Israel Fears Isolation, Sanctions Over Fence

[Resistance]

Forward News

Slam the Court, Advisers Urge

By ORI NIR

WASHINGTON — Bracing for a ruling against its separation fence by the World Court — which could pave the way for South Africa-style international sanctions — Israel and its allies here are considering a campaign to discredit the court as a biased organ of the United Nations.

The proposed campaign is highly controversial even among Israel's top strategists, who acknowledge that it could alienate moderates and liberals who view the court with respect. Nonetheless, the move is seen by some senior advisers as an inevitable last step if the court rejects Israel's arguments and rules the fence a violation of international law, something most observers consider all but certain.

"The case is a foregone conclusion," said legal expert Alan Dershowitz, who returned last week from Jerusalem, where he was advising officials on confronting the court.

Dershowitz's opinion of the court does not seem representative of the general view among international law experts, most of whom called it a "sober" and "independent" panel that stands apart from the governments it represents.

Kenneth Roth executive director of Human Rights Watch, said the fence case in particular "is not a good case to attack the court on because Israel's position on its merits is weak. Attacking the court would be seen as a further sign of weakness."

[Resistance]

1. We progressives better brace ourselves

It appears that the Right is preparing another nasty smear strategy against the U.N.

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. Kind of hard to smear the UN

It does a good enough job on its own.

[sushi]

3. Muddle says Israel is used

to being largely alone. In other words, sanctions won't bother it. Israel has the friends that matter, the US, the Marshall Islands, and Micronesia.

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. Well, somehow it has survived

It has built ties with multiple Muslim neighbors, despite the best efforts of much of the Arab world. It has made trade agreements with Turkey and India and other nations as well.

But no nation will agree to an external body telling it how to handle internal security.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. Internal security?

Excuse me, but the West Bank and Gaza are not internal to Israel. They are occupied territories. Israel's occupation is subject to the Fourth Geneva Convention, on which the court is being asked to rule.

This is not an internal matter.

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. Yes, it is entirely internal

As you and I discussed in the past, those are ALL areas under Israel's jurisdiction and control. No doubt, at some point in time, much of that area will become a Palestinian state. Till that time, those decisions are Israel's, not a world body.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. No, it is not

As we have discussed before, the territories are not part of Israel. Therefore, the IDF occupies the West Bank and Gaza as a foreign force. Accordingly, the Fourth Geneva Convention and other appropriate documents of international law apply.

Israel may occupy the Palestinian Territories for her security. However, she is not free to do as she pleases with the land or the people who inhabit the land.

In any case, she will get her day in court.

See also this short, but related, thread.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. How can they be foreign?

To be foreign, that would have to be territory belonging to another nation. As it does not, then they are not foreign.

And, as administrator of that land, Israel has the right to administer it -- that includes building roads and building fences.

[Jack Rabbit]

20. Incorrect

To be foreign, that would have to be territory belonging to another nation.

It has never belonged to Israel. It is foreign to Israel. It is not Israel. It is occupied land. The fact that there was never a state there is of no consequence. The people who live there are not Israeli and have no desire to be Israeli citizens. It is their land.

Consequently, the Geneva Conventions apply. The ICJ is competent to hear the case.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. In that case, it is foreign to everybody

Including the Palestinians who live there.

All territory belongs to some nation. The territory in question here is under the administration of Israel. As such, Israeli soldiers are the only ones who are NOT foreign.

[Jack Rabbit]

29. We've been over the semantics of this before, Muddle

When one speaks of a Palestinian people or a Palestinian nation, one is speaking of a cultural entity. There is no denying that such an entity exists. The land belongs to them.

When one speaks of a Palestinian state, one is speaking of a political entity. There has never been such an entity. The closest there came to being such an entity was during the Oslo process.

You are still confusing the cultural and the political.

[bluesoul]

30. I'm tired of this

it's not foreign land BS. The OT is NOT Israel! Never was, never will be. Deal with it Muddle...

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. Actually, it WAS indeed

Long ago.

I agree that much of the land we discuss right now is not Israel, but it is under Israeli jurisdiction and, as such, is not foreign land.

[bluesoul]

33. Pure

bullshit...

[Darranar]

36. Which part?

[bluesoul]

37. If you're asking me

the part about it not being foreign land. It sure as hell ain't Israeli land.

[Darranar]

40. Okay, we agree.

[Jack Rabbit]

53. Absolutely

It's either Israel or it is not. If it is not, then it stands in relation to Israel as foreign territory. There's no in between.

Muddle's error is in his assertion that a nation must be incorporated into a state in order to make a legitimate claim on the territory. Rather, it is enough that they live there and have lived there from some point, either in definable history or pre-history, to this day. To say that the territory is foreign to its inhabitants is absurd.

[Muddleoftheroad]

56. It is NOT foreign to its inhabitants

And that includes both Palestinians and Israelis. That was my point.

[Violet_Crumble]

62. I get it...

So if I get a long-term posting to somewhere like Washington, because I'd be an inhabitant of the US, I wouldn't be a foreigner? Uh, oh-kay! ;)


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. Not confusing anything

All the land in the Mideast is under the control of some nation state. The land in question here is under the control of Israel. As such, Israeli troops cannot be considered foreign.

[Jack Rabbit]

38. My last comment on this

The land is not Israel, even if Israel occupies it. The IDF is a representative of hostile occupying power. The Froth Geneva Convention applies and Israel's administration of the territory must conform to the convention.

The fact that there has never been a Palestinian state does not change that.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. Again with our dead horse

No matter how you look at it, that area is not foreign to some nation. Since Israel remains the nation in charge of the territory, Israel would fall into that category as a non-foreign nation.

[bluesoul]

39. Tell me Muddle

is Iraq USA territory since it's being occupied by US soldiers? :crazy:

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. There remains an Iraq government

And there has been a state of Iraq for centuries.

There is no state of Palestine and no other state claims that land.

[Violet_Crumble]

60. Totally wrong...

Iraq has NOT been a state for centuries...

Violet...

[Darranar]

41. The land is not part of Israel...

therefore it is foreign.

It doesn't matter whether or not it is under military control. Iraq is under military control, too - it too is foreign territory.

You seem to be arguing with international law, which does have rules dealing with occupied territory.

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. Then that land is part of no nation and ALL are foreigners there

Including the Palestinians.

Some nation holds sway in all land. That nation is not foreign in that territory.

[bluesoul]

45. Palestinians are certainly not foreigners

to the land they have lived on for all of their life! Your insisting on this BS makes me curious to your motives Muddle. No one has greater claims and legitimacy then the Palestinians do. Even the UN as an international world body recognized that after WW2 with the partition. Israel already has it's own land and state. All the rest is simple land grab, and I am amazed people actually defend this and call it "Israeli" land. On sites like FR I understand. But on a progressive forum, that's a mystery to me...

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Neither are Israelis

Which has been my point all along.

No matter what claim the Palestinians have, it remains only a "claim." They do not have a state. As such, the territory remains under the jurisdiction of Israel.

And, for the record, there is a big difference between saying it is land under Israel's jurisdiction and saying it is Israeli land.

[Violet_Crumble]

61. Of course Israelis are foreigners...

The Occupied Territories aren't part of Israel, so of course Israeli citizens are foreigners...

Muddle, seeing as how you think the Israeli military occupying the West Bank and Gaza aren't foreign and if they are then that makes the Palestinians foreigners too, does that mean that you viewed things the same way with the Indonesian occupation of East Timor? See, East Timor wasn't a state. I find it absurd that anyone would claim that it was an internal issue and that Indonesian troops weren't a foreign occupying force, and that if they were it also made the East Timorese foreigners as they weren't a state...

Violet...

[Darranar]

46. No...

the Palestinians are the only ones who DO have a claim to the land.

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. Only a claim

Not a reality until there is a peace treaty.

[Darranar]

49. True...

but it still is occupied territory, and therefore is subject to international law.

[sushi]

23. Occupying someone else's house

doesn't make it yours!

[Resistance]

7. I don't think "occupied territories" is really appropriate anymore

The West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel now. They've been occupied so long, we may as well forget the idea of a separate Palestinian State, and start talking about how to integrate these people into Israeli society.

A bi-national, truly Democratic solution is the only humane option on the table.

[GabysPoppy]

8. Do you think that

the Palestinians are that incapable of having and running their own state now?

[Resistance]

10. No, and I've never implied that

so I have no idea why you would draw the conclusion.

Of course they're capable of running their own state. The problem is that Israel has stolen so much land while occupying the rest, that it is simply not practical anymore to try and separate the two peoples along borders that both sides will accept. What we have now is a huge ghetto that Israel has created, almost a prison, really.

So we're left with two choices: We can be humane about it on the one hand, and work on a bi-national solution that integrates everyone living in PalestineIsrael, or we can continue the racist Apartheid path of an Israel on one side and a Palestinian ghetto on the other.

The progressive choice is obvious to me. We know which direction the Right will move in: they'll choose Apartheid as usual.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jmcgowanjm]

54. Debka is mossad? BTW-Israel pop. can't stand unilateralism

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=742

[GabysPoppy]

55. Please explain

What Debka has to do with my post?

[jmcgowanjm]

59. As you can see from today's news, Sharon is talking Unilateral

this is a manuever, as shown by the Debka piece.
Sharon has told colleagues this is a temp manuever.

To clear away the uncertainty, DEBKAfile’s political
sources state positively that all the fuss and ado has
been in vain. Sharon does not – and never did have –
a detailed plan for unilateral action.

Mossad:By deception we will wage war.

Debka sounds like Mossad. Is that better?

Unilateralism (to me) means: Israel gets the good parts
bantustans for the rest.

[Darranar]

11. Why should we forget the two-state solution?

How are the Occupied Territories inseperable from Israel itself?

If you don't think Israel is going to accept a two-state solution, why is it going to accept a one-state solution?

[Resistance]

14. because

to name a few of the major obstacles to a two-state solution: We've got settlers all over the West Bank, Palestinians inside Israeli borders, a government showing zero regard for the green-line, an expected Right-of-Return that nobody cares to negotiate anymore, and there just does not exist any two-state plan that anybody is going to agree on any time soon.

So it is time to quit the charades. Israel has taken over the Occupied Territories despite years of international condemnations; it has allowed settlers to flourish wherever they pleased, and so guess what: it's time to start taking some responsbility for all the people living on the land that Israel claims to cherish so much. They wanted a Greater Israel, well they got it. But one thing didn't work out according to the original plans - millions of Palestinians are still there, alive and they are not going anywhere.

As I've said elsewhere, the choices are blindingly obvious: Choose continued Apartheid and oppression of Palestinians, or choose true Democracy.

[Darranar]

17. Well...

Israel has the ability to withdraw the settlements. That action would have much popular support if it helped bring peace, and it very likely would, especially if the action was combined with an end to the occupation and the creation of a palestinian state.

If you do not think israel is willing to do such a thing, why would it be willing to accept a one state solution? The only way to bring about such a solution would be to impose it on the Israelis, and possibly the Palestinians as well. That is not democratic and would likely result in much violence and unrest, not peace.

[Resistance]

19. Was there not fear of "violence and unrest"

with the civil rights movement? Integration into American society of a people whose ancestors were enslaved by the American upper classes, and a continued vile racism that exists to this very day -- if that can be overcome, my friend (and obviously there is still a long way to go), so too can Palestinians and Israelis live in peace.

Also, I'm not really talking about imposing anything on anyone. I've been saying it pretty frequently lately, that I think there is a choice to make here: choose Apartheid or choose Democracy. Frankly, I fear the worst, but I still hold out hope for the best.

[Darranar]

25. But why is the two-state solution not a choice?

The wall and the settlements can be dismantled. They should be, anyway, two-state or one-state, because both steal land and make life more difficult for the Palestinians.

[bluesoul]

26. I totally agree

The two-state solution is the only reasonable option for both nations and a one state cannot be forced onto anyone not wanting it. Unless they would someday agree to it. I just don't see that in the present time...

[meti57b]

27. So, the Jewish settlers in the West Bank in a two-state solution ....

would become citizens or residents of the new Palestinian state, unless they decide to move back to Israel. The fact that they are there is not an impediment to a two-state solution. In a one-state solution, those settlers are still going to be there. Why should there be ethnic cleansing of Jews in the Palestinian state.

Palestinians are already inside Israel and are citizens of Israel. Why is this a problem?

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Ethnic Cleansing

Has been popular in the Arab world. Look at how they kicked out hundreds of thousands of Jews.

[Darranar]

35. There is a difference...

the Palestinians in Israel are there because they were not forced out and did not flee in 1948. It is their land.

The settlements are illegal and are on stolen land. In addition to being part of a land-grab, they make life difficult for the Palestinians by impeding movement and taking fertile fields.

[meti57b]

50. The fact is, the Palestinians are in Israel already. Why they are there ..

is not the point of this facet of the discussion. The idea was put forth by another poster that their being there meant that Israel and Palestine could not be separated into two states. There are Palestinians in Israel and they are citizens of Israel. That is not an impediment to there being two separate states.

Neither is it an impediment that there are Jewish settlers in the West Bank. Many of those settlers would just as soon relocate to Israel and are where they are for economic reasons. If financial resources could be provided, many would move back.

AS for those who refuse to move, they still will have a choice: they can still move to Israel or stay in the new Palestinian state. If they stay, it will then be up to Palestinian law to assign value to the land and use peaceful and humane means to collect payment or rent.

The only apparent alternative is that the GOI has the IDF hogtie and drag those remaining settlers back into Israel. If everyone expects that to happen before there will be a Palestinian state, that state isn't going to happen for a long time.

[Darranar]

51. 'Peaceful and humane means'...

What if those don't work?

Would you suggest 'peaceful and humane means' to get rid of Palestinian terrorists? Clearly, there is a difference, but the point is that obstacles to a just peace - as the settlements and the settlers are, as well as the Palestinian terrorists - need to be removed, one way or another. Israel created them. Israel should remove them.

[meti57b]

52. normally there are several months of legal procedure, culminating ...

in eviction.

Otherwise speaking, this part of the discussion is about whether Palestinians in Israel or Israelis in the WB mean a one-state solution is the only possible solution. It wasn't about Palestinian terrorists.

Perhaps Israel "should" remove the settlers but if they cannot or do not, that doesn't have to be an impediment to creating a Palestinian state.

[Darranar]

57. It IS an impediment...

to a just and peaceful solution to the conflict.

But we agree that the settlements do not ensure that the two-state solution is impossible.

[Jack Rabbit]

12. Wrong

I am not among those who regard anybody who advocates the bi-national democratic state as anti-Semitic. In a more perfect world, I would favor it.

Of course, in a more perfect world, there would be no Zionism. Why not? Because Zionism is a reaction to anti-Semitism and in a more perfect world there would be no racism.

Obviously, this isn't a more perfect world.

You will not sell Israeli Jews on the idea that they're going to be safe agreeing to a democratic state in which they will be, at least after a short time, a minority group. In the 1920s, Germany was a nominally democratic state in which Jews were well assimilated. Hitler rose to power and used his base in Germany to exterminate two-thirds of the Jews in Europe. Too many people living in Israel either experienced that nightmare first hand or have parents, grandparents or great grandparents who did.

And please bear in mind that we have idiots like Ahmed Yassin running about the Palestinian Territories saying that Israeli Jews should resettle in Europe. That kind of talk scares me. Imagine what it sounds like to a Holocaust survivor.

Thank you, Resistance, but I'll go with the two state solution. It isn't perfect, but it's what we're going to get.

[Resistance]

15. Your reasoning is sound, Jack Rabbit.

And I was a long-time advocate of a two-state settlement.

But there is one problem, and it is not a small one. There already is a single state. This isn't a two-state thing anymore. The West Bank is carved up beyond anything that will ever look like a separate Palestinian State. Plus you've got Gaza to deal with. Israel has been expanding past the Green Line like it never existed in the first place. It's just too late for two-state. We need to start viewing PalestineIsrael as a single state and begin working out how to move away from the current Apartheid structure, because millions of people can't be kept imprisoned and terrorized forever. The only humane option is to work on a bi-national state.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. I don't agree

I don't agree that we've passed the point where a two-state solution would no longer be possible.

We almost had two states in the Oslo process. That wasn't that long ago. Of course, I agree with you that Barak's generous offer wasn't that generous and I agree with our friends who advocate for Israel that Arafat should have stayed and made a counteroffer. So let's not try to assess blame for the failure of Oslo. There's plenty to go around.

Paradoxically, because there's plenty of blame to go around for that failure, it should be worth trying again. It isn't clear to me that people of goodwill on both sides have rejected this hope.

Look at the Geneva Accord. There is a mechanism there to swap land on which the largest Israeli settlements are built for an equivalent acreage. It's far from perfect, but there's not going to be a perfect solution. And it's easier than dismantling all the settlements.

The biggest advantage I still see in a two-state solution is that there are more people who believe in it. That's why I think we can still have one. Not enough people want a bi-national state.

ON EDIT

Besides, how can you say that a single state has been imposed when west of the Green Line the population is 80% Jewish and east of the Green Line it is 90% Arab?

[Resistance]

21. to answer your 'On Edit' question

Because Israel seized control over all of it.

I see where we disagree. I hung on to the two-state thing for a long time. But I don't see a solution anymore, where everyone's demands are going to be met. It's just time to move on, in my view.

[Jack Rabbit]

34. Indeed

Because Israel seized control over all of it.

That's occupation. You and I are in agreement that Israel has not lived up to her obligations as an occupying power. For example, I believe we both agree that there is and can be no such thing as a legal Israeli settlement on occupied territory.

While such activities give the impression that Israel has claimed the land and treats it as annexed, we are not passed the point where that can be undone. As long as demographics of the Levant resemble more of a layer cake than a marble cake, a two-state solution is possible.

[Gimel]

58. Administered territories

Before the Oslo Accords were implemented (those that were implemented) Israel administered the territories. They provided services and welfare. Since the land was given to the PA to administer, Israel has maintained the external security and in area C also administration.

The re-entry of areas A and B in order to fight terrorists that were using these areas as a base has not really changed the administration of the services of areas A and B.

Once the wall/fence is completed, withdrawal of IDF forces will be possible. In fact, that is already underway.

Will the UN court in Geneva view the Area designated as Area C as Israeli controlled, administered and therefore that building a security wall would not violate it's responsibilities in anyway?

That is an unknown, and according to this article a subject of disagreement by legal experts.

I expect that whatever the court rules it will be a revolutionary ruling, breaking new ground, and that one side or the other will be upset by it. Israel is wise not to consider a favorable ruling as the most likely outcome. However, putting it's defense on the line, might win the uphill battle.

[beanball]

22. We the people

of the United States bribed of threatened those Muslim neighbors.