A wall that cages justice

In article ,
"Oelewapper" wrote:

Israel's barrier

The International Court of Justice will hear arguments on Monday on the
legal consequences of Israel's wall - a barrier of concrete blocks, sniper
towers, electric fences, razor wire and trenches surrounding Palestinian
towns and villages in occupied Palestinian territory.
.
The Israeli government justifies the wall as a security measure. Yet, if the
wall were truly about Israel's security, it would have been built on the
Green Line - the border between Israel and the Palestinian territory that
Israel has occupied since 1967. A wall on the Green Line would have been
shorter, less expensive, more easily patrolled and, most important, legal.
.
But the wall is not about Israel's security - it is about taking as much
Palestinian land as possible while caging in as many Palestinians as
possible. This is why the wall is being built well within occupied
Palestinian territory and in such a way as to divide Palestinian population
centers not only from each other, but also from adjacent agricultural and
water resources.
.
The northern West Bank village of Qalqilya is surrounded by a concrete wall
eight meters, or 26 feet, high - cutting off the town's hospitals and
schools from nearby villages. In occupied East Jerusalem, slabs of concrete
were erected in the middle of Palestinian neighborhoods, dividing
grandparents from their grandchildren, children from the schools, and
workers from their offices.
.
Unsurprisingly, not only will approximately 92 percent of the nearly 400,000
Israeli settlers illegally living in Occupied Palestinian Territory remain,
but the wall ensures that they will have more Palestinian land into which to
expand their settlements.
.
The wall results not only in the de facto annexation of Palestinian land,
but also in the coerced migration and displacement of more than 13,000 of
the Palestinians living in what Israel calls the "closed zone" - the portion
of the occupied West Bank between the wall and the Green Line. Recent
military orders require Palestinians living in the closed zone to obtain
permission from the Israeli occupation army in order to stay in their homes.
Nothing guarantees that such permits will be issued or that they will be
honored or renewed.
.
By contrast, Israeli settlers living in the closed zone in violation of the
Fourth Geneva Convention need no such permits. Indeed, the Israeli military
orders permit any Israeli to settle in occupied Palestinian territory while
the resident Palestinians require Israeli permission to live on and farm
their own land.
.
Israel's strategy of stealing Palestinian land while denying rights to the
Palestinian people is nothing new. What is new is that the International
Court of Justice hearing represents the first time in recent history that
Israel's violations of international law are subject to the scrutiny and
rulings of an independent judicial body.
.
Israel is not accustomed to playing by the rules. Indeed, it denies that any
rules apply to it. Since its creation in 1948, Israel has relied on its
military, economic and diplomatic power to disregard international laws,
more than 40 United Nations Security Council resolutions, its own signed
agreements, and, most recently, the U.S.-backed peace plan known as the road
map.
.
In Israel's view, its occupation of Palestine and its violation of
Palestinian human rights are not subject to any law but are simply matters
to be "negotiated" between the Israelis and Palestinians - as if the
conflict were between two equal parties with equal negotiating leverage. An
Israeli call for "negotiations," while denying the applicability of
international laws and treaties, is a not-so-subtle strategy for allowing
Israel, as the powerful occupier, to impose its will on the powerless
occupied. We have all witnessed where such a strategy leads.
.
The opinion of the International Court of Justice will provide an
opportunity to correct the imbalance of power between Israel and the
Palestinian people in the land Israel occupies. By providing a rare,
detached analysis of Israel's actions and reaffirming the laws applicable to
a military occupation, the court will offer a legal framework - and not a
power dynamic - for evaluating Israel's wall.
.
The court's ruling should serve to guide the international community's
efforts at structuring new peace initiatives based on applying the law, not
circumventing it.
.
By contrast, a failure by the international community to respect the court's
opinion would reinforce the message to Palestinians - often lectured to
abandon violence and pursue peaceful diplomatic action - that a nonviolent
legal means of addressing their grievances is not an option available to
them. Extremists would argue that such a failure left no option but
violence - and the cycle of occupation and the violent resistance that
occupation breeds would undoubtedly continue.
.
Saeb Erekat IHT Monday, February 23, 2004
The writer is the Palestinian Authority's minister of negotiations.



The poster is Usenet's Minister of Inappropriate Crossposting

"Bill" wrote in message
...
The poster is Usenet's Minister of Inappropriate Crossposting

Agreed, but did you have to repost the whole damn thing?

Tex

Or "Top Post;" a much more efficient and polite standard . . .

(That way, those who missed the whole preceding post(s) still have hte
thread to refer to, but those who have read the previous posts already don't
have to scroll down through all the previous posts to see your
contribution.)

Steve Swartz

"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...

"Bill" wrote in message
...
The poster is Usenet's Minister of Inappropriate Crossposting

Agreed, but did you have to repost the whole damn thing?

Tex