Article

2007-07-24 Fifth Column

High Court: IDF must remove settlement barrier

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gromgoru 2007-07-24 11:14|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 If I was the army, I would tell them if they want it removed, they can do it themselves.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-07-24 11:54|| 2007-07-24 11:54|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-07-24 12:46|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-07-24 15:41|| Front Page Top

#4 Hmm, I wonder who it is that can override that "high court", because I would.

Posted by newc">newc 2007-07-24 16:57|| 2007-07-24 16:57|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-07-24 17:43|| Front Page Top

#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">Zenster 2007-07-24 19:45|| 2007-07-24 19:45|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-07-24 23:26|| Front Page Top

23:30 JustAboutEnough
23:26 Anonymoose
23:17 StumpRanchSteve
23:02 RD
22:58 Eric Jablow
22:57 Zenster
22:52 twobyfour
22:51 Eric Jablow
22:46 RD
22:45 Eric Jablow
22:38 Delphi
22:22 Zhang Fei
22:20 Lone Ranger
22:12 Mike
22:05 RWV
22:03 RWV
21:59 Bunyip
21:48 Deacon Blues
21:39 Zenster
21:36 trailing wife
21:32 trailing wife
21:26 lotp
21:23 sinse
21:20 sinse