Palestinians Open Case Against Barrier
By JOSEF FEDERMAN
Associated Press Writer
5:34 AM PST, February 23, 2004
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The Palestinians opened their case against Israel's West Bank barrier in the world court on Monday, a landmark hearing that brings Israel's policies before an international tribunal for the first time.
Nasser Al-Kidwa, chief of the Palestinian delegation, the first to address the tribunal, argued against the barrier and in favor of the court's authority to render an opinion on its legality.
"This wall is not about security. It is about entrenching the occupation and the de facto annexation of large areas of the Palestinian land," Al-Kidwa told the tribunal.
The 15-judge International Court of Justice planned three days of hearings into the barrier starting Monday, with all of the participants expected to harshly criticize the fence. Israel, the United States and the European countries that oppose the court's intervention, refused to attend.
You have two cases which are mutually exclusive, and the 'Palestinians' lose both. One, the area is occupied, which means that it belongs to the PA, which means that it is a border and walls are perfectly legal on borders. Two, the area is actually completely inside Israel (and no PA exists) which means that it is an Israeli matter, and the international court has to butt out.
The PLO has been calling for a two-state solution for decades without actually wanting two states. Israel is giving them two states now, whether they want it or not. Checkmate.
Posted by Phelps at February 23, 2004 02:08 PMThe fence is not on the border.
Posted by P6 at February 23, 2004 03:16 PMIt is now.
Posted by Phelps at February 23, 2004 03:18 PMPerfect answer. Who needs the rule of law to be international anyway?
Posted by P6 at February 23, 2004 04:05 PMNo one. In fact, if we want to retain freedom, we need to make sure that there is no strong international law. The concentration of power is not a good thing. There are worse things, but it is a necessary evil that you keep to a minimum.
Posted by Phelps at February 23, 2004 04:57 PMPhelps, I thought property rights were a big deal with libertarians. The wall is state expropriation of Arab land. Private property has been impounded for years, and no, not merely (or mostly) of the families of the bombers.
I can't believe you confuse "international law" with "concentration of power." No, don't bother telling me they're the same. My credulity is maxed out. I don't believe you would take such a fallacy seriously. You know what's a concentration of power? 250,000 settlers who live on government handouts, with unconditional rubberstamp of the US gov't, enabling them to seize the land of another people.
Posted by James R MacLean at February 23, 2004 09:37 PMHere's an example of an actual libertarian looking at the Israel/Palestine conflict from the standpoint of property rights. I stopped believing Phelps's claims to be an actual libertarian a long time ago.
Posted by Al-Muhajabah at February 24, 2004 11:48 AM