now? I had no idea he was running for president.
• f8x, I'm really not sure. After your comment, I did a google, and found several of his statements. The one that I think you're talking about was "...if Bush won it would be a good time to leave the United States. So, in that context, yes. Honestly, though, that's not the whole enchilada. I'm sick of the FCC, sick of a country that's supposed to be so open-minded and free but which is really nothing of the sort, and sick of the petty bullshit here. One of the reasons I hear all the time for Gore not getting more votes is because of how boring he seemed. I hear people say, "if he'd been a little more exciting, he probably would have made it". What the freaking hell? And listen to the commentary about Edwards: "he's so attractive; that'll give Kerry an edge." And unfortunately, it will. I can sum it up like this: More Americans watched the premier of "The Simple Life" than Bush's interview with Diane Sawyer.
• But minda25, which did you watch? Being part of America doesn't mean you're lumped in with the bozos or the twerps. Has the FCC curbed your ability to watch things you want to watch, or hear things on the radio you'd like to hear? And Southerners talked about Lincoln's unattractiveness; this type of thing isn't new, you're not living in a unique time is all. I think you should stay a while...
• No, but Chomsky is a Jew who isn't pro-Israel. I'm quite sure there are more.
• Is Noam Chomsky a politician now? I had no idea he was running for president. "You should run for president," someone suggested to him once. He immediately shook his head. "The first thing I'd do," he said, "is tell people not to vote for me."
• No, but Chomsky is a Jew who isn't pro-Israel Sorry, I misunderstood.
• I didn't watch either, to be honest. I don't do much t.v. I get some information from reading newspapers, and then I get perspective and more information from here, metafilter, and a few very intelligent friends. The FCC, it seems to me, is one screwed up organization. Sex in any context is pretty much out, while violence in most forms is in. I started to talk about that more, and then stopped. It'd be very much OT, and I also have to go get ready for the in-laws to come over (blech). Before I go... f8x, you may have the total opposite viewpoint of a lot of people here, but you manage to be one of the coolest Monkeys around. ) to you!
• minda25: I can understand your dislike of the FCC. I'm sure they could do better with a lot of things. On the whole, though, I find I don't have too many complaints. And thanks! I really do try ;-)
• If what I've heard is correct, Israel means more than just votes to Bush; it's the Holy Land that needs to be cleansed, etc., etc. Do you guys think that will play a part in the US' reaction to this ruling? (I know there's more on that particular vein in the "Bush is not dumb" thread, which is where I'm going now.) Since I can't seem to concentrate on getting things together for the impending visit by the in-laws, I'll stick around here.
• Youre absolutely right, minda25. There's some scary ideas about Israel floating around the minds of some highly placed Christian extremists right now. But, the U.S. has been Israel's bitch since long before George W came along.
• "Pro-Israel" is a rather loaded term, implying a false dichotomy.
• A lot of people get confused by this 'conflict', assuming we have two countries at war, or something. In reality, we have the people who were there for generations, the Palestianians, and then we have the Jews who were hardly a demographic in the region until they came in waves with the international community supporting Zionism. Post-WWII guilt and sympathy and such. If you look at the original UN documents, when Israel was created, you'll notice that no part of Jerusalem was included in Israel. It's been one illegal occupation after another. People keep on forgetting that Israel is the aggressor here. Of course, I'm making things simple, but it should always be remembered who is on the offense. Defending themselves from suicide bombers? Israel is the one slowly taking away the Palestinian right to live in their homeland. I don't really know why everyone is so surprised when people start blowing up. What would happen if a foreign power came into the US? Probably the same thing. Basically Israel has been breaking international law since it was created. If they want to build walls, build them on the original borders.
• People keep on forgetting that Israel is the aggressor here. Not so. Not historically, anyway. No sooner was Israel created, when it's neighbours Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Palestine declared war and invaded. With much US help, Israel fended off the invasion and took land from the invading nations to act as a protective buffer zone. I think they had every right to do so, given the circumstances. Ever since then, Israel has acted as if the occupied territories were theirs to do with as they pleased, and began settling its citizens there, even moving the Capital from Tel Aviv to occupied Jerusalem.
• I'll have to respectfully disagree with Sacred and Profane's perception of historical events. What rocket88 says, plus a butt-ton more.
• I was talking about Israel's actions towards Palestinians. Any country is within its rights to defend itself from foreign invaders. But in the case of the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem, and other regions, Israel is the foreign invader. Considering the young Israel was ethnically cleansing the Palestinians living in the section of Palestine given to it by the United Nations, Britain, etc, I wouldn't really blame the Arab states for attacking. Frankly, I can't understand why Israel had to be created to begin with. Ironic that fundamentalist religious beliefs that helped create Israel, and it's just more fundamentalists trying to destroy it.
• The UN is going to vote today what to do following the ICJ's finding that the Israeli wall is illegal in those areas where it intrudes into Palestinian territory. Juan Cole has two editorials up today, which some people might find interesting.
• The Sacred and Profane: Israel was created after WWII to provide a homeland for the Jews who had been subject to pograms for ages in much of Europe following their diaspora, culminating in the holocaust. The Palestinians were understandably pissed because the area they had lived in for ages was taken away from them. The Israelis turned out to be much more aggressive than Allied powers (the US And European governments who fought against the Nazis in WWII) predicted. They had been so seemingly sheep-like while scattered throughout the rest of the world, but Zionism turned them into warriors who would protect the homeland given to them and would try to expand it. I guess having all relatives killed off for generations, with a factory-like solution instituted by the Nazis during the holocaust might explain that. (Google those keywords, you'll learn a lot.) And then the Palestinians formed groups to try to get their homes back. Very similar to the Zionists on the Jewish side. And the two sides are killing each other. This has been going on since 1948. Many of you weren't born then. But their inability to compromise has inflamed the Arab world, who support the Palestinians. And, since the US has not abandoned the state of Israel, that makes us a target of Islamic anger. And, you know what, neither side is right or wrong, from my point of view. Having a homeland changed the Jews from a (necessarily) subservient population to one with pride. On the other hand,Palestinians lost their homes. But, I do think that after half a century and more, they might try harder to work things out.
• I guess having all relatives killed off for generations, with a factory-like solution instituted by the Nazis during the holocaust might explain that. It may explain it, but it doesn't excuse it. I've met a few Israelis through my work, and had a chance to ask them about what's really going on over there, and what they think about it. The answers shocked me. The Israeli attitude toward Arabs is disgusting. It's like 1960's Alabama times ten. Israelis genuinely hate Arabs, and blame them for everything. If the streets are littered, it's because of Arabs. If anything is stolen, they blame the Arabs. All crime is caused by Arabs. You get the picture... Many believe their country would be much better off if the IDF just killed them all. Is it any wonder they elect a guy like Sharon? Of course, that opinion is based on a relatively small sample size, so take it as you will.
• Update on the UN vote.
• How many Arabs have you talked to about Israelis? I imagine you'll get a similar sampling of Arabs who simply detest the Jews. I believe it's the way they're raised. Hate begets hate, and all that.
• I have the occasional conversation at the smoke pad with an Israeli at my work place. "Management still has their heads stuck up there asses. Everything is great, sir," and "No shit? This is Texas, moron. Yes sir, it is hot today," are about the extent of my discussions about the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict with that VP.
• True, f8x, there's hatred and intolerance on both sides. I just think there's a big difference between hating the guy who's boot you're under and hating the guy who's under your boot.
• I suspect that rocket is correct; part of the problem however (in my understanding) is that both sides believe that they are the boot-ee (with some justification), rather than the booted.
• Both sides are the booters and the bootees. If the world were a playschool, Isreal and the Palistinians would have been sent to opposite corners for refusing to share long ago, and the Holy Land would be put on a high shelf, thus ruining the fun for all. The injustice of the wall is not the building of the wall, but where it is being built. They are building it across disputed and around territory just recently settled (by force), and purposely cutting off Palistinian villages from the main part of the territory by bubbling out to include settlers land. What they need to do is to compromise (yes, I know Hades will be a bit nippy first) - the Isrealis give up settler land and in exchange the Palistinians give up the area that the suburbs of Jerusalem are on, and if any wall is built, it's built on a rational and negotiated border. I would also have the holy areas of Jerusalem declared international territory - if they can't play nice with the Temple Mount, then no one can have it.