TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Human Rights of Israelis.
The Human Rights of Israelis.
www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/ cst-edt-bayef25.html
February 26, 2004, The Human Rights of Israelis.
What the International Court of Justice has not been asked, By Anne Bayefsky
The International Court of Justice in the Hague is being asked by the U.N. General Assembly to provide advice on the "legal consequences" of Israel's security fence. Predating the request for such advice, was a November report from U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan detailing the harm done to Palestinians said to result from the fence and a December 2003 General Assembly resolution already deciding that the fence violates international law. The question before the court has therefore been carefully crafted to elicit a list of negative human-rights consequences for Palestinians.
One element, however, is missing: the human rights of Israelis. Secretary General Annan's report does not describe a single terrorist act against Israelis. The same 2003 General Assembly which decried the fence was also marked by its refusal to adopt a resolution on the rights of Israeli children � after passing one on Palestinian children.
The U.N. message is clear � the human rights of Israelis are not part of the equation. If they were, the legal balancing act would be this: On the one hand, suicide-bombing violates the following rights and freedoms of Israelis � all derived from international human rights treaties ratified by Israel: the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, the right to equality and freedom from persecution, security of the person, the right to health and well-being, the right to safe working conditions, the right to work, freedom from incitement to violence or war, freedom of religion, the right to the protection of the family, the right to the protection of the child, the right to education, freedom of movement, the right to vote, freedom of association, the right to an adequate standard of living and the right of self-determination.
Suicide bombings (along with other terrorist acts) target Israelis at work, at play, at worship, and in transit, anywhere, anytime. They have been hit in synagogues, at bar mitzvahs, at Passover seders, moving from home to work or to school, while voting, gathering with friends in public places, in restaurants, cafes, and discotheques, in their homes and in their bedrooms. They kill and maim children and adults, women and men. They destroy health and any chance for happiness or well-being.
The violation of human rights by suicide bombing, starting with the right to life, falls within the category of the gravest human-rights violations in international law: It is a crime against humanity � according to the definitions in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the Statute of the International Criminal Court, as well as reports of organizations such as Amnesty International. The major human-rights instruments also render it an attempt at genocide or "the commission of acts with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."
The violation of the right to life by suicide bombing fits one other label of modern times � ethnic cleansing, or the systematic removal of a group of people identified by ethnicity from a certain area through killing or forced migration. Suicide-bombing kills some Israelis, encourages others to leave the country, and discourages Jews from visiting or immigrating. The specific intent is to ethnically cleanse the area of Jews, a fact which has already been accomplished in all other neighboring Arab states, and most other Arab and Muslim countries.
So on the one hand, Israelis are subject to crimes against humanity, attempted genocide, and an effort to accomplish ethnic cleansing. International treaties demand that Israel protect the human rights of its citizens, just as the government of any country would be expected to protect its citizens from the most grievous offences known to humankind.
What about the other hand � the rights of Palestinians? Suicide- bombing also violates the rights of Palestinians. It violates the right of Palestinian children not to take part in hostilities. Palestinian children having been used as suicide bombers and armed combatants, their right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and their entitlement to the protection and care necessary for their well-being, have also been violated. The Convention on the Rights of the Child says "the education of the child shall be directed to ...the development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms...[and] for civilizations different from his or her own.., [and] for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance... among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups". The right of the Palestinian child to an education which promotes tolerance and respect is violated by Palestinian media, schools, textbooks, posters, and summer camps � all of which routinely encourage Palestinian children to hate, and to harm their neighbors.
Palestinians have other rights which have been limited or infringed, like the right to work and freedom of movement. These rights are limited or infringed, however, not by Israel's fence, but by the terrorists who live and operate among them. If an armed robber takes a hostage and in the course of the crime the hostage is killed by police, the law states that the death of the hostage has been caused by the robber, not the police. For if there was no armed robbery, the hostage would not have been harmed. If there were no terrorism, there would be no fence � and no "consequences of the fence" as the International Court has been asked to state in isolation from the acts that preceded it. The Palestinian civilian population is hostage to the terrorists and suicide-bombers among them. Israel's actions, like those of the police officer, are taken in fulfillment of its legal responsibilities to protect and end violent and illegal behavior.
The language of human rights is one of the most powerful political currencies of our times. That is why terrorists attempt to use it to their own ends, and claim victimhood for violations for which they are responsible. The International Court of Justice is at a crucial juncture in its history: to become another weapon in the terrorists' arsenal or to reject the gross abuse of the rule of law and the attempt to deny the equal value of the human rights of Israelis.
� Anne Bayefsky is an adjunct professor of law at Columbia Law School.
I must say that the above is a rather weak argument, specifically her justification for "the consequences of the fence":
"If an armed robber takes a hostage and in the course of the crime the hostage is killed by police, the law states that the death of the hostage has been caused by the robber, not the police. For if there was no armed robbery, the hostage would not have been harmed. If there were no terrorism, there would be no fence � and no "consequences of the fence" as the International Court has been asked to state in isolation from the acts that preceded it. The Palestinian civilian population is hostage to the terrorists and suicide-bombers among them. Israel's actions, like those of the police officer, are taken in fulfillment of its legal responsibilities to protect and end violent and illegal behavior."
Using this exact same logic, one can easily and convincingly argue that suicide bombings are in retaliation to the brutal occupation of the Occupied Territories by Israel.
In fact, suicide bombing is a rather recent phenomenon. The first suicide bombing inside Israel/Occupied territories was in 1994:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/3256858.stm
(and furthemore, that was in retaliation to Baruch Goldstein killing 29 Palestinians that were praying in a mosque.)
At any rate, using her logic, suicide bombings would not have occured if Israel wasn't occupying the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, a fact that can supported in many ways, including the trivial yet factual point that the beginning of the Occupation (breach of UNSC resolution 242) oudates (1967) the first suicide bombing (1994).
Epicurus, Baruch Goldstein was one incident. How the heck are you going to compare 1 incident to 20,000 Arab terrorist attacks against Israel in the last 3 years.
Number 2, from 48 to 67, the Arabs had these territories and there were thousands of terrorist attacks against Israel.
Lastly, the Palestinians want all of Israel. They think by a campaign of mass murder against Israeli civilians will accomplish that.
There is no circle of violence. The Palestinian terror organizations will continue to send suicide terrorists to Israeli cities no matter what Israel does. Its Israel's existence which is the reason they send homicide bombers.
http://beta.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1039225/posts
Dec 12, 03
Islamic Jihad leader Shaik Nafez Azzam on making peace
"You the Jews are invited to live in safety in Palestine, the whole" "But until then the terror attacks will continue. The Jihad will agree to 1967 border, and will continue to resistance from there to liberate all 1948 lands."
http://tinyurl.com/y4xm
FATEH Statement on Geneva Accord, 1 December 2003
We remind those who play with the future of our people that an independent Palestinian State on the 1967 occupied land is not part of the strategic consensus, but only a transition program adopted by the PLO at the 1974 meeting of the Palestinian National Council (PNC).
1974 Phased Plan http://tinyurl.com/y4xy
Arafat said, since we cannot defeat Israel in war we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."
Hamas on making peace. Dec. 8, 2003
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satell...d=1070512329377
We are not ready to give them (the Palestinian Authority) authorization to sign a new agreement," said senior Hamas official Mohammed Nazzal. Nazzal also made
clear his group's stance towards the Jewish state. ""Every centimeter of the land of Palestine from 1948 onwards is occupied land and we will continue our resistance against Israeli targets in every place.
On Arafat's Fateh site, it says this about Arafat's constitution. http://www.fateh.net/e_public/constitution.htm
Article (19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.
www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
The principles of the Hamas are stated in their Covenant. On Hamas charter, it says.
Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it.
http://www.iris.org.il/quotes/stockhlm.htm
Arafat's speech in Sweden in 1996.
Arafat�s speech in front of 40 Arab diplomats in the Grand Hotel in Stockholm, Sweden, on January 30, 1996. Was called "The Impending Collapse of Israel".
Arafat said, you understand that we plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State. I have no use for Jews; they are and remain Jews. We now need all the help we can get from you in our battle for a united Palestine under total Arab-Muslim domination!"
http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/publ...Article-27.html
The Late Faisal Husseini: Oslo Is A Trojan Horse
In Husseini's last interview with the the popular Egyptian newspaper el Arav in 2001.
Husseini said, it is the obligation of all the Palestinian forces and factions to see the Oslo Accords as "temporary" steps or "gradual" goals, because in this way, "We are setting an ambush for the Israelis and cheating them."
He also differentiated between, "strategic," long term, "higher" goals, and "political," short term goals dependent on "the current international establishment, balance of power, capabilities, and variable considerations that change from time to time." Nevertheless, the Palestinians have been forced to temporarily concentrate on "gradual diplomatic goals." However, the main goal is the "liberation of all Palestine from the river (Jordan) to the sea (Mediterranean)," even if this requires a struggle that will continue "1,000 years, or generations upon generations."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satell...d=1027506446043
In one of many interviews from his comfortable home in Gaza City, Hamas "spiritual" leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was asked by the Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera why Hamas targets civilians, such as university students, he explained, "They are considered by us to be enemy soldiers." Asked whether bombing at Hebrew University was in response to Israel's killing of its top terrorist mastermind, Salah Shehadeh, Yassin responded, "We don't operate that way. These are not acts of retribution. We do not struggle out of revenge, but rather to liberate our land." Finally, when asked whether Hamas would be satisfied with an Israeli withdrawal to its pre-June 1967 borders, Yassin stated, "Israel was born in violence and it will die in violence. The Jews have no right to the land of Palestine."
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=14650
Monday, November 25, 2002
The Hamas advocates Killing Jews, simply for being Jews
24 November 2002
The Iz-Adin Al Qassam Brigades, the military wing of the Hamas, published (23 November 2002) a bulletin on their official website, advocating the murder of Jews simply for the fact of that they are Jews.
The bulletin was published to commemerate the anniversary of the death of Imad Akal, a senior Hamas official, killed in the Gaza Strip on November 24, 1993. The bulletin quotes Akal as saying: "We will knock on the doors of Heaven with the skulls of the Jews". The bulletin depicts an axe shattering the word "Al-Yahud" (Jews) and splintering the skulls of Jews. The words Al-Qassam are engraved on the axe.
Vanfleet, what you fail to understand is that Israel does far worse than these arab peasants.
THey have artillary and a military against people fighting with man made bombs and molotov cocktails.
What you see as "retaliation" i see as STATE TERROR.
Israel has not only killed people within Israel/palestine, lets not forget Lebenon, Syria and the attack in Tunis!
VanFleet...You've obviously missed the point of my reply...I was simply highlighting the MAJOR glaring weakness in her argument.
Again, I quote:
"If there were no terrorism, there would be no fence � and no "consequences of the fence" as the International Court has been asked to state in isolation from the acts that preceded it."
Using her logic, there would be no suicide bombs if there was no occupation as I previously remarked. Furthermore, if you wish to mention the "thousands" of terrorist acts committed against Israel between 1948-1967, then you only need to refer to Israel's MAIN terroristic act which was driving the Palestinian population out of their homeland to the tune of 750 000 people...In other words, if the Israelis hadn't kicked out the Palestinian population, there would have been no "terroristic acts"...I hope you see the logic...
My point is simple, her argument rests on her dissenting with the abstraction of a certain event in time "in isolation from the acts that preceded it", yet SHE perpetartes the same error that she levels at her opposition when she abstracts the concept of terrorism in isolation of the facts that preceded it (see above)
As for the rest of your post, I'll try to address some points quickly as I need to get to my paper...
"Epicurus, Baruch Goldstein was one incident. How the heck are you going to compare 1 incident to 20,000 Arab terrorist attacks against Israel in the last 3 years."
I simply used that example to frame in time the occurence of the first suicide bomb (1994) in Israel/OT...I used "furthermore" in reference to the Goldtein event, which indicates that I viewed it merely as superfluous to the thesis I presented after, and not in any way essential to the argument I was constructing...Thus, I never compared nor insinuated a comparison in my post (re-read it)...
As for your 20 000 attacks, I see no evidence or links for that so I'll simply treat it as exaggerated hyperbole on your part.
"Number 2, from 48 to 67, the Arabs had these territories and there were thousands of terrorist attacks against Israel."
You'd think they would be pissed at getting kicked out of their land don't you 
As for more claims of thousands of attacks
, why do you fail to mention the massacres and atrocities commited by the Irgun, Stern gangs etc in that same period?
Although I can't pin-point thousands of those, I will point out two (amongst many) in particular. I refer here specifically to the Deir Yassin massacre, and the King David hotel bombings, amongst the many "terroristic" attacks committed by the Israelis.
http://www.deiryassin.org/mas.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombin...ing_David_Hotel
"Lastly, the Palestinians want all of Israel. They think by a campaign of mass murder against Israeli civilians will accomplish that."
More unsubstantiated propaganda...Sure, there are those that support Islamic Jihad and Hamas (which are what ALL your links referred to) that would like to see the "Jews driven into the sea"...But, you are basically associating all Palestinians with Islamic Jihad or Hamas, (which are the only ones that "want all of Israel") when you say "The Palestinians want all of Israel"...just like any generalization, by definition, it's false so I need not comment further on that...
At any rate, enjoy...
Epi Says: "VanFleet...You've obviously missed the point of my reply...I was simply highlighting the MAJOR glaring weakness in her argument. "
Epicurus the major glaring weakness in your argumen: There would be no "hostage" if the hostage was never born, sand hence isn't it the hostages own fault for being a hostage in the first place and for that matter being born at all? The hostage should defintely be blamed for its own birth which was a direct cause of its own death, because if he could never be born, it would never die.
Obviously you need a statue of limitations on such things, or a brain capable of discretion, your choice.
as for Human Rights of Israelis, I'm all for them... you should give us more rights.. all your rights, and patents, yes your patents too! And your wives (only if they be sexy), and your gold yargh! gold!
Of course you need a statue of limitations on such things, and the statue of limitation that I had originally chosen was that of the Occupation in 1967...at my discretion of course
As for my major flaw, you've simply proven my major point
Had no time to read this thread but restricting walls can't never be the solution. This reminds me of the Berlin Wall. They all will be brought down.
If it was about preventing terrorism the fence would have been built inside Israel proper. Then the palestinians wouldnt be able to take them to the Hague. Inside Israel proper the Israelis could build as many walls they want. The issue is whether building the wall in the Occupied Territories is a breach of international law.
The intent of the wall is to annex land that does not belong to it to Israel
| quote: |
| They all will be brought down. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.