| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| High Court: IDF must remove settlement barrier |
| 2007-07-24 |
| The High Court of Justice on Tuesday gave the state 14 days to remove an 82 centimeter-high cement barrier built along a 41-kilometer stretch of road linking Jewish settlements in the south Hebron hills. It also ordered the state to pay NIS 30,000 in costs to the three groups that originally petitioned against the barrier for failing to implement the order within the six-month deadline handed down by the court on December 14, 2006. During a hearing on Monday, Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch and Justice Ayala Rocaccia fiercely criticized the army for failing to carry out the order on time. "There was an explicit order to remove the barrier," said Beinisch. "This is not the way to treat the court." Procaccia added, "If this is the way the state behaves regarding verdicts, what can one ask of the average citizen? What message are you trying to convey?" What the state of Israel cares for the lives of Jews living in Judea & Samaria, Jezebel. |
| Posted by:gromgoru |
| #7 In this case, there is a problem. If a settlement is in the West Bank, but contiguous with Israel, and the wall is built around it, fine. It is a de facto part of Israel, even if it technically in the West Bank. It is gone for good. But other settlements, that Israel has already disavowed, deep within the West Bank and nowhere near the border, are a different matter. By protecting the highways between such deep settlements, the Israeli Army has created multiple partitions to the West Bank. This means that Paleos living on one side of the highway might have to travel 20 miles to get to the other side of the road *in their territory*. Eventually, Israel has said it plans to close these deep settlements in the West Bank anyway. But since closing the settlements in Gaza cost Likud a LOT of support, nobody is really enthusiastic about shutting them down in the West Bank. So the court is putting its foot down, in essence saying that the Army cannot build additional protections to these deep settlements. Though they can defend them, they cannot protect them. Confused, indeed. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-07-24 23:26 |
| #6 When courts care more for the rights of criminals and terrorists than they do their citizens, they are lucky to be merely ignored. Their luck will run out soon enough ... and not just in Israel. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-07-24 19:45 |
| #5 bigjim-ky, you know exactly what they will say when that happens. Nothing, nada, zip, bupkis. After all, the dingleberry with the bomb has a constitutional right to kill people, dontcha know. |
| Posted by: Swamp Blondie 2007-07-24 17:43 |
| #4 Hmm, I wonder who it is that can override that "high court", because I would. |
| Posted by: newc 2007-07-24 16:57 |
| #3 I wonder what the high court will say when a car full of explosives drives over the site of the demolished wall and blows up a jewish neighborhood. I don't think 82 centimeters is high enough to qualify as a "berlin wall" type of structure, it would only be for keeping vehicular traffic out. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2007-07-24 15:41 |
| #2 When courts care more for the rights of criminals and terrorists than they do their citizens, they are lucky to be merely ignored. |
| Posted by: RWV 2007-07-24 12:46 |
| #1 If I was the army, I would tell them if they want it removed, they can do it themselves. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-07-24 11:54 |