12-07-2004, 20:23
|
||
|
Citaat:
 Eigenlijk wil ik hier helemaal niet over nadenken, bang dat ik zeg: dan wil ik m wel martelen totdat ie eindelijk gaat zeggen waar en hoe zodat mijn familielid of vriend niet het slachtoffer van zijn/haar terreurdaad gaat worden,......  10 paginas.. kun je t niet scannen? 
__________________
Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.
|
|
| Advertentie | |
|
|
|
|
12-07-2004, 21:36
|
||||
Verwijderd
|
Gatara schreef op 12-07-2004 @ 21:21 :
Citaat:
Citaat:
Citaat:
|
|||
|
12-07-2004, 21:49
|
||||
|
|
Citaat:
 Dus zonder barriere zouden er misschien hooguit 1 aanslag meer zijn gepleegd dan met barriere? het geweld en de haat van sommigen zal altijd blijven bestaan, vrees ik. Met of zonder muur. Op korte termijn geloof ik wel dat het effect heeft; op lange termijn vrees ik van niet. Citaat:
Het doden van Yassin en Rantisi?    sorry, inkoppertje. Citaat:
 Maar jammer dat er dan ook van die gewichten aan gaan hangen bij latere politieke beslissingen. Imo houdt het een goede oplossing alleen maar tegen omdat het juist meer haat, aversie en onbegrip creeert.
__________________
Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.
|
|||
|
12-07-2004, 22:16
|
||||
Verwijderd
|
Gatara schreef op 12-07-2004 @ 22:49 :
Citaat:
Citaat:
Maar heeft het geen andere oorzaak?Citaat:
|
|||
|
12-07-2004, 22:26
|
||||
|
|
Citaat:
dat sloeg op de kleine lettertjes of mijn vraag? Want mijn vraag was aan jou gericht als zijnde een mogelijke opheldering over wat jij had geschreven Citaat:
Ik kan me er niet één reden bedenken dat de extremistische Palestijnen heeft doen overtuigen dat het wel snor zit met de huidige Israelische regering. Citaat:
__________________
Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.
|
|||
|
13-07-2004, 10:22
|
||||
Verwijderd
|
Gatara schreef op 12-07-2004 @ 23:26 :
Citaat:
Citaat:
Citaat:
|
|||
|
13-07-2004, 18:07
|
||||
|
|
Citaat:
Ah. Nou, dan heb ik mijn antwoord al gegeven in kleine lettertjes hierboven ergen Citaat:
Geef eens een reden waarom ze dat zouden doen? Citaat:
__________________
Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.
|
|||
|
13-07-2004, 18:47
|
||||
Verwijderd
|
Gatara schreef op 13-07-2004 @ 19:07 :
Citaat:
Citaat:
Citaat:
|
|||
|
13-07-2004, 18:52
|
|||
|
|
Citaat:
m.b.t. dat laatste: ik mag hopen van niet Citaat:
Hoezo zou het normaal een conflict oplossen? Naar mijn weten is dit zowat de eerste keer en dus geen eerdere gevallen waaruit voortkwam dat het betreffende conflict wel opgelost werd?
__________________
Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.
|
||
|
13-07-2004, 19:05
|
||||
Verwijderd
|
Gatara schreef op 13-07-2004 @ 19:52 :
Citaat:
Citaat:
Citaat:
|
|||
|
13-07-2004, 19:39
|
||||
|
|
Citaat:
niet tijdens een intifada, meen ik mij te herinneren En deze intifada is heftiger vanuit Pal. zijde. Citaat:
ik hoor nog geen definitie Citaat:
ken ik niet
__________________
Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.
|
|||
|
13-07-2004, 19:51
|
|
|
|
Mijn excuses voor onderstaande lange artikelen
maar ze hebben betrekking op deze uitspraak van het ICJ aangaande de barriere. Het is afkomstig van www.bitterlemons.org een Palestijns-Israëlisch debat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The courts and the fence/wall" July 12, 2004 Edition 25 IN THIS ISSUE ================================ Palestinian view: >>< "Pathetic reactions by US, Israel" - by Ghassan Khatib Washington's dismissive reception of this opinion has a destructive effect on the ongoing Palestinian debate. Israeli view: >>< "A bitter lesson" - by Yossi Alpher In more than 50 pages of learned deliberations, Palestinian suicide bombings are not mentioned. Palestinian view: >>< "On kangaroos and courts" - by Diana Buttu Will the international community apply the power of law or the law of power? Israeli view: >>< "The Hague ignored the security aspect" - a conversation with Michael Eitan The fence has saved hundreds of Israeli lives and the same number of Palestinian lives. ================================ A PALESTINIAN VIEW Pathetic reactions by US, Israel by Ghassan Khatib ================================= The Palestinian people and leadership were quite confused and disappointed by the negative American official response to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision, simply because there are only two ways for Palestinians to achieve their objectives. One way is the approach that is promoted by the extremists: fighting by any possible means to defeat the occupation and the Israelis--regardless of any political, legal, or human consideration. The other path is based on pursuing legal methods and using international law. The Palestinian peace camp bases its demands and political program on the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and international law. Members of this camp have always tried to convince their fellow Palestinians that law is the language that the civilized world, especially the West, understands. We have argued that if we Palestinians want to attract the support of the international community, especially Europe and the United States, we have to pursue legal methods and procedures and to base our objectives on the parameters of international law and the relevant Security Council resolutions. Taking the issue of the wall to the ICJ in The Hague is an illustration of the approach the Palestinian peace camp promotes. Unfortunately, the dismissive and negative reception in Washington to this opinion has a very destructive effect on the ongoing debate between these two tendencies within the Palestinian society. In any case, the Palestinian people were encouraged by The Hague's decision and are determined to try to benefit from it on all possible levels. The way we read this legal finding goes beyond the issue of the wall. The decision, which came from the highest legal body in the world, has ended the debate over whether these territories--i.e., the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip--are disputed or occupied. In addition, this resolution ended any possibility of Israel claiming East Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It consolidated the Palestinian political and negotiating position that East Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territories, including settlements, are under illegal belligerent military occupation. The decision also reinforced the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied territories. The pathetic way in which Israeli officials reacted to this decision tried to link the idea of building the wall with the insecure situation inside Israel. They were helped in these arguments by the unfortunate explosion in Tel Aviv. However, these protestations neglected the fact that neither the Palestinians nor the ICJ has a problem with Israel building a security wall on Israeli territory or the border, rather than inside the occupied Palestinian territories.-Published 12/7/2004(c)bitterlemons.org Ghassan Khatib is coeditor of bitterlemons.org and bitterlemons-international.org. He is the Palestinian Authority minister of labor and has been a political analyst and media contact for many years. AN ISRAELI VIEW A bitter lesson by Yossi Alpher ================================= Two courts ruled on Israel's security fence project within a period of ten days. The difference between the two rulings is no less than cosmic, thereby demonstrating just how relative justice can be. The Israel High Court of Justice ruled on June 30 that Israel is entitled to build a security barrier on West Bank territory in order to defend itself against Palestinian suicide bombers. It has the right to employ security criteria in building the fence, but it is also responsible for the welfare of the Palestinian civilian population that is affected by the fence. Hence the need for proportionality, which dictates that in some areas the fence must be moved to accommodate Palestinian needs, even at the cost of Israeli security. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague ruled on July 9 that an Israeli "separation wall" built on occupied territory is illegal and must be dismantled. Those harmed by it must be compensated. The rest of the world must ensure that Israel complies. One can find fault with the Israel High Court for intervening so little and so late with regard to Israeli activities in the territories: for example, essentially ignoring the broader legal ramifications of the settlement movement. But its current ruling, which is binding upon the government, is an impressive exercise in judicial review regarding Israeli security considerations. The three High Court judges, led by Chief Justice Aharon Barak, were clearly cognizant of the delicate nature of their role: "We are aware that in the short term, this judgment will not make the state's struggle against those rising up against it easier. But . . . at the end of the day, a struggle according to the law will strengthen [Israel's] power and her spirit." In contrast, the ICJ's recommendation, entitled "Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied territories," appears to most Israelis as a parody of justice. Even the ICJ's insistence on calling the fence a "wall," when only about six percent of the structure built so far is wall and 94% fence, reflects the court's apparent disregard for the objective truth. Notably, the 15 justices at The Hague explain this semantic choice by citing the language of the United Nations General Assembly resolution that empowered it to discuss the "wall". (Even Secretary General Kofi Annan uses the term "barrier", not wall.) In other words, in case we forgot, the ICJ was acting as an arm of that most politicized of international bodies, the UN General Assembly, where the Arab bloc can command a majority on nearly any issue. Nor does the ICJ in any way even attempt to discuss Israel's security rationale for building a fence. In more than 50 pages of learned deliberation, Palestinian suicide bombings are not mentioned. Israel is told that it may not take measures to defend itself in the West Bank. At ground level, the net effect of the two rulings will be to move the fence back toward the green line. That is a welcome outcome; it should be applied in Jerusalem as well. To a major extent, the mess Israel finds itself in is a result of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's misbegotten settlement and fence-building policies. In retrospect it might also have benefited Israel to participate in the ICJ deliberations rather than boycott them: the result would probably have been the same, but at least we could have laid out the security rationale of the fence, rather than relying on the justices' total lack of understanding of the security issue. At the international political level, it is not at all clear whether or not the ICJ's recommendation will have practical consequences for Israel and Israelis. Will the approaching discussion of the court's recommendations in the General Assembly and possibly the UN Security Council succeed in casting Israel as a pariah state? Will Israeli fence-builders and fence-planners now be subject to prosecution abroad? Clearly the Palestinian Liberation Organization has won a political victory--but will the ICJ's condemnation of the fence also encourage suicide bombers to redouble their efforts to kill Israelis? Both court decisions find that Israel has abused the fence. The Israel High Court of Justice framed its balanced findings within the admirable determination that "satisfying the provision of the law is an aspect of national security." The ICJ effectively ignored Israel's national security. That is a bitter lesson for Israelis.- Published 12/7/2004(c)bitterlemons.org Yossi Alpher is coeditor of bitterlemons.org and bitterlemons-international.org. He is a former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University, and a former senior adviser to PM Ehud Barak. A PALESTINIAN VIEW On kangaroos and courts by Diana Buttu ================================= Even prior to its ruling on the illegality of the wall, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was denounced by Israeli government pundits as a "kangaroo court." After the ruling, one commentator opined, "The court is biased," while another proudly proclaimed that the ICJ decision would "find its place in the garbage can of history." The same stance was not, however, taken with respect to the Israel High Court decision. Justice Minister Yosef Lapid aptly summarized Israel's position on these two decisions: "We will comply with our High Court decisions, and not with the International Court, whose decision is in any case a legal opinion for the United Nations." Herein lies the fundamental problem: Israel reserves the right to act both as defendant and judge of any suit against it and will not accede to independent adjudication of its crimes. It would be easy to dismiss the decisions of the Israel High Court on the basis of its track record. This is the same court that has failed to outlaw completely the use of torture against Palestinians; legitimized the presence of Jewish-only colonies built on stolen Palestinian land (now a war crime under international law); and legitimized the demolition of homes of suspected offenders and their families as a form of punishment (a tactic also used by Saddam Hussein in Iraq). Yet this decision of the Israel High Court should not be dismissed outright. The court rightfully acknowledges that Israel is in "belligerent occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and correctly demands that Palestinians be compensated for Israel's illegal actions. In an eloquent statement, the court noted, "Only a separation fence built on a base of law will grant security to the state and its citizens. Only a separation route based on the path of law will lead the state to the security so yearned for." Remarkably, despite this statement, the High Court failed to do the very thing that it was asked to do--determine a wall route based on the law. Why? Not because of malice on the part of the court but due to the fact that the court is, in essence, adjudicating the very crime that its authorizing state claims is for its benefit. "Our task is difficult," Justice Barak writes, "We are members of Israeli society." This statement speaks volumes. In determining what impact Israel's actions have on Palestinians, the High Court examines only what is best for Israel (a country that was not only built on the dispossession of others but has, for 37 years, tried to expand its territory) and not the rights of the people subjugated by Israel. In other words, the application of international law (with its inherent principles of justice and equality) is optional, not obligatory. Because the Israel High Court views international law as optional, it fails to contest the military establishment's pronouncement that the wall is necessary. More importantly, the High Court fails to adjudicate the most important questions: Why has Israel not built the wall on its pre-occupation border (the green line)--a shorter and more easily defended line? What is the link between the wall and the colonies? If the wall is truly about security, why will the proposed path of the wall leave more than 200,000 Palestinians trapped between the wall and the green line? It is therefore not surprising that the High Court only confined itself to calling for moving (not removing) a mere 30 km of the wall (less than 5% of the total length of the wall) because of the "disproportionate injury" caused to the Palestinians. Juxtaposing the ICJ's decision with that of the Israel High Court, one can clearly see the far-reaching power of an independent ruling based on international law versus one based on domestic politics. The world court correctly pronounced on the most basic (yet disputed) issues faced by Palestinians: that Israel is, indeed, in occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (which Israeli government officials cannot even acknowledge); that the colonies are illegal, irrespective of whether they are in Jerusalem or otherwise; and that Israel has flagrantly violated the law for decades. The world court went further than simply restating the law--it applied it. By examining the current and proposed path of the wall, the 14-1 decision noted the following salient facts. The wall has been routed around not only the colonies but also their planned expansion, in an attempt to leave 80 percent of the settlers (320,000 Israelis) living in the West Bank colonies. More than 200,000 Palestinians would remain trapped between the wall and the green line. Of the more than 650-kilometer wall, only six percent (39 km) would be within 100 meters of the green line. Over 16% of the western side of the Occupied West Bank would be "de facto" annexed into Israel. With these staggering facts, the ICJ could only conclude that the wall built in occupied Palestinian territory is not there for military necessity; it is there to consolidate Israel's hold on the colonies. Though "security" is the proffered excuse, coveting Palestinian land (and water) is the real reason behind the wall. Because the colonies are illegal, so too is the very structure that is designed to ensure Israel's hold on them--the wall. Unlike the Israel High Court, the world court did not confine itself to a mere 30 km stretch of wall. It demanded that Israel demolish the entire wall built in occupied Palestinian territory; return the land, orchards, and olive groves it seized to build the wall; and pay compensation to Palestinians for all damages and losses. The victory of the World Court decision lies not in the decision itself but in the reframing of the conflict. No longer is this an issue of two equal parties who cannot get along; it is about Israel's 37-year military occupation and the inherent power imbalance. Many will dismiss the case as "non-binding," and indeed, the decision is non-binding. However, the decision is based on law that is binding: UN resolutions and international humanitarian law. Accordingly, the World Court's ruling affects not only Israel but also the international community. Israel has, for 56 years, viewed itself as above the law and the Palestinians beneath it. That will not change. Israel will continue to trample on the Palestinians' rights. It will continue to build Jewish-only colonies on Palestinian land, and it will continue to build the wall--unless it is stopped. The real test will be not what Israel does but what the international community will do: will it apply the power of law or the law of power? I recently relayed to a friend Israel's labeling of the World Court as a "kangaroo court." "If it is," he responded, "it is only because even a kangaroo would recognize that the wall is illegal." It is a pity that the Israel High Court did not.-Published 12/7/04(c)bitterlemons.org Diana Buttu is a legal advisor in the Negotiations Affairs Department of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. AN ISRAELI VIEW The Hague ignored the security aspect a conversation with Michael Eitan ================================= bitterlemons: How do you explain the radical difference between the fence decisions/recommendations of the Israel High Court of Justice and The Hague International Court of Justice? Eitan: The subject we are dealing with is not purely judicial. As a matter of fact, every judicial expert will tell you that you cannot disconnect the judicial process from its social, human, and economic environment. This is one of the cases that can demonstrate how two independent judicial systems come to different conclusions based on the same set of facts. The international court was constrained from the beginning by the way the case was presented for its judgment. The international court did not use the judicial tools that the Israeli court used. bitterlemons: Let's begin with the Israeli court. Eitan: The Israeli court used the mechanism of balancing between two principles and rights. On the one hand, the right of Israel to defend itself from terrorism, its right of self defense, and its humanitarian approach that justifies measures in order to save lives--and there is no doubt the fence has succeeded in saving lives. And on the other, the fact that the fence caused inconvenience and damage and was a massive intrusive element in the lives of groups of people. The question the Israeli court dealt with was the best route to balance these two factors. bitterlemons: And the international court? Eitan: The international court decided to concentrate on another issue and deal with the fence through the question of the rights of an occupying power. By ruling that Israel should destroy the present fence and move it to the green line, the international court took a one-sided and extreme decision that is political because it prefers the political aspect over the security aspect. bitterlemons: What could the Sharon government have done to prevent the decisions? Eitan: Regarding the Israel High Court of Justice decision, they could do nothing. Israel is a democracy committed to the rule of law, and High Court decisions are binding for the government. In The Hague, Israel had no chance of getting a fair and reasonable comprehensive approach to the problem. The whole idea of building the fence was a response to barbaric terrorist acts. Around 1000 Israelis were killed and thousands wounded before Israel started to build the fence. The court didn't mention this and did not note the terrorist phenomenon, which was the only reason to build the fence. As Israelis we can say that in spite of the inconvenience and even humanitarian suffering that the fence has caused to many Palestinians, it has saved hundreds of Israeli lives and the same number of Palestinian lives: after, every suicide bomber succeeds in taking Israeli lives, Israel responds by launching attacks on Palestinian villages and terrorist centers that also take a toll in Palestinian deaths. bitterlemons: What can the Knesset and your committee do in the current situation? Eitan: Our committee deals with many aspects of the Israeli presence in the West Bank. We try to do our best to maintain human rights even in the war against terrorism, and are supervising the conduct of the Israeli security forces in the West Bank and trying to influence this conduct according to morality and international law. When you are fighting terrorism you face very complex dilemmas. Now, after the courts have had their say, the issue becomes a political one. We have to remember that the Israeli court decision is binding on the Israeli government, but The Hague court decision is only a recommendation and doesn't bind Israel. The decision will be transferred to the international political arena, to the United Nations, presumably by the Palestinians and their supporters. This is the next arena where Israel will have to fight against the practical results, if there are any, using political tools. I hope that the many democracies that opposed or expressed reservations regarding The Hague judicial process will now make more effort to block any attempt by the UN to impose sanctions on Israel. bitterlemons: Will the fence end up on the green line? Eitan: I don't think it's possible for Israel. The Hague court didn't take into consideration the fact that there are many Jewish settlements near the green line that Israel should protect. There are more than 100,000 Jews living on territory that, according to international and Israeli law, is beyond the green line but is still under the authority and jurisprudence of the State of Israel. Taking this position and ignoring the political dispute is an attempt to isolate the judicial process from real life on the ground; it risks the lives of more than 100,000 Jews that are living adjacent to the green line, for whom the fence on its planned route is their only security guard. We have to take into consideration that almost everyone in the area and in the international community that has some involvement in the continuous dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelis knows that under any final status agreement this dense Jewish population will be included within the sovereignty of Israel. We are talking about territories that constitute perhaps four or five percent of the West Bank. -Published 12/7/2004(c)bitterlemons.org Member of Knesset (Likud) Michael Eitan is chairman of the Knesset Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee. To unsubscribe from bitterlemons.org e-mail list, simply write to unsubscribe@bitterlemons.org with "unsubscribe" in the subject line. Editors Ghassan Khatib and Yossi Alpher can be reached at ghassan@bitterlemons.org and yossi@bitterlemons.org, respectively. Bitterlemons.org is an internet newsletter that presents Palestinian and Israeli viewpoints on prominent issues of concern. Each edition addresses a specific issue of controversy. Bitterlemons.org maintains complete organizational and institutional symmetry between its Palestinian and Israeli sides. >><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
__________________
Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.
|
|
13-07-2004, 21:19
|
||||
Verwijderd
|
Gatara schreef op 13-07-2004 @ 20:39 :
Citaat:
Citaat:
Enfin, de daden die ik opnoemde zijn wel typerend voor een schurkenstaat. Citaat:
|
|||
|
13-07-2004, 21:25
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
1 staat die een gevaar vormt voor de wereldveiligheid Dus Israël is een schurkenstaat.
|
|
|
13-07-2004, 21:26
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
Probeer maar eens te bewijzen dat een staat een gevaar vormt voor de wereldveiligheid Waar hangt dat van af? etc.
__________________
Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.
|
|
|
13-07-2004, 22:29
|
||
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
13-07-2004, 22:39
|
|
|
|
Definitions of rogue state on the Web:
a Third World state that possesses weapons of mass destruction and sponsors terrorism www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
__________________
Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.
|
|
13-07-2004, 22:50
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
Israël is geen Derde Wereld-land, maar het heeft wel de nodige kernwapens en atoombommen in z'n kelders liggen en steunt terrorisme -staatsterrorisme.
|
|
|
13-07-2004, 23:31
|
||
|
Citaat:
ze verslaan natuurlijk bij lange schurkenstaat nr1 niet: Amerika. (@taalkwestie "rogue" slaat op 'losgeslagen', dit kan idd 'bandiet' of 'schurk' betekenen, maar net zo goed 'losgeslagen staat')
__________________
"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child." - Dan Quayle
|
|
|
14-07-2004, 11:58
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
14-07-2004, 16:52
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
14-07-2004, 16:56
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
14-07-2004, 17:02
|
|||
|
|
Citaat:
Citaat:
__________________
"Scriabins fifth and tenth piano sonata contain the most sublime organization of tones I have ever heard." - Shawn Lane
|
||
|
14-07-2004, 17:10
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
14-07-2004, 17:11
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
14-07-2004, 17:37
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
14-07-2004, 17:52
|
|
|
|
Goed. 1 visie heb ik iets ingekort en vertaald.
Een Palestijnse visie: Ghassan Khatib: "Er slechts twee manieren voor Palestijnen om hun doeleinden te bereiken: 1. vechten op elke mogelijke manier tegen de bezetting en de Israelis te verslaan, daarbij geen politieke, legale of menselijke overwegingen makend. 2. via legale methodes en gebruik makend van het internationale recht. Het Palestijnse vredeskamp baseert haar eisen en politieke programma op de relevante VN Veiligheidsraad resoluties en internationaal recht. Er wordt getracht van hieruit hun mede-Palestijnen ervan te overtuigen dat recht de taal is van de geciviliseerde wereld. Als we de steun willen krijgen van de internaitonale gemeenschap - en dan met name Europa en de VS - moeten we legale methodes en procedures gebruiken en onze doeleinden baseren op de parameters van international recht en de relevante VN resoluties. Het voorleggen van de zaak van de muur aan het ICJ in Den Haag is hier een illustratie van. Jammer genoeg heeft het negatieve en neerbuigende ontvangst van deze voorlegging in Washington een erg destructief effect op het huidige debat tussen deze twee kampen binnen de Palestijnse maatschappij. De Palestijnen werden aangemoedigd door de beslissing van Den Haag en vastbesloten om hiervan te profiteren op alle mogelijke manieren. De manier waarop we deze uitspraak lezen gaat ver buiten de zaak van de muur. Het besluit - dat afkomstig is van het hoogste legale instituut in de wereld - heeft een einde gemaakt aan het debat of de gebieden (Westelijke Jordaanoever (incl. Oost-Jeruzalem) en de Gazastrook) nu bezet of betwistbaar zijn. Deze resolutie beëindigde iedere mogelijkheid voor Israel om Oost-Jeruzalem te claimen als hoofdstad van Israel. Het versterkte de Palestijnse politieke en onderhanderlingspositie dat Oost-Jeruzalem en de rest van de bezette Palestijnse gebieden, inclusief de nederzettingen, onder illegale strijdlustige militaire bezetting vallen. De uitspraak versterkt ook de toepassingsmogelijkheid van de Vierde Geneve Conventie m.b.t. de bezette gebieden. Op lachwekkende wijze reageerde Israelische functionarissen op dit besluit door te trachten de idee van het bouwen van die muur te verbinden met de onzekere situatie binnen Israel. Ze werden geholpen door de ongelukkige explosie in Tel Aviv. Echter, deze protesten negeerden het feit dat noch de Palestijnen noch de ICJ een probleem heeft dat Israel een veiligheidsbarriere bouwt op Israelisch gebied of op de grens, in plaats van binnen de bezette Palestijnse gebieden.
__________________
Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.
|
|
14-07-2004, 18:44
|
||
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
14-07-2004, 21:37
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
uhm, is dit wel verwoord zoals bedoeld? hier staat dat noch het ICJ noch de Palestijnen een probleem hebben met die muur, niet echt de realiteit dacht ik.
__________________
"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child." - Dan Quayle
|
|
|
14-07-2004, 21:59
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
(zie boven voor de rest van de Engelse tekst)
__________________
Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.
|
|
|
14-07-2004, 23:14
|
|
|
|
ach so
contextkwestie, ik dacht dat er stond dat de muur gebouwd moet worden op palestijnse gebied, aangezien niemand daar een probleem mee zou hebben. nu dat dit is opgelost: back on topic. van mij mag israel muren bouwen zo hoog ze ze willen hebben, zolang dit maar op hun eigen gebied, en zonder mensen te schaden is.
__________________
"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child." - Dan Quayle
|
|
15-07-2004, 06:35
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
__________________
Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.
|
|
|
15-07-2004, 09:15
|
||||
|
|
Mijn antwoord op Ghassan Khatib:
Citaat:
Nu zou ik als ik Palestijns was me niet veel aantrekken van wat de VS van mening is in deze en gewoon vast blijven houden aan de principes van internationaal recht.Zij het niet dat mijn kritiek op het ICJ (zie pagina 1) overeind blijft staan en de Palestijnen hier maar eens over moeten gaan nadenken Dat de zaak eenzijdig belicht werd en hiermee te politiek werd, is ook geen goed voor het Internationaal Recht. Om mee te doen met de "geciviliseerde wereld zoals zij die als voorbeeld willen aannemen" (whatever that may be), moet je in eerste instantie bereid zijn om alle mogelijke argumenten aan te halen van zowel de ene partij als de andere partij en deze niet als "niet noodzakelijk" wegwimpelen om zo de uitspraak naar je hand te zetten.Op zich is het wel positief voor dit Palestijns vredeskamp dat de uitspraak positief was voor de Palestijnen, want dat geeft meer mogelijkheden tot een vreedzame oplossing. Zij het niet dat het hele ICJ imo een farce is. Citaat:
Njah, hier ben ik dan wat minder blij mee. Weet niet in hoeverre dit waar is dat er een einde is gemaakt aan het debat of het nu bezet of betwistbaar is. Imo is het nog steeds betwistbaar.Citaat:
__________________
Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.
|
|||
|
15-07-2004, 11:01
|
|
|
|
Ik weet nog wel dat ik een voorlichter van de Israelische regering op tv zag vlak nadat de uitspraak gedaan was. Hij begon te praten over de holocaust en hoe Europe helemaal niets gedaan had om de joden te beschermen blablabla en die muur was het enige dat een nieuwe holocaust kon verkomen. En weer vond Europe dat best.
Ze beschermen dus gewoon illegale nederzettingen door de muur in palestijns gebied te bouwen. Dat is ook weer landje-pik en gewoon een grove provocatie.
__________________
"Scriabins fifth and tenth piano sonata contain the most sublime organization of tones I have ever heard." - Shawn Lane
|
|
15-07-2004, 11:05
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
(nouja, volgens ghassan khatib zorgt de uitspraak van ICJ ervoor dat er een einde is gemaakt aan het debat of het nu bezet of betwistbaar is, maar dat moet ik nog maar zien) m.a.w. je kunt t opvatten als provocatie, maar ook net zo goed niet.
__________________
Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.
|
|
|
15-07-2004, 11:09
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
15-07-2004, 11:14
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
__________________
Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.
|
|
|
15-07-2004, 11:27
|
|
Verwijderd
|
De holocaust is net zo'n non-argument als het Israëlische geweld is voor de Palestijnse terreurorganisaties.
|
|
15-07-2004, 14:07
|
|
|
|
De enige partijen die die grond betwistbaar vind is Israel en de VS.
__________________
"Scriabins fifth and tenth piano sonata contain the most sublime organization of tones I have ever heard." - Shawn Lane
|
|
15-07-2004, 14:33
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
15-07-2004, 17:14
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
Niet honderden jaren geleden. Maar zelfs als het honderden jaren geleden was, dan was het nog niet vergelijkbaar. Vergeet niet dat de "eerste oplossing van het jodenprobleem" van de nazi's het stichten van een staat waar joden gedumpt konden worden (gedwongen emigratie). Dat was ook de reden waarom nazis met zionisten dingen afspraken en waarom eichmann bv. verzot was op Herzl. Dus m.a.w. de stichting van de staat Israel is waarschijnlijk niet los te denken van de holocaust. Anyway, gezien de reacties die het te weeg brengt - "heb je hun weer" - was het geen goed idee
__________________
Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.
|
|
|
15-07-2004, 17:15
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
__________________
Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.
|
|
|
21-07-2004, 07:59
|
|
|
|
VN vragen Israël muur neer te halen
Uitgegeven: 21 juli 2004 07:14 Laatst gewijzigd: 21 juli 2004 07:15 NEW YORK - De Algemene Vergadering van de Verenigde Naties (VN) heeft dinsdag Israël verzocht de omstreden veiligheidsmuur op de Westelijke Jordaanoever neer te halen. De Arabische landen hadden een ontwerpresolutie ingediend, waarin Israël werd opgeroepen zich neer te leggen bij de uitspraak van het Internationaal Gerechtshof (ICJ) in Den Haag om de veiligheidsbarrière af te breken. De stemming werd dinsdag tot tweemaal toe uitgesteld door Nederland. De Nederlandse vertegenwoordiging vroeg namens de Europese Unie om uitstel zodat de EU een gezamenlijk standpunt kon bepalen. De door de Palestijnen opgestelde ontwerpresolutie werd na een amendement van de EU uiteindelijk met 150 tegen zes stemmen aangenomen. Tien landen onthielden zich van stemming. Israël en de Verenigde Staten stemden tegen de resolutie, terwijl alle EU-leden voor stemden. Amerikanen De Amerikaanse ambassadeur bij de VN, James Cunningham, waarschuwde ervoor dat de resolutie onevenwichtig is. De resolutie zou het onmogelijk maken dat Israëliërs en Palestijnen ooit nog vreedszaam naast elkaar kunnen leven. De stemming betekent een opsteker voor de Palestijnen. Deze hadden vorige week de Algemene Vergadering opgeroepen gehoor te geven aan de uitspraak van het Internationaal Gerechtshof de muur weg te halen. Volgens het ICJ is de muur in strijd met het volkenrecht en daarom illegaal. De muur staat grotendeels op Palestijns grondgebied dat sinds de oorlog van 1967 door Israël bezet wordt gehouden. Noodzaak Israël zegt dat de muur een tijdelijke noodzaak is om zelfmoordcommando's buiten de deur te houden. De Israëlische vertegenwoordiger bij de VN, Dan Gillerman, reageerde teleurgesteld op de uitkomst. "Deze resolutie kan slechts de werkelijke vijanden van de Israëliërs en Palestijnen aanmoedigen", aldus Gillerman. De uitspraak van de Algemene Vergadering is vooral symbolisch en verplicht Israël tot niets. Het geeft wel de opinie weer van de internationale gemeenschap. Israël heeft al eerder laten weten de uitspraak van het ICJ, die eveneens niet bindend is, te negeren en door te gaan met de aanleg van de 700 kilometer lange muur. http://nu.nl/news.jsp?n=363337&c=23 ----------------------------------------- UN Assembly votes overwhelmingly to demand Israel comply with ICJ ruling Emergency Special Session on Occupied Palestinian Territory 20 July 2004 – The United Nations General Assembly today voted overwhelmingly to demand that Israel comply with an advisory opinion issued earlier this month by the World Court, which declared the construction of a separation barrier in and around the West Bank to be illegal. In adopting a resolution by a vote of 150 to 6, with 10 abstentions, the Assembly also called on all UN Member States to comply with its obligations as contained in the finding by International Court of Justice (ICJ), which include a duty "not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem" and "not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction." On 9 July the ICJ - the UN's principal judicial organ - issued an advisory opinion saying the separation barrier was illegal and that construction must stop immediately. The Court also said Israel should make reparations for any damage caused, and that the Assembly and the Security Council should consider what steps to take "to bring to an end the illegal situation" created by the barrier. The resolution, brought forward by Jordan on behalf of the Arab States, also asks Secretary-General Kofi Annan to set up a register of all damage caused to "all the natural or legal persons" in connection with Israel's construction of the barrier. The Assembly called on both the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority to immediately implement their obligations under the Road Map peace plan sponsored by the UN, European Union, Russian Federation and United States, which calls for a series of parallel and reciprocal steps by each party leading to two States living side-by-side in peace by 2005. Voting against the measure were Australia, the Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, the Marshall Islands, Palau and the United States. The countries that abstained were Cameroon, Canada, El Salvador, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Uganda, Uruguay and Vanuatu. Speaking after the voting, Israel's representative voiced appreciation for those countries that had opposed the measure as well as those that had “tried to introduce some semblance of balance into the text.” Israel, he said, was not above the law and would continue to review the fence's route to protect the human rights of the Palestinians, but it rejected attempts to politicize the law. The Observer for Palestine expressed thanks to the Assembly for the “magnificent results” that had been achieved in support of international law as well as peace and reconciliation in the Middle East. Calling the ICJ opinion “historic,” he voiced confidence that all Member States would implement the resolution's provisions with utmost seriousness. The representative of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU), registered opposition to the route of the barrier. But the EU disagreed with elements of the advisory opinion and supported Israel's right to act in self-defence. The most important step was for all sides to desist from further violence. The resolution's adoption today culminated a resumed emergency session which began on Friday, with consultations on the draft continuing until the last moment. Just before the vote, the sponsors announced revisions to the text which would, among others, call on “the Palestinian Authority to undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks, and the Government of Israel to take no actions undermining trust, including deportations and attacks on civilians and extrajudicial killings.” http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...iddle&Cr1=east ------------------- Ik kan de resolutie niet vinden Het is verouderde info op de website van de algemene vergadering van de VN (zucht). Eigenlijk pas als ik de resolutie lees, kan ik een opinie vormen, imo
__________________
Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.
|
|
21-07-2004, 08:31
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
Misschien was dat helemaal geen slecht idee geweest in ieder geval voor de "ongewenste" (voor mij: radicale) joden. Laat alle in het buitenland wonende joden maar een bewijsje halen dat ze daar meer dan welkom zijn, dan kunnen we de radicale figuren mooi naar dat dumplandje sturen.... kunnen ze daar mooi muurtjes bouwen [/provocatie-mode]
|
|
|
21-07-2004, 08:44
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
__________________
Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.
|
|
|
21-07-2004, 08:49
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
)hadden we nu ook niet met dat gezeur van het anti-semitisme gezeten
|
|
|
21-07-2004, 08:55
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
__________________
Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.
|
|
|
21-07-2004, 09:12
|
|
|
|
volgens mij bedoelen we net iets anders...
|
|
21-07-2004, 09:55
|
|
|
|
Wat bedoel jij?
__________________
Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.
|
|
21-07-2004, 10:32
|
|||
|
|
Citaat:
Citaat:
|
||
| Advertentie |
|
|
 |
«
Vorige topic
|
Volgende topic
»
|
|
Alle tijden zijn GMT +1. Het is nu 14:13.
Adverteren