its a ray of hope that the ICJ [International Court Of Justice] has given a decission against building the wall between Palestine and Israel
it shows that truth is still alive in some forms
But the Israeli PM Sharon vows to keep building the controversial barrier
i wanted to have ur opinion on this issue
and and u can view the advisory opinion of ICJ on the link given below
where the full text of the ruling can be had
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm
no one interested
no replies 
dont u guys feel ANYTHING good or bad about that wall ???
Good walls makes good neighbors. :k:
It aint a good wall and Israel has never been a good neighbor to anyone. There is a reason they were kicked out of every country they have lived in........
Israel has shown that she couldn't care less about international institutions like ICJ. And it has full US support for this behavior. While Israel's position has been a moral disaster for a while, this has confirmed that it is illegal as well. The whole thing is quite unfortunate. Its clear that Israel presented its viewpoint to the ICJ but it was rejected by the international court. Too bad ICJ or the world has no will to impose its decisions.
There is a reason why some are labelled racist and intolerant.
Looks like Israel is backing down a bit, but will still go beyond 1967 borders. It seems the Palestinians will have to bargain for the land if the parties ever sit down and talk again.
Israel begins redrawing security barrier](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5429199/)
Cartographers have begun moving the planned route of the West Bank separation barrier closer to Israel, in line with an Israeli court ruling that the government must reduce hardships for the Palestinians, officials said Tuesday.
Later this week, planners will present three different options for a new route to the Defense Ministry for approval, security officials said on condition of anonymity. All three routes are significantly closer to Israel than the original path.
Semi, did you ever stop to think that why is it that only friend Israel has is US? Why is the whole world against their illeagl tactics? I am sure you believe that whole world is wrong....but for God's sake once in a while be fair and realize that everything israel does is not kosher (pun intended).
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Israel has shown that she couldn't care less about international institutions like ICJ. And it has full US support for this behavior. While Israel's position has been a moral disaster for a while, this has confirmed that it is illegal as well. The whole thing is quite unfortunate. Its clear that Israel presented its viewpoint to the ICJ but it was rejected by the international court. Too bad ICJ or the world has no will to impose its decisions.
[/QUOTE]
This is part of the problem with the ICJ to begin with. People don't understand what it is permitted to do and what, if anything, its rulings mean. In this case, the ICJ only had jurisdiction to issue a ** non-binding opinion. ** The non-binding opinion does NOT have the force of law and there is not an enforcement mechanism that is available nor was it ever intended that such a non-binding decision would be enforced by anyone.
I could throw a bunch of law students together and have them issue a non-binding opinion and it would carry with it the very same practical effect of the ICJ ruling: i.e. nothing.
The more important court decision was the one issued by the Israeli Supreme Court because that one has the force of law and has restrained Sharon somewhat from his original plan for the wall. As pointed out by Seminole, that decision is having a practical effect of getting the wall closer to the 1967 borders.
myvoice, you can argue till the proverbial cows come home that ICJ had no authority in this matter and has non-binding rulings. The fact of the matter is that extremely learned legal professionals from both sides presented their case and very experienced judges sitting in the ICJ decided against Israel. Whether their ruling is non-binding or binding, the fact is the barrier, in its present form, is declared illegal.
The reality of the 1967 war is that Israel has already given back 97% of the land captured, specifically to Jordan and Egypt.
I have always viewed the "land grab" more as a bargaining chip a permanent border. That was also the view of the ICJ. They feared that the wall could become a self-fulfilling prophesy. I have always viewed the settlements in the same way. There were similar settlements in the Sinai, and these were dismantled befor the land was given back.
Let's face it, in the Middle East they haggle. Every street vendor wants to bargain. The excess land beyond the Green Line is meant to be dealt away.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
This is part of the problem with the ICJ to begin with. People don't understand what it is permitted to do and what, if anything, its rulings mean. In this case, the ICJ only had jurisdiction to issue a ** non-binding opinion. ** The non-binding opinion does NOT have the force of law and there is not an enforcement mechanism that is available nor was it ever intended that such a non-binding decision would be enforced by anyone.
I could throw a bunch of law students together and have them issue a non-binding opinion and it would carry with it the very same practical effect of the ICJ ruling: i.e. nothing.
The more important court decision was the one issued by the Israeli Supreme Court because that one has the force of law and has restrained Sharon somewhat from his original plan for the wall. As pointed out by Seminole, that decision is having a practical effect of getting the wall closer to the 1967 borders.
[/QUOTE]
Here we go again, MV is here to tell us what the meaning of "is" is? Come on MV, give us a break, so ICJ rulings are non binding, what about UN resolutions...are they binding and enforced when Isarel is involved? Usually no becasue US pulls out a veto card.
same old...
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
myvoice, you can argue till the proverbial cows come home that ICJ had no authority in this matter and has non-binding rulings. The fact of the matter is that extremely learned legal professionals from both sides presented their case and very experienced judges sitting in the ICJ decided against Israel. Whether their ruling is non-binding or binding, the fact is the barrier, in its present form, is declared illegal.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. The fact of the matter is that a group of learned legal professionals presented their case and another group of learned legal professionals issued their opinion that the wall is illegal as being constructed. AND.....now what??? While their opinion may sway others to adopt or share that opinion, what does it do??? Their opinion has no greater practical legal effect than your own opinion. It does not create any binding international law and it is not enforceable.
What you end up with is a bunch of people who are ignorant of the differences between UN Security Council Resolutions and a non-binding opinion of the ICJ and try to equate the two.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kaleem: *
Here we go again, MV is here to tell us what the meaning of "is" is? Come on MV, give us a break, so ICJ rulings are non binding, what about UN resolutions...are they binding and enforced when Isarel is involved? Usually no becasue US pulls out a veto card.
[/QUOTE]
Try to follow the bouncing ball. UN Security Council Resolutions enacted in conformity with the UN Charter carry the force of law as to the UN Members and are enforceable in accordance with the terms of the UN Charter and the terms of the Resolution. This applies to Israel as well as every other UN Member state. Fact is, the UN Security Council has not adopted a Resolution that demands Israel must do something or face some agreed upon UN sanction/action. At least you got your vetoes right this time. You'll find a few US vetoes dealing with Israel. Any luck yet on finding some dealing with Iraq???
Glad to see the Miami Herald putting it down in black & white. The spinless pro-zionist leaders of USA just don’t get it, do they? Beacon of democracy and justice?? Note the last sentence of this article.
"Support for Wall Mocks International Law
…
What is most remarkable about the International Court of Justice decision on Israel’s ‘‘security barrier’’ in the West Bank is the strength of the consensus behind it.
…
One might expect the government of Ariel Sharon to wave off this notable consensus as an ‘‘immoral and dangerous opinion.’’ But one might expect the United States – even as it backed its ally Israel – at least to take account of the court’s reasoning in its criticisms. Instead, both the Bush administration and leading Democrats, including Senators John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, mindlessly rejected the decision.
Even the American justice in The Hague, Thomas Buergenthal, was careful in his lone dissent.
…
The nuance in Buergenthal’s narrow dissent contrasts sharply with, for instance, Kerry’s categorical statement that Israel’s barrier ``is not a matter for the ICJ.‘’
To the contrary, Israel’s construction of the wall in the West Bank has flagrantly violated clear standards in international law.
…
If Israel had erected the wall on its side of the boundary of Israel prior to the 1967 war, then it would not have encroached on Palestinian legal rights. The court’s logic assumes the unconditional applicability of international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, to Israel’s administration of the West Bank and Gaza (a principle affirmed by Judge Buergenthal). That body of law obliges Israel to respect the property rights of Palestinians without qualification, and to avoid altering the character of the territory, including by population transfer.
The decision creates a clear mandate. The ICJ decision, by a vote of 13-2, imposes upon all states an obligation not to recognize ‘‘the illegal situation’’ created by the construction of the wall. This is supplemented by a 14-1 vote urging the General Assembly and Security Council to ``consider what further action is required to bring an end to the illegal situation.‘’
Such a plain-spoken ruling from the characteristically cautious International Court of Justice will test the respect accorded international law, including U.S. willingness to support international law despite a ruling against its ally. The invasion of Iraq and the continuing scandals have already tarnished the reputation of the United States as a law-abiding member of the international community. When U.S. officials dismiss the nearly unanimous ICJ decision without even bothering to engage its arguments, America’s reputation suffers further. In fact, elsewhere in the world, U.S. repudiation of this decision can only entrench existing views of America as an international outlaw.
Richard Falk is the Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice, Princeton University. "