Israel dismisses U.N. vote, construction on West Bank barrier will go on

Israel rejected an overwhelming call by the United Nations to dismantle a massive barrier being built in the West Bank, with a top official dismissing the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday as hostile to the Jewish state.

"The fence will continue to be built," said Vice Premier Ehud Olmert.

Israel says the wall is needed to keep suicide bombers out of the country. The Palestinians say Israel is using the barrier as a pretext to take Palestinian land.

cut

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/10/22/international1504EDT0674.DTL

========================

If there were homicide bombers attacking the U.N., would they want security barriers?

Just wondering aloud.

they can violate Resolutions

Security Council Resolution 242
Security Council Resolution 446
among over 50 other resolutions

and stuff like
The Fourth Geneva Convention, which is a cornerstone of international humanitarian law that ensures minimum protections for civilians in armed conflict and occupation. It forbids, among other things: the construction of settlements on occupied land, unilateral annexation, willful killing of civilians, collective punishment, torture, and the destruction of property without a compelling military reason. It also requires judicial accountability for those who commit war crimes (defined as “grave breaches” listed in Article 147 of the Convention). The Convention fully takes into account military necessity and cannot be violated for “security” reasons.

But hey, they're special, unlike those brown skinned folks. :eyes:

Therefore, it is non-binding. The Arab block hates Israel, so of course it passed.

144 countries is much more then only the Arab block. Make it almost the whole world except for USA, Israel and two Islands..

I know you know that, bluesoul - I thought it was worth a reminder though.

I have no problem if people defend Israel. I have a problem with people defending certain policies or actions. There's my problem. You can be pro-Israel and support people like Amira Hass, Uri Avnery, Gush Shalom or any number of people from Israel that do want to make a difference. There are many that I do admire (not only among the peace movement) Actually as much as I have a problem with people that are virulently anti-Palestinian I have a problem with people that are virulently anti-Israeli as well.

I should have stated in the subject line "say anything to defend everything Israel, right or wrong"

defying U.N. resolutions when Israel continues to defy dozens with impunity?

Why is it that a half a million Iraqis died as a result of 12 years of U.S.-led U.N. sanctions, depriving them of necessities, like food and medicine, and the U.S. continues to give generous monetary aid to Israel?

And why did it evoke U.S. national outrage when France threatened to use its U.N. veto, for the third time ever, against war with Iraq, when the U.S. had used its own veto 86 times, usually in support of its ally, Israel?

Just wondering.:shrug:

but i am guessing you know the answers to those questions..:)

"Israel rejected an overwhelming call by the United Nations to dismantle a massive barrier being built in the West Bank, with a top official dismissing the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday as hostile to the Jewish state."

yup, 144 hostile countries out there in the world.

the four voting for Israel are: (1) Israel; (2) USA; (3) The Marshall Islands; and (4) Micronesia.

144 votes against Israel. "They're just hostile to the Jewish state." Sure is a lot of "anti-semitism" out there. {sarcasm}

You'd think with votes like this that more people of Israel might start to re-think their country's positions.

by Israel

It would have passed otherwise.

The US--the evil Bush administration, to be exactt-- is the only goverment on earth that actually defends this provocative, illegal, and immoral policy.

targeting the UN orginating from New York City, would they carve a path through Manhattan and build a huge wall on it, then for all practical purposes annex the land?

...the UN is not a sovereign state. It is a guest of the US, and could conceivably locate elsewhere, for instance, off the coast of London, on a Virgin Island.

That's what those freepers and their likes are saying, that the UN should be shoved somewhere (preferebly into the sea).

I did not say the UN should be shoved somewhere (preferebly into the sea)

That suggestion has similarities to what the Palestinians and their friends propose for Israel.

This is the reason why Israel must be considered to be a rogue state.

Considering that only America, the Marshall Islands and Micronesia are on Israel's side in this and many other matters brought to the UN, the "anti-semitism" explanation has no credibility and in fact cheapens and trivializes the victims of genuine anti-semitism.

Pitting oneself against the entire world can't and won't work indefinitely.

won't keep out suicide/homicide bombers.

Interesting that Bush is presiding over an Israel building walls, whereas Reagan wanted walls gone.

some politicians back then had the balls to at least confront Israel's racist aggression?

Like sending Marines to Lebanon, only to retreat when attacked, thereby giving Hizbollah it's first big victory.

n/t

There was a lot of talk on the news shows about this in the past few days, as it was the 20th anniversary of this atrocity.

was the most highly fortified barrier the Soviets could build.
It was not really a "wall", but rather a no-mans-land with two distinct walls about 100 yards apart. In the gap were minefields, guard dogs, rotating machine guns, sentry roads etc.
Yet from 1961 to 1989 more than 5,000 people got through.
At least the Soviets built the wall on the actual border between the Soviet sector and the three-party western sector. Imagine Kennedys reaction if the Soviets had tried to incorporate 55% of the American sector into the Soviet sector!

A few of the details differ and there is additional information.

Israel to Keep Building Barrier Despite UN Censure

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3669783

Unacceptable!

...all of it!

very difficult, with the various checkpoints, etc. I heard of one Palestinian farmer who was prevented from reaching his fields. It is things like this that fuel the fire of rage. And I don't think anyone is safer. Your idea is, however, better than what they have come up with.:shrug:

in the civil war taking place in SriLanka..but rather than partition their own island..bott sides are seeking to negotiate a settlement..this seems to me a mature response..perhaps the absence of superpower influence is helping the process..after all ..SriLanka is only famous for tea and cricket and holds no strategic value to the west...

This conflict could use some superpower influence, but Bush* continues to look the other way or issue lukewarm criticisms of the latest atrocity. As for being of strategic value to the West, unlike Iraq or Saudi Arabia, Israel is about the only place in the Middle East where there is absolutely no oil!


"Let me tell you something that we Israelis have against Moses. He took us 40 years through the desert in order to bring us to the one spot in the Middle East that has no oil!"

Golda Meir, Prime Minister of Israel, at a dinner honoring West German Chancellor Willy Brandt, NY Times 10 Jun 73

and it would be difficult for me to criticize a security barrier along the green line. Yet many of her citizen's live beyond it, so a barrier may extend beyond that to incorporate them. This is another illustration of why the settlements are so problematic.

nt

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

earnest and julio did less "whining" than you do.

perhaps you want to actually comment on the thread....

for a pleasant change??

this is getting old quickly.

"perhaps you actually comment on the thread...for a pleasant change??"

I must have missed your comments...what were they again?

on your comments.

So my commenting about someone's comments is wrong,but when you do it it's ok.

At least you're consistant.

Or have Ay-rab-sniffin' dogs at the check-points?

that if the UN is attacked by bombers, the UN tucks tail and runs. Israel doesn't have that option ... and that's a blessing, I think.

It's not. It's an international organisation made up of many states, including Israel. What's more, it's not a state that's building a fence in territory that doesn't belong to it against the wishes of the people living in that territory....

Violet...

:shrug:

UN Peace Keepers were stationed in the buffer zone of Southern Lebanon. Is this what you're referring to, Blitz? When the Hizbollah fighters crowded into the UN buildings, or into buildings where civilians were given for safety? I think the UN personnel disappeared then. Maybe I can find a reference explaining the history of this battle.

Each day I read something that tears at my heart or tries my patience. And that's not even counting the continuing deaths on both sides in Iraq.

"If there were homicide bombers attacking the U.N., would they want security barriers?"

but they probably want it on their own property, rather than
thru somebody else's yard ...

...surrender of move out.

What would you suggest? I have discussed this until I am all out of answers.:shrug:

...before they get better.

They have already gotten so very bad. These people, on both sides, have been given hope so many times, just to see it snatched away. We need a permanent solution here. I haven't got the answers, but continue to post here in a spirit of hope.