But, Karol, every credible organization has condemned the wall as something that's going to just exacerbate the problem. It's not that Jews shouldn't fight against being murdered, but they don't have the right to fight however they please -- nor the moral imperative. Sure, they could kill every single Palestinian, just to be safe. But would we accept that just because it is "fighting against being murdered"?

I support Israel's fight against terrorists, but that doesn't mean I have to support every decision they make to that desired end.

Candace, what matters to me is that the number of terrorist attacks in Israel has dropped drastically since the building of the wall. I could care less what 'credible organizations' think. They're not the ones whose children are dying.

What credible organizations? I've read tons of criticism over the wall, but never from anyone who struck me as seriously committed to Israel's right to self-preservation.

Looking at the (purported) excerpts of the actual decision that have been leaked thus far, it seems like the ICJ was more concerned with the route of the wall than the presence of the wall. (Indeed, the ICJ would have no jurisdiction had the wall been built within Israel or along its international borders.)

I do think the decision to build outside the internationally-recognized boundaries of Israel was made knowing that it would violate international law. The Israeli government simply didn't care - it was more concerned with safety of Israelis than the opinion of an international court that has no means of enforcing its rulings. While I personally don't think the wall should have been built how/where it was, wholesale condemnation seems misguided.

Absolutely right Karol.

The “international law” set are not angry that the wall is up; they are angry that the wall is effective in saving the lives of Israeli women and children.

Karol:

Alceste is right. It is the route that is the problem, not the wall itself. I think the U.S. has the right to build a wall along the Mexican border to keep out illegal aliens. But, I do not think that the U.S. has the right to route that wall through downtown Tijuana.

Israel is using the wall for two reasons, self-defense and to permanently annex parts of the West Bank. I and most critics do not dispute the first reason. The second reason is the issue that receives most of the criticism and could have been solved by building the wall along the 1967 borders.

Dan

I see... blah blah blah... then they should have taken the deal at Camp David. They didn't though, did they? And now they have no land legally and they should be quiet and keep accidentally blowing themselves up. You know, the Palestinian pasttime. Like baseball for Americans.

Unless France wants to go to Israel and defend against suicide bombers, why on earth would/should I care about their opinion.

*France used as {a perfect} analogy. I'm not saying France actually weighed in. Although if they had ... same difference.

Jake,
I doubt the International Committee of the Red Cross wants to see Israelis die.
Also, last time I checked, neither do I.
But that's just my opinion, and since we disagree, go ahead and label your opponents with whatever slander you'd like. It's worked for the Left, why shouldn't it work for you?

I don't mind the route the wall follows assuming the route makes strategic sense. The Six Day War happened the way it did because Israel recognized a threat and preemptively addressed it. Israel ended up with the West Bank, the Sinai, the Golan Heights, and considerably more security.

Without a Soviet Union to prop up its enemies, Israel doesn't need to hold the West Bank to ensure its security. So let it go.

Having said that, Israel won the West Bank the old fashioned way; the Hague isn't telling Germany or France to give up territories gained over the centuries. Last I heard, China is still in Tibet. For that matter, the United States hasn't been asked to return what it took from Mexico. So I've got zero problem with Israel telling the World Court to suck eggs.

The wall is a defensive measure, pure and simple. Anything that makes the wall less effective makes a sustainable peace less likely. I don't know the minutiae of the wall's construction or logistics, I just want Israel to be safe, and for Palestinians to someday prosper.

If a wall needs to be built (and it's the only thing that seems to have worked so far) I hope Israel builds the most effective wall possible, damn the World Court and its professional kibitzers.

Of course, Roger L. Simon said it better.

This is just such a silly issue to me....I mean, it's a matter of common sense: If homicide bombers are coming over from Palestinian territory, then the only logical way to combat that is to put up a barrier to stop the homicide bombers from coming over to blow up women and children. The idea that both sides of this conflict are somehow equally bad and we have to disallow Israel a right to defend itself because it might deny Palestinians some land is so absurd...If we had these attacks happening in the United States, we would not stand for it. We would do a lot more than just building a wall. The Palestinians are getting off a lot easier than they would if they were attacking the United States.

Dorian et.al.:

What does the wall have to do with Israel's right to defend itself? The wall is being built in the middle of the West Bank, not along Israel's border.

Dan

I just got back from Israel on Monday. I saw the fence in person - it's not what it's made out to be (as is everything that has to do with Israel). To gain perspective, take a ride on the Long Island Expressway and check out the "barrier" that is up to keep the noise out of the neighborhoods that buffer the road. It's pretty much the same thing.

Oh, and it's not "in the middle of the West Bank." It's along the border established in 1967. Israel's Supreme Court ordered that the route of the fence stay on the "Green Line" as it's known, which includes six (or seven?) Jewish towns in the Gush Etzion block, which would be recognized as Israeli territory in any potential peace agreement. Israel is not just building the fence as a measure of defense - it's also creating a border that can be policed and monitored, something that would be necessary if the Palestinians got their own state anyway.

And, for the record, the USA is against the stupid international court for good reason, so why is it illegitimate for Israel to also reject their one-sided rulings?

"Israel is using the wall for two reasons, self-defense and to permanently annex parts of the West Bank. I and most critics do not dispute the first reason. The second reason is the issue that receives most of the criticism and could have been solved by building the wall along the 1967 borders."

That was my reading too. The wall itself is justifiable and probably a necessary, if unpleasant, step to halting the Mideast conflict. It would help to separate the Israeli and Palestinian populations and proclaim a "time-out" that's likely essential at this point for cooling off the hot-headed religious passions among extremists on both sides that's making things miserable for everybody else. It's the route of the wall that's in dispute, and the second issue that you raise is pertinent-- the fence should be only for security, not territorial grabs or farmland expropriations. This mixing of honorable and sensible (security, protection against suicide bombers) and unacceptable (land grabs, permanent establishment of settlements deep into settled Palestinian) motivations is the problem, and IIRC the IJC was trying to separate these two. I.e., the promulgation was "Fine, build the fence, it's a good idea, but don't be sneaky and try to expropriate land in the process."

That being said, IIRC the Israeli Supreme Court has already ruled on this and demanded a re-routing of the wall to avoid seizure of Palestinian territory and disruption of irrigation and tilled-land networks. So if the ISC's mandate is followed, that might eliminate the bone of contention by minimizing Palestinian hardship while allowing for the security benefit availed by the fence. It remains to be seen how the ISC's decision will be implemented in this case, but offhand at least their instructions seemed to be a sensible formula for policy.