PDA

View Full Version : World court to rule against Israel's West Bank barrier wall



BigTruckGuy3500
07-08-2004, 10:12 PM
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/73E6C68A-108F-4FEB-85E9-6F316542511F.htm




Report: World Court to rule against Israel

Friday 09 July 2004, 4:29 Makka Time, 1:29 GMT

The World Court will on Friday rule against Israel's West Bank barrier and order its demolition, reports Israeli newspaper Haaretz.


Quoting documents it had obtained, the daily said the International Court of Justice better known as the World Court - is set to describe the barrier as an "infringement" on Palestinian rights.

"The construction of such a wall accordingly constitutes breaches by Israel of its various obligations under the applicable international humanitarian law and human rights instruments," Haaretz reported.

The World Court will deliver its ruling on Friday, but Israel has already said it would not accept its verdict.

Israeli pretext

Though Israel claims to build the barrier a network of fences, ditches and walls across the occupied West Bank - to tighten security and stop bombers from sneaking in, Palestinians say it is a land grab.

Palestinians hope the court, the United Nation's highest legal authority, will say the barrier is illegal for Israel to build on land that it captured in the 1967 war. They hope this might in turn trigger a campaign for sanctions against Israel.

"We put tremendous faith in this court," Palestinian President Yasir Arafat said on Thursday.

Israel has already completed 200km of fences and walls that should eventually stretch for 730km.

The barrier has cut off thousands of Palestinians from farms, schools, relatives and jobs.

The UN General Assembly, where pro-Palestinian sentiment is strong, requested an urgent advisory opinion in December, and the court in The Hague held hearings in February. Its ruling is non-binding.

Last week, Israel's High Court ruled that sections of the barrier should be moved to ease Palestinian hardship and ensure access to farmland, schools and cities. But it also recognized Israel's security need to build inside the West Bank.



Do you think the US will allow the UN to enforce this decision? Bush even said, when you say something you should mean it, or enforce it, or something like that.

MonsterStud
07-08-2004, 10:20 PM
Yassir Arafat puts a great deal of faith in the World Court. That's good to know.

So what will the court do to enforce a decision? Sanctions?

Perhaps if Kerry wins he can have a "Isreal, tear down that wall " speech.

th3 gr34t3st
07-08-2004, 10:21 PM
how can it infringe on their rights? i didnt know they had any :confused:

FiveOneNine
07-08-2004, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by th3 gr34t3st
how can it infringe on their rights? i didnt know they had any :confused:

:eek: You mean now everyone has rights!? That's appalling. If they don't have their own country, they don't deserve rights! Hey wait a minute, this reminds me of something. . . .Oh yeah, I recall the media using a group called the "Kurds" as an example of Saddam Hussein's brutality. Isn't he being charged for murdering a few million of them? That's not fair, they don't have their own country, they don't have any rights!

*Sarcasm Off*

(Yes, I come with a switch :D)

th3 gr34t3st
07-08-2004, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by FiveOneNine
:eek: You mean now everyone has rights!? That's appalling. If they don't have their own country, they don't deserve rights! Hey wait a minute, this reminds me of something. . . .Oh yeah, I recall the media using a group called the "Kurds" as an example of Saddam Hussein's brutality. Isn't he being charged for murdering a few million of them? That's not fair, they don't have their own country, they don't have any rights!

*Sarcasm Off*

(Yes, I come with a switch :D)

apparently you didnt get the sarcasm in my post either

sicosico
07-08-2004, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by FiveOneNine
:eek: You mean now everyone has rights!? That's appalling. If they don't have their own country, they don't deserve rights! Hey wait a minute, this reminds me of something. . . .Oh yeah, I recall the media using a group called the "Kurds" as an example of Saddam Hussein's brutality. Isn't he being charged for murdering a few million of them? That's not fair, they don't have their own country, they don't have any rights!

*Sarcasm Off*

(Yes, I come with a switch :D)

Dude their rights are not given, and the meaning in this is their lands and homes and farrms which have been taken recently this year just to build the wall in it, and separate same families in same cities with a wall.

enjoyincubus
07-08-2004, 11:00 PM
whooptyfukindooo...

like the world court has the right to even give such ruling.

wayoutwest
07-08-2004, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
whooptyfukindooo...

like the world court has the right to even give such ruling.

as a matter of fact they do. most of the world still accepts the world court, even if the united states doesnt.

irpker
07-08-2004, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by wayoutwest
as a matter of fact they do. most of the world still accepts the world court, even if the united states doesnt.

They see it as a tool to diminish the power of the United States, not as some bright shining beacon of humanity.

wayoutwest
07-08-2004, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by irpker
They see it as a tool to diminish the power of the United States, not as some bright shining beacon of humanity.

yeah u got it! no one in the world cares about justice...its all a great big "anti-american conspiracy"...:D

irpker
07-08-2004, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by wayoutwest
yeah u got it! no one in the world cares about justice...its all a great big "anti-american conspiracy"...:D

you forgot anti-Israeli and anti-Chinese.

dave22
07-08-2004, 11:56 PM
Let me get this straight, there hasn't been a suicide bombing in months, and the World Court wants this wall demolished?? WTF??

omariok2
07-09-2004, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by dave22
Let me get this straight, there hasn't been a suicide bombing in months, and the World Court wants this wall demolished?? WTF??

I agree i mean the only thing that matters is israelis' welfare who cares about the people who cant get to farms, schools etc

irpker
07-09-2004, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by omariok2
I agree i mean the only thing that matters is israelis' welfare who cares about the people who cant get to farms, schools etc

Israel and her citizens security is more important then the well-being of her neighbors.

TranceNRG
07-09-2004, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by irpker
They see it as a tool to diminish the power of the United States, not as some bright shining beacon of humanity.


it's very ironic
when conservatives dismiss all the "conspiracy theories of liberals" yet when they speak, everything seems to be a big "anti-america" or "anti-Israel" conspiracy and move.

UN --> irrelevent when it's not favoring US or Israel
ICJ --> irrelevent, it's there to undermine america and Israel
and etc.

TranceNRG
07-09-2004, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by irpker
Israel and her citizens security is more important then the well-being of her neighbors.


That's true in the eyes of israeli government.

but weren't you all screaming injustice when UK, Japan and some other countries banned the meat from states? and damaged US's export for awhile.

I mean, aren't their citizen mroe important?
so why were teh Americans upset?

irpker
07-09-2004, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by TranceNRG
it's very ironic
when conservatives dismiss all the "conspiracy theories of liberals" yet when they speak, everything seems to be a big "anti-america" or "anti-Israel" conspiracy and move.

UN --> irrelevent when it's not favoring US or Israel
ICJ --> irrelevent, it's there to undermine america and Israel
and etc.

The ICC is not a conspiracy theory. It's weaker nations trying to collude against more powerful nations to limit their power, therefore, the actions these powerful nations can and will take. It has never been about 'justice' or these other abstract theories about humanity, because that is just a veneer for their real intent. If you can't see that, you're not living in the real world.

wayoutwest
07-09-2004, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by irpker
The ICC is not a conspiracy theory. It's weaker nations trying to collude against more powerful nations to limit their power, therefore, the actions these powerful nations can and will take. It has never been about 'justice' or these other abstract theories about humanity, because that is just a veneer for their real intent. If you can't see that, you're not living in the real world. ]

and u see nothin wrong with the powerful countries exploiting the weaker countries? wat other way do the weaker nations hav to get their point across than through multilateral bodies.

TranceNRG
07-09-2004, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by irpker
The ICC is not a conspiracy theory. It's weaker nations trying to collude against more powerful nations to limit their power, therefore, the actions these powerful nations can and will take. It has never been about 'justice' or these other abstract theories about humanity, because that is just a veneer for their real intent. If you can't see that, you're not living in the real world.


are you implying that "true justice" is the one applied by US?
and if US doesn't approve of it, it must be fake? or have other shrewed intentions?

irpker
07-09-2004, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by TranceNRG
are you implying that "true justice" is the one applied by US?
and if US doesn't approve of it, it must be fake? or have other shrewed intentions?

Here's the essence of international politics and international law : "Might makes right." Yes, that is sad, but that is so. Nothing will ever change that unless there is a global government to enforce a global judiciaries orders. However, those solutions are worse then the problems, and will never come about without nasty wars that will ravage humanity far worse then the current situation.

irpker
07-09-2004, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by wayoutwest
]

and u see nothin wrong with the powerful countries exploiting the weaker countries? wat other way do the weaker nations hav to get their point across than through multilateral bodies.

What exploitation? Genocide, war crimes, aggression, isn't exploitation. The US doesn't advocate these horrible actions because of its refusal to put itself on an equal playing field with the rest of the world in an illegitimate court with illegitimate laws. Also, these smaller nations can go to the UN if they have a problem.

enjoyincubus
07-09-2004, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by wayoutwest
as a matter of fact they do. most of the world still accepts the world court, even if the united states doesnt.


a court has no right to rule on something that dosent envolve any country that sponsors the court. and sanctions arent going to happen.

TranceNRG
07-09-2004, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by irpker
Here's the essence of international politics and international law : "Might makes right." Yes, that is sad, but that is so. Nothing will ever change that unless there is a global government to enforce a global judiciaries orders. However, those solutions are worse then the problems, and will never come about without nasty wars that will ravage humanity far worse then the current situation.

ok...
at the present time, unfortunately that's how the world seems like.
but keep in mind, "what goes up, will fall down" and "they harder they are, they harder they fall"

will you be saying the same once your empire crasheS?

enjoyincubus
07-09-2004, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by TranceNRG
ok...
at the present time, unfortunately that's how the world seems like.
but keep in mind, "what goes up, will fall down" and "they harder they are, they harder they fall"

will you be saying the same once your empire crasheS?


yep. and you will too. because this figment of your imagination that is international law(like an international law would be able to reprsent the different schools of government. applying one set of standards to a different culture is plan tyranny)is the only thing that is giving your country(i assume your not american) credibility.

wayoutwest
07-09-2004, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
yep. and you will too. because this figment of your imagination that is international law(like an international law would be able to reprsent the different schools of government. applying one set of standards to a different culture is plan tyranny)is the only thing that is giving your country(i assume your not american) credibility.

if u refuse to accept international law...

wat body of law do u recognize? under wat rules are atrocities, genocide, aggression defined for u? does the US constitution define these for u?

enjoyincubus
07-09-2004, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by wayoutwest
if u refuse to accept international law...

wat body of law do u recognize? under wat rules are atrocities, genocide, aggression defined for u? does the US constitution define these for u?

the only law i accept is the law of my country. as far as im concerned the international court can go to hell. looking to a made up government body that has several countries that do participate in genocide as your human rights watchdog is foolish.

wayoutwest
07-09-2004, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
the only law i accept is the law of my country. as far as im concerned the international court can go to hell. looking to a made up government body that has several countries that do participate in genocide as your human rights watchdog is foolish.

just because u lov american law, doesnt set american law as a standard for all the world to observe.

international law's foundations were laid by european powers and the united states. the UN and its predecessor were made on the ideas of an american president (woodrow wilson's fourteen points). this international body was made to prevent another world war, and to punish those responsible for the atrocities committed during war.

its wasnt random countries who "participate in genocide" made these bodies. it was the powers, including the united states.

and while the international court condemns most perpetrators of genocide, the united states is quite picky about who to condemn. indonesia, turkey, israel, saudi arabia and its own atrocities in central america (nicaragua 1986) dont make the american list.

enjoyincubus
07-09-2004, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by wayoutwest
international law's foundations were laid by european powers and the united states. the UN and its predecessor were made on the ideas of an american president (woodrow wilson's fourteen points). this international body was made to prevent another world war, and to punish those responsible for the atrocities committed during war.

its wasnt random countries who "participate in genocide" made these bodies. it was the powers, including the united states.

and while the international court condemns most perpetrators of genocide, the united states is quite picky about who to condemn. indonesia, turkey, israel, saudi arabia and its own atrocities in central america (nicaragua 1986) dont make the american list.


for the rulings to be carried out, they must be taken to the un, where they will be voted on by countries that openly take part in genocide. since your governing body is filled with countries that partake in genocide, and you claim america has as well, what makes your law any better than mine?

wayoutwest
07-09-2004, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
for the rulings to be carried out, they must be taken to the un, where they will be voted on by countries that openly take part in genocide. since your governing body is filled with countries that partake in genocide, and you claim america has as well, what makes your law any better than mine?

ur forgettin that the US has the veto which it has used and abused numerous times to undermine the democracy within the United Nations.

its not my law...this is law the governs the world. this is law that was put together by americans and other countries.

im asking u...wat law do u propose to define such things as genocide, aggresion, self-defense, trade laws, sovereignty laws? or will u leave it up to the White House to define that for u? should all countries have their own definitions then? since the standards that were once agreed on by the US (which it sheds only if they contradict american interests)

under wat definition are u claiming these countries commit genocide? i define genocide as it appears in international law. if u want i could write the whle definition out as it appears in international law.

where in US law is genocide defined?

wayoutwest
07-09-2004, 11:15 PM
>>The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.



Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.


<<

some lessons in international law for u. can u find me the definition of genocide under american law?

enjoyincubus
07-09-2004, 11:54 PM
"im asking u...wat law do u propose to define such things as genocide, aggresion, self-defense, trade laws, sovereignty laws?"

it is really hypocritical to look to the democracy of a government in which a) dosent believe in democracy since many countries involved or totalitarian states, and b) allows these members to have a say in how the laws of the world are inflicted. an international body which is filled with many different states that have no interest in human rights will not look out for such rights. and since the court depends on the un to carry out these rulings, no justice can be done.

regardless of what genocide is defined as, a court with blood on its hands is no good. and since you accept an international that is imposed by groups of thugs, what makes the un any better than the us?

wayoutwest
07-10-2004, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
"im asking u...wat law do u propose to define such things as genocide, aggresion, self-defense, trade laws, sovereignty laws?"

it is really hypocritical to look to the democracy of a government in which a) dosent believe in democracy since many countries involved or totalitarian states, and b) allows these members to have a say in how the laws of the world are inflicted. an international body which is filled with many different states that have no interest in human rights will not look out for such rights. and since the court depends on the un to carry out these rulings, no justice can be done.

regardless of what genocide is defined as, a court with blood on its hands is no good. and since you accept an international that is imposed by groups of thugs, what makes the un any better than the us?

u didnt answer any of my questions...

wayoutwest
07-10-2004, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
"im asking u...wat law do u propose to define such things as genocide, aggresion, self-defense, trade laws, sovereignty laws?"

it is really hypocritical to look to the democracy of a government in which a) dosent believe in democracy since many countries involved or totalitarian states, and b) allows these members to have a say in how the laws of the world are inflicted. an international body which is filled with many different states that have no interest in human rights will not look out for such rights. and since the court depends on the un to carry out these rulings, no justice can be done.

regardless of what genocide is defined as, a court with blood on its hands is no good. and since you accept an international that is imposed by groups of thugs, what makes the un any better than the us?

my point is ...its better to have a standard that most can agree on, rather than everyone defining their own ways to justify their cruel acts. the UN and ICC at least condemn the actions of their own members....

its important to hav a definition. because if the US law has no such definition that means that technically, for u, there is no such act as genocide.