UN votes 90:8 to send fence to Hague

[USAcommitteeX]

The United Nations General Assembly voted Monday to request that the International Court of Justice deliberate on whether Israel is legally obligated to halt construction of the security fence.

Ninety voted for the motion, eight against, including the United States, Israel, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Uganda and the Pacific islands Naui and Palau. Seventy-four abstained, including the members of the European Union.

EU Ambassador to Israel Giancarlo Chevallard defended the abstentions, saying that European states could not vote against the proposal in order to maintain open channels with those states that support the idea, and that the European vote would regardless be unlikely to affect the inevitable outcome.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that Israel will, should the need arise, present its case before the IJC and argue that the fence is a legal barrier designed to protect lives.

This is "the fence that Arafat built," UN ambassador Dan Gillerman said Monday. "Arafat built the fence, and his terror initiated it and made the fence inevitable. If there were no Arafat, there would be no need for a fence," he said.

He also attacked the world body itself, saying, "We don't think that it is up to the United Nations or any other international body to determine the legal aspect of this measure," adding that none of Israel's neighbors "have an independent legal system comparable to ours."

The IJC's opinion would not be binding, said Ruth Lapidoth, a professor of international law at Hebrew University. "It is an advisory opinion," she said. "It is only a question of public relations." Such cases usually take between 4 and 15 months, she said.

The Palestinian UN observer, Nasser Al-Kidwa, started pushing for the resolution after Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a November 28 report declaring that Israel had failed to comply with a General Assembly demand to halt construction of the fence, which juts into the West Bank.

Earlier Monday, Shinui called for a vote to change the security fence's route. If the fence were closer to the Green Line, the party argued, it would be "more of a security fence and less of a political fence."

[USAcommitteeX]

Why don't we just tear down the fence on the US Mexico border?

[Adam D]

Originally posted by USAcommitteeX
Why don't we just tear down the fence on the US Mexico border?

That's entirely different.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by USAcommitteeX
Why don't we just tear down the fence on the US Mexico border?

They're dividing territory in their own country. That's a tad different than placing a barrier between two sovereign nations. I think a more appropriate analogy would be to ask why don't we put up a wall around the deep South. Actually, I think I'd be in favor of that.

[Adam D]

Or more apropriately, that the US should have herded all of the American Indians during the 19th century who were fighting for their land against the invading land-stealing US into somewhere with little means to survive like Oklahoma and then fenced them in.

[bfp]

Originally posted by Adam D
Or more apropriately, that the US should have herded all of the American Indians during the 19th century who were fighting for their land against the invading land-stealing US into somewhere with little means to survive like Oklahoma and then fenced them in.

The most common trait of humanity back then was to fight for land. All types of peoples took part in this act. Not just the US, who of course took land from the Indians.

Did I mention that the Indians were slave-drivers as well?

Originally posted by USAcommitteeX
Why don't we just tear down the fence on the US Mexico border?

when's the last time Mexico sent suicide bombers across the border?

[Keith P]

Why don't we just tear down the fence on the US Mexico border?

man you're fucking thick

The most common trait of humanity back then was to fight for land. All types of peoples took part in this act. Not just the US, who of course took land from the Indians.

Did I mention that the Indians were slave-drivers as well?

first
please don't address them as Indians
Indians are named after their homeland... India
The Native Americans you speak of were a small group.
Common practices differed from Nation to Nation
some being more concerned with matters of profit and territory while others wished to live a life much more in harmony with nature.
Westerners corrupted many Native Americans with their ideals of ownership.
Many had no choice but to assimilate into our culture as they would've faced a much harder life had they not.
Also some tribes tended to gravitate towards war more than others.
There were very distinct cultural differences throughout the Native American nations.

Originally posted by Keith P
man you're fucking thick



first
please don't address them as Indians
Indians are named after their homeland... India
The Native Americans you speak of were a small group.
Common practices differed from Nation to Nation
some being more concerned with matters of profit and territory while others wished to live a life much more in harmony with nature.
Westerners corrupted many Native Americans with their ideals of ownership.
Many had no choice but to assimilate into our culture as they would've faced a much harder life had they not.
Also some tribes tended to gravitate towards war more than others.
There were very distinct cultural differences throughout the Native American nations.

Most "native americans" I know refer to themselves as "Indians." There is no disrespect intended from using the word.

A great number of tribe names we use are in fact the names a neighboring tribe gave - and often these are derrogatory - yet we still use them.

Regarding assimilation - this has been true of thousands of cultures spanning the history of human existence. Often far more brutally than the experiences in North America.

[Keith P]

Regarding assimilation - this has been true of thousands of cultures spanning the history of human existence. Often far more brutally than the experiences in North America.

that doesn't make it right
I thought we were supposed to learn from history?
there seems to be a constant American excuse for things.
In regards to war and others matters(this one included)...
we justify war as begin necessary etc.
plus many see it is a part of human nature
its like a child telling his parents he did something wrong cus "Well eveyrone else was doing it"
shit most adults still use the same excuse

[USAcommitteeX]

That's entirely different

That fence on the US Mexico border is to keep people out, same reason in Israel and the terrotories,PA continues to support terrorist groups and allow them to plan attacks, that is why the fence is going up, taking this issue to court doesn't matter, the construction on the fence will continue, if anything it will be re-routed on the green line.

Or more apropriately, that the US should have herded all of the American Indians during the 19th century who were fighting for their land against the invading land-stealing US into somewhere with little means to survive like Oklahoma and then fenced them in

I see what your saying but the people who you should blame for all that are dead.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Peace/fence.html
Info about the fence, and maps on the link above.

Originally posted by Keith P
that doesn't make it right
I thought we were supposed to learn from history?
there seems to be a constant American excuse for things.
In regards to war and others matters(this one included)...
we justify war as begin necessary etc.
plus many see it is a part of human nature
its like a child telling his parents he did something wrong cus "Well eveyrone else was doing it"
shit most adults still use the same excuse

I never said it was right or wrong - merely that their experience was in no way unique.

And, we are having a discussion about it - so - we have learned about it.

I think what you are syaing is that the experiences of european cultures vs native populations should be regarded as "bad" and the "fault" of the Europeans.

[USAcommitteeX]

The cost of the entire fence is approximately $1.6 million per mile and, when completed, is expected to have cost about $1 billion. As of September 2003, approximately 85 miles of the fence has been completed.

[Keith P]

I didn't make any assumptions about what u thought was right or wrong m8
I was just typing
sorry if I had mislead and offended you

experiences of european cultures vs native populations

not always but historically many of the immediate outcomes have been quite negatve

Britain was once the colonial powerhouse of the world
now they seem to be actively involved as well as being concerned with the well being of the people of foreign nations

many see them as "policing" the world
but they have done a great deal in aiding those who needed help

we have done the same on numerous occassions
altho I do not believe to the extent of many european countries
many times the US would only be doing it for some sort of benefit
nevertheles
I believe there are good people in the US still involved with foreign affairs who truely are trying to bring help and hope to the rest of humanity

Originally posted by Keith P
I didn't make any assumptions about what u thought was right or wrong m8
I was just typing
sorry if I had mislead and offended you



not always but historically many of the immediate outcomes have been quite negatve

Britain was once the colonial powerhouse of the world
now they seem to be actively involved as well as being concerned with the well being of the people of foreign nations

many see them as "policing" the world
but they have done a great deal in aiding those who needed help

we have done the same on numerous occassions
altho I do not believe to the extent of many european countries
many times the US would only be doing it for some sort of benefit
nevertheles
I believe there are good people in the US still involved with foreign affairs who truely are trying to bring help and hope to the rest of humanity

You didn't offend and I don't think I was mislead - so no apology necessary - however I do appreciate your politeness.

Many immediate outcomes were bad - but for whom depends on the event. Surely Custer did not meet a happy end. Nor did many natives in different encounters.

England, even while the largest colonial power took great interest in local customs and cultures - they still do. Incidentally - Zimbabwe just left the Commonwealth - frightening place to be right now.

England did "police" the world in many ways. One significant impact of British colonial occupation was the supression of local rivalries and warfare - which is one of the reasons we see it reemerge upon the English (or whichever colonial power) withdrawal. It is hard to trade when you're in a war. The Brits preferred the former to the latter.

A country embarking upon an act that could be termed "policing" better be acting in their own interests - usually those interests coincide with at least one other party involved in the conflict. Foreign policy and policing is not motivated out of a sense of altrusim - nor is it motivated out of goal to weild power simply because one can. On whole I'd agree with your comments.