Finally a crack in the wall and we see the light

you want me to quote the 4th Geneva Conventions for you?

 

Yes, the relevant part please.

 

Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

the IDF could argue that seperation barrier is vital to the security of Israel, is maintained by the military, and is part of ongoing security/military operations.

 

Not since the International court struck down any such notion.

 

the ICJ made an advisory opinion, which is non-binding.

 

Yes, the IDF could very well argue that. Thank you.

 

Be clear- the court ruled the wall illegal and called for its demolition. It can't force the neo-Zionists to demolish it but the die is cast. Israel is no longer under any illusion that its activities are legal in any sense.

 

but if its clear that the route of a part of the barrier is more for exanding a settlement than security, this route is illegal and must be changed.

the supreme court has forced israel to change the barrier route several times, as the route was a land-grab and not for security.

- - - Updated - - -

the current route of the wall may be illegal.

but if it is adjusted it may become legal.

its not the barrier itself that is illegal, but the route.

Israel has a right to build security fences, walls, barriers, in the West Bank.

 

Not since the International court rejected that defence. That argument is no more. It is deceased. They are perched upon an illegal edifice.

It is ALL illegal if it is built inside the State of Palestine.

Israel has limited powers as an occupying force. Each new structure must be considered individually. No new structure can be built in contravention of international and humanitarian law. The existing wall in Palestine is illegal.

 

Considering the terror didn't cease the wall had to be built. Israel has to safeguard its citizens and the wall helps. Legal or not, it doesn't matter. Without the wall there would be more terror.

From September 2000 to mid-2005, hundreds of Palestinian suicide bombings and terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians killed more nearly 1,000 innocent people and wounded thousands of others. In response, Israel's government decided to construct a security fence that would run near the “Green Line” between Israel and the West Bank to prevent Palestinian terrorists from easily infiltrating into Israel proper. The project had the overwhelming support of the Israeli public and was deemed legal by Israel's Supreme Court.

Israel's fence garnered international condemnation, but the outrage is a clear double standard - there is nothing new about the construction of a security fence. Many nations have fences to protect their borders - the United States, for example, has one to prevent illegal immigration. In fact, when the West Bank fence was approved, Israel had already built a fence surrounding the Gaza Strip that had worked - not a single suicide bomber has managed to cross Israel's border with Gaza.

 

indeed, if it was not for the 2nd Intifada, there would be no Seperation Barrier.

 

The neo-Zionist posture, in a nut-shell. They are making a big mistake.

 

Israel, as the Occupying Power of Occupied Territory, has the legal right to build military bases, infrastructure for such bases, fences, etc.

Are you saying Israel is no longer Occupying land that is Occupied Territory?

 

Indeed. There would be no Palestine.

 

True. The Palestinians are their own worst enemy. They could live in wonderful peace with Israel, but it seems they are not keen on that. Shame really.

 

Not in contravention of international and humanitarian law.

Incomprehensible mumble.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, the neo-Zionist posture. The Palestinians have never been made an acceptable offer. Zionism doesn't make acceptable offers. At Camp David there wasn't even a map.

 

Who are you backing, boys ? The illegal squatters or the occupying military ?

 

Arafat refused something like 95% of land Israel was willing to offer. If that is not acceptable, I don't know what is.

 

That's right, you don't. Arafat was offered a percentage of a percentage of territory which was already Palestinian.

 

If it was already Palestinian land, how could Israel have offered it to him?

 

ICJ advisory opinions are not international law, buddy.

only binding decisions by the ICJ, are law.

 

You're badly mistaken. All International court decisions are based upon..............existing international, humanitarian and customary law.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you at all aware of how much Palestinian territory the Israelis have misappropriated ? Do you know where the Green Line is situated and what it represents ?
Would you accept from a robber a percentage of a percentage of the worst quality of the goods which have been stolen from you ?

 

you are very, very mistaken.

The ICJ gave an advisory opinion about a new event. Their opinion is non-binding and has no force of law.

**Edited out Personal Insult**

 

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the wall was planned long before the second Intifada and suicide bombings.

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs...i-apartheid-wall-really-stop-suicide-bombings

If you go to the link you will find plenty of other links which will verify what is said here.

 

No, show me.