We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Israel insufficiently welcoming of terrorists

So the UN says that Israel’s wall is illegal, and demands they take it down.

That would be the same UN that Jacques Chirac is so fond of- the same Jacques Chirac who lately told off President Bush for having opinions about how other parts of the world should run themselves. That would be the President Bush who led the invasion of Iraq which the UN apparently did not approve of very much.

Oh well. Evidently they regard wall-building as a more serious humanitarian issue than Kurd-gassing, children’s prisons or helping out organisations that openly state their ambition to be the total destruction of civilisation and all who sail in it.

The court ruling said the barrier could become tantamount to an annexation of Palestinian land, and impeded the Palestinian right to self-rule.

Oh, the horror. Not to mention that-

…some of it juts into the West Bank, cutting Palestinians off from their farmland and dividing some villages.

Whereas, removing the barrier would only redouble terrorist attacks nine times over, thereby impeding the right of four year olds not to have their arms and legs blown off, etc. Which is irrelevant, because it’s just a vain claim unsupported by factual evidence;

[Israeli officials] argued it has already saved hundreds of lives since building work began.

Well, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs invents statistics for bombings that never really happened, obviously. No doubt they pay actors to lie around in the road covered with blood so there are pictures for the TV screens, too.

Still, could be worse.

At least nobody who works at The Hague has to live in Israel, right?

39 comments to Israel insufficiently welcoming of terrorists

  • tamar

    But neither do you. Having to live in Israel, that is. Not even mentioning having to live in occupied Palestinian territory. And you seem to have an opinion about this issue as well.

  • Monty Python

    True, some of us have never been to Israel. But you don’t have to go there to see the numbers of exploding Palestinians making a substantial decrease since the wall went up. It looks like the Hague just shot itself in the foot, with its “non-binding advisory” ruling. They cannot enforce it, they cannot remove the wall themselves. They can do nothing but make ridiculous judgements.

  • Since the Court is a judicial hand of the UN, the result has been as predictable as it is irrelevant. What the verdict basically says is that value of saved Israeli lives is negligible in comparison with the “suffering” inflicted at those Palestinians who live in the vicinity of the Fence. Remember, the UN is all for the little guy… (who blows himself up).

  • Barak

    i do live in israel and what alice says is so obviously true that i must question the motives of anyone who cannot see the truth of it.

  • Chris Josephson

    Who cares what the UN or any International Court thinks or says? The UN has become a joke, at best.

    What will they do if Israel just ignores them? Issue sterner warnings? Form a committe and have meetings? Big deal.

  • Joe

    I have lived in the Middle East, and this wall is one of the best ideas ever. It severs the attachment that the bombers have with the Israelis. It is as benign a solution that one can find – the other options are for the Israelis to be the active party and keep chasing after them. But that’s not what the “World Court” is after. They’re detecting emotions and trying to respond. They’re misinterpereting what they see. Most of the overdone emoting one finds in the near east is a result of people feeling powerless under the force of their own regimes. It infantalizes people. That’s why it’s as successful as any other “feelings trap” like leftyness.

    They want to legislate Israelis out of existence by making Palestinian military action (terrorism) “lawful” and Israeli military action “unlawful”.

    A word of advice – keep the “World Legal Body” off of your patch. They dont care about you, or any other living thing – they care about trying to prove their flawed view of the world.

    Where is their “big bad book of laws”? Is there a lower body below them to propose these laws? Have they been elected proportionately by the world’s population? Is there a higher body above them to establish the validity of these laws? Of course not!

  • q

    I don’t think any rational thinking person would criticise a seperating wall, per se, but the Israelis lost a prime opportunity to build the wall on the 1967 borders precisely (or if taking some settled Palestinian territory to voluntarily give up an equal portion of terrain in exchange, and put it outside the boundary of the wall), thus entirely deflecting any criticisim.

    The fact that this wall/fence openly winds its way around settlements in Palestinian territory is pretty flagrant and provocative behaviour – even to people such as myself who are regulary labelled neo-con facists for a relatively benign pro-Israeli stance.

  • Let me make a list of what Israel can’t do, according to the UN:

    Kill terrorist leaders
    Send troops to eliminate terrorist cells
    Jail terrorist leaders
    Remove the terrorist supporting Palestinian Authority from power
    Possess nuclear weapons even though it is surrounded by enemies

    Did I miss anything?

    Also, why is the rest of the world forgetting that the Israeli Supreme Court has already ordered the fence rerouted so it will not endanger the welfare of the Palestinians?

    As for a poster’s comment about Israel not building it’s barrier along ’67 borders, it is the Palestinians who lost the opportunity to have a state along ’67 borders when they began launching homicide bombing attacks against Israeli civilians. It’s hard to feel sorry for mass murderers.

  • Jacob

    “The UN has become a joke, at best.”

    Well, no.

    The UN is no joke. It is much worse that that. It is depraved, nihilist, actively engaged in destroying human rights, decency, freedom, peace.

    It’s like in “1984” where the subjugation of the individual was acheived, in part, by destroying his thought process, by appropiating concepts and giving them opposite meaning. Thus when you say that freedom means obeying the Big Brother – you destroy the concept of freedom, and you do it in order to enhance your control over the individual.

    That is what the UN does.
    When you make Lybia and Sudan heads of the human rights comission – you devalue and pervert the meaning of “human rights”. When the UN goes out of it’s way to protect the regime of Saddam Hussein they mock and destroy the concepts of sovereignity, legitimacy, decency, democracy, human beeings.
    When the UN (or it’s court) finds that to murder people is ok, but to defend oneself from murder violates the law – they prevert and destroy the concept of “law”.

    So the UN is no joke. It is an instrument of depravity, oppresion, murder, genocide. It does not do those thing physically (murder). But they do worse: they destroy the intellectual basis for defending the individual and his rights.

    All decent, normal, moral states (US, UK …) should get the hell out of the UN, and deny it a fig leaf of respectability. Let it be revealed for what it is – the Organization of the Depraved perverts: the Arabs, the Communists, the tyrants and the French.

  • oh no…committees? meetings? anything but that?!;-)

  • Cydonia

    I think it is difficult to argue with the judgment of the ICJ.

    They acknowledged the threat posed to Israelis by violence:

    “The fact remains that Israel has to face numerous indiscriminate and deadly acts of violence against its civilian population. It has the right, and indeed the duty, to respond in order to protect the life of its citizens.” (para. 141)

    but held that:

    “The measures taken are bound nonetheless to remain in conformity with applicable international law.” (para. 141)

    They considered whether the threat could justify the wall:

    “The Court has, however, considered whether Israel could rely on a state of necessity which would preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall. “ (para. 140)

    But held that it could not because the route taken was not justifiable on military or security grounds:

    ” To sum up, the Court, from the material available to it, is not convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was necessary to attain its security objectives” (para. 137)

    and

    “In the light of the material before it, the Court is not convinced that the construction of the wall along the route chosen was the only means to safeguard the interests of Israel against the peril which it has invoked as justification for that construction.”
    (para. 140)

    This seems a reasonable approach to me.

  • Andromeda

    Oh well, it’s not like Israel is going to pay any attention to this.

  • MusselsfromBrussels

    I agree with the ICJ on this. While the wall may buy some temporary security for Israelis, at least from the the threat of the suicide bomb, the same hatreds will at best remain, and probably continue to fester and grow. Without a just solution to the question of Palestine, the Jews in Palestine will never have true security, which can only come about through a peace process. This “solution” only increases the injustices perpetuated on the Palestinians, and is morally wrong. I have a hard time understanding how anyone could approve of this measure.

  • Zevilyn

    I’m all in favour of the wall.

    My only problem with it is the way it cuts into Palestinian land.
    The wall should not be demolished, it should be moved.
    Alot of the objection to the wall is multi-culti PC moaning, frankly.

    Peace will be brought about by:
    1. Two State Solution
    2. Sepraration of the 2 States

    Israel and Palestine will NEVER peacefully coexist, that’s tree-hugging bollocks. A wall is the best way to stop them killing each other.

  • The Wobbly Guy

    The Palestinians wanted their state. Well, they got it. I doubt Israel will much care about whatever goes on outside the wall on the other side.

    Steven Den Beste remarked that with the Palestinians will, without the ability to hurt Israel, turn upon themselves in a vicious civil conflict.

    Well, no big deal. If the Palestine people cannot put their own house in order despite the numerous opportunities given, they deserve to suffer whatever they have coming. Maybe they’ll learn some responsibility this way.

    TWG

  • Well said, Jacob. The UN is a malevolent institution.

  • Uncle Bill

    Two things I have seen recently but have no links for:

    1) There has been a wall/fence at the Gaza Strip for years that no one complains about.

    2) The (single) judge that ‘heard’ and ruled on this case is a mainland Chinese.

  • As far as I can tell the court failed to take into account that the wall had significantly reduced the number of terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. Surely its the job of a sovereign nation to protect it civilians from attack? Or is it that Jews have no right to self-protection… only everyone else?

    I think Kiwi Bob has said it best over at Silent Running.

  • This “solution” only increases the injustices perpetuated on the Palestinians, and is morally wrong.

    ‘Injustices’?? What ‘injustices’?

  • Cydonia

    Uncle Bill:

    “The (single) judge that ‘heard’ and ruled on this case is a mainland Chinese.”

    15 Judges decided the case; 7 gave separate opinions. Only the President of the Court is Chinese. The vote was 16 v 1 as far as I can tell.

    http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm(Link)

  • Cydonia

    David:

    ‘Injustices’?? What ‘injustices’?

    Hmm. I’m not sure how well suited this question is suited to the comments section of a blog, so I’ll keep my response short.

    With the outbreak of the 1948 war, many hundreds of thousands of local arabs left their homes. When the fighthing ended, none were allowed back by Israel. This was a gross injustice; amounting as it did to a massive deprivation of property rights.

  • Jacob

    “With the outbreak of the 1948 war, many hundreds of thousands of local arabs left their homes. When the fighthing ended, none were allowed back by Israel. This was a gross injustice; amounting as it did to a massive deprivation of property rights.”

    I’ll try to keep it brief too.

    These “local arabs” and their brethern from five Arab countries invaded Palestine, and did their best to throw the Jews into the sea, by force of arms. That their wish was denied to them is indeed “a great injustice”.

  • Diplodocus

    The ICJ vote was 14-1. The holdout was an American Jew born in Czecho-Slovakia who boasts of being “one of the youngest survivors of the Holocausrt” (though he was 11 when WW2 ended) and who is “chairman of the Committee of Conscience of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council”.

  • Mashiki

    Cydonia:

    With the outbreak of the 1948 war, many hundreds of thousands of local arabs left their homes. When the fighthing ended, none were allowed back by Israel. This was a gross injustice; amounting as it did to a massive deprivation of property rights.

    Partial history at it’s finest. Go read some more, I’m really getting tired of this crap.

    While we are putting in some none-allowed-back stuff, how about all those displaced Jews who lost their property all over the ‘Middle-East’ when the Arabs seized their land, and stole their assets. Bah…that was before-during and after 1948. Maybe next you’ll say that land *won* during the 1967 war wasn’t legal either. Nothing like trying to drive the Jews into the sea and failing several times and paying the price huh?

    Go read the history behind it all.

  • Cydonia

    Mashiki

    “While we are putting in some none-allowed-back stuff, how about all those displaced Jews who lost their property all over the ‘Middle-East’ when the Arabs seized their land, and stole their assets.”

    An injustice too, but if you see that, you must surely see my point? The principle is identical in both cases.

  • Cydonia

    Jacob:

    “These “local arabs” and their brethern from five Arab countries invaded Palestine, and did their best to throw the Jews into the sea, by force of arms.”

    The brethren are irrelevant, unless you advocate collective punishment. As for the local arabs, I do not know the numbers but I doubt that anything more than a tiny percentage took up arms against the jews. Most were farmers, labourers and their families. Further, even if they did, how does this justify permanent deprivation of their property and residency?

  • Cydonia,

    The point that I think Mashiki is trying to make is that this was a population transfer conducted by both sides. However, talk of ‘injustice’ is directed at only one.

    Further, only a small number of Palestine’s Arabs fled (or were forced out) and they could quite easily have been absorbed into surrounding Arab nations just as Jews fleeing from Arab countries were absorbed into Israel.

    If you are in any doubt as to which side’s ‘ethnic cleansing’ was more complete then may I suggest that you pay regard to the fact that nearly 20% of Israel’s population is Arabic, while the Jewish population of all the Arab lands is close to zero.

  • Cydonia

    David:

    “only a small number of Palestine’s Arabs fled (or were forced out)”

    Two points:

    1. There is a debate about how many were forced out as opposed to being persuaded to leave by Arab propaganda or just fleeing to avoid war. We cannot resolve that here. However, I am confused by your assertion that only a small number fled. The post-48 refugees numbered many hundreds of thousands. Where did they come from?

    2. In any case, my point (which was to answer your question about what injustice has been done to the Palestinian arabs) is not about people being forced out or fleeing. That is a feature of war. It is about people not being allowed back afterwards to their homes and livelihoods. You have not addressed that. As a libertarian, surely you would agree that being forcibly prevented by a State from returning to your home and livelihood is an injustice?

  • Cydonia,

    1. The Israeli Arab population today stands at around 1 million. Where did they come from?

    2. In normal circumstances, yes, but you put your finger on the magic word: ‘war’. Furthermore, that war is ongoing. If the Israelis have perpertrated injustices on the Arabs then they are no greater than the injustices perpertrated on Sephardi Jews by the Arabs. Now two wrongs do not make a right but why is it that only one side is required to show contrition and atonement while the other is seemingly entitled (nay, encouraged) to be as bellicose and uncompromising as they can?

  • Jacob

    Cydonia:
    “I doubt that anything more than a tiny percentage took up arms against the jews. Most were farmers, labourers and their families.”

    I doubt that anything more than a tiny percentage of Brits took up arms against the Germans. Most were farmers, labourers and their families.

    The war in 48 was an all-out war, by ALL Arabs, against ALL Jews (in Palestine). That only a small fraction of both communities were soldiers actually engaged in the shooting is irrelevant.

    Another point:
    Take the case of the more than 2 million Germans from the Sudettenland. They lived there for many generations, but were driven out to Germany after WW2. (Along with another 10 million Germans from other east european countries). Nobody complained about them beeing deprived of their property rights, even not they themselves. And they got busy getting rich and creating the economic miracle of West Germany, not sending suicide bombers into Prag 50 years after the war.

    The point is that the concept of property rights is only valid within a framework of a normal society, in time of peace, when a legal framework is in place. [And even then - not in all societies]. In time of war and upheaval nobody respects property rights; even the right to life isn’t respected. Hell, you wouldn’t say that what the 9/11 terrorists did wrong was the infringement upon the property rights of Lary Silverstein, the owner of WTC !

    History is full to the brim with “injustice”. Everybody can claim the status of victim and whine. Take the African-Americans, whose ancestors were doubtlessly victims of injustice.
    There is no such thing as absolute justice. You have to compromise, settle, and move on with your life. Those who get fixated and paralised by the concept of some injustice they suffered in the distant past, perpetuate their suffering, instead of reverting to normalcy.

    And finally, but not least of all: it’s not an injustice that the Arabs want to correct. What they really want is to reconquer they lost land and drive the Jews into the sea, or back where they came from. That is what “justice” means to them. That is what most of them want. Otherwise they would have compromised and settled the dispute long ago.

  • Jacob

    And another point: compensation and resettlement aid has been offered to the refugees – recognizing their suffering and their rights.
    They – that is the arab leaders – refuse even to contemplate it, to discuss it. Which proves that the “injustice” that worries you is not the goal they have in mind. They are not driven by the concept of sacredness of property rights, like you think. They do not have an impecable record of deep respect for property rights in their lands.
    What bugs them is the loss of honor in having a small corner of arab land contaminated and conquerred by infidels.

    Which means – no facile peace is at hand. No easy solutions. Maybe no solutions at all, as with most problems.

  • ed

    Hmmm.

    1. “oh no…committees? meetings? anything but that?!;-)”

    And now? The Comfy Chair!!!

    2. “Cydonia”

    Not trying to jump on you but I’d suggest some more detailed reading on the subject. The reason why so many “Palestinians” left their properties in the first place was because Arab leaders proclaimed that they should leave Israel for their safety during the Arab invasion of Israel. The idea being that, once all the jews were dead and their bodies thrown into the sea, the remaining jewish properties would be available for looting by the returning “Palestinians”.

    They weren’t forced out of their homes. They left willingly while anticipating a period of rape, murder and pillaging of ancient proportions. That they were disappointed leaves me feeling no sympathy whatsoever.

    Frankly all this is available online.

  • Cydonia

    Ed:

    Read what I wrote:

    “my point (which was to answer your question about what injustice has been done to the Palestinian arabs) is not about people being forced out or fleeing. That is a feature of war. It is about people not being allowed back afterwards to their homes and livelihoods”

    It is entirely irrelevant why they fled. No doubt many did hope that the invading Arab State would win the war. So what? How does that begin to justify deprivation of property, residence and livelihood?

  • Cydonia

    David:

    I am pleased to see that you are now close to conceding that an injustice was indeed done to the Palestinian Arabs in 1948.

    Your remaining argument is the world is hypocritical in not calling for contrition on the part of the arab states that stole property from the jews who left those states. I agree, but as you rightly say, two wrongs do not make a right.

  • Cydonia

    Jacob:

    You make a number of fair points, but there is no getting around the fact that the Israeli government refused to allow the 1948 refugees to return to their homes for reasons that had nothing to do with military security and everything to do with perceived political expendiency. The fact that there have been other injustices in the world does not make this one any the less so.

    Of course the tragedy of it all, is that if the Israelis had allowed the refugees to return in 1949, most of the present problems would not exist and Israel would probably be at peace with her neighbours. Martin Buber and others foresaw it all, but sadly were ignored.

  • Jacob

    Cydonia,
    “Of course the tragedy of it all, is that if the Israelis had allowed the refugees to return in 1949, most of the present problems would not exist and Israel would probably be at peace with her neighbours.”

    That’s a hypotetical statement, maybe you beleive it, but hypoteticals can’t be proven.

    In my opinion it’s totally implausible and false. Leaving within Israel’s borders an Arab population greater than the Jewish one was, in my opinion, a sure and indisputable way of destroying the state of Israel.
    There would have been no Israel. (Maybe that doesn’t bother you too much).

    I know there were many people, even among leaders of the Palestine jewish community, who oposed the declaration of independence of Israel, arguing that it will cause endless wars.

    But all this happened 56 years ago. No use arguing about it now. You can’t undo what has been done. You need to seek some solution that applies to what exists now, not to someone’s notions of what might have been.

  • JakobDeHaan

    “I know there were many people, even among leaders of the Palestine jewish community, who oposed the declaration of independence of Israel, arguing that it will cause endless wars.

    “But all this happened 56 years ago. No use arguing about it now.”

    Oh yeah?

    http://www.netureikarta.org
    http://www.jewsnotzionists.org
    http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com

  • Sean

    Go Jacob – good to see some still have the energy to point out the absurdities in the “innocent Arab” line swallowed by the closet anti-Semites. The truth is that the “Palestinians” are a KGB invention and have long since past their “use by” date.

  • alvin_day

    I have no idea whether anyone will see this comment, given that the last posting of one came so long ago:

    I expect to see Cydonia battle alongside the German Neo-Nazis for the property they lost in WW2. Jacob was wrong when he said nobody complained. Its true that few had the cheek to complain at the time, but apparently the Neo-Nazis today still like to think of the territories they had or lived in as German soil and demand, at the very least, to be able to return there.

    No doubt Cydonia will be willing to argue their case with the same passion that she devoted on this page! Go for it, Cydonia. They’ll be proud to have you on your side. Or do you feel Palestinians (as always) are a special case?

    I’m still waiting to see the day when the Palestinians decide to recognise Israel’s right to exist as they wish Israel to see theirs. Still waiting for the day when the Palestinians decide to have their state along side Israel and to make it the best state they can! (And they can). The myriad descendents of the Palestinian refugees will flock in to their new state aided by a generous financial package to build their new lives. And not long after, the two states will be flourishing and thriving.

    Unfortunately, nothing suggests that day will come in the current millenium.