Skip to main content

View Diary: BREAKING: Israeli Defense Forces taking down part of the Fence at Bil'in (42 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well sort of, but yes they have won (6+ / 0-)

    There is still a lot of land that has been appropriated. There are not enough details yet but I wonder if this is in total compliance with the Israeli Supremes or is this a half measure?

    DK4: For those times when pissing in the hummus isn't enough

    by volleyboy1 on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 02:06:55 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Of course this isn't a complete victory (6+ / 0-)

      but it is a step forward, and it shows the strength and importance of Palestinians' non-violent protest.

      "How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.

      by weasel on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 02:09:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  BTW, (3+ / 0-)

      why do you continue to say that the Israeli military is recognizing the Supreme Court decision?  Have they said as much themselves?

      "How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.

      by weasel on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 02:22:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Interesting.... (5+ / 0-)

        Well, it could have been this comment by the IDF in the Ynet article:

        "Last year, the Defense Ministry announced that it would begin altering the course of the barrier around Bilin in conformity with a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that it significantly impinged on the property rights of Palestinian landowners"

        but other than that I pretty much put "two and two together"

        DK4: For those times when pissing in the hummus isn't enough

        by volleyboy1 on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 02:34:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well (0+ / 0-)

          That was last year, I was asking about any recent statement.  As for putting two and two together, you seem to be ignoring the four, the four years that the Israeli military has ignored the ruling.

          It would seem at least as likely that the Israeli military is responding to current events (the protests and pressure on Israel) as it is responding to a court order it has ignored for four years.  If my neighbor tells me to move my car on Friday, and I drive to work on Monday, does that mean I have accepted his power to tell me to move my car, or am I respond to other factors (like a paycheck)?

          "How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.

          by weasel on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 02:39:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes and... I don't disagree with your comment (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mets102, JayinPortland, leftynyc

            In fact I think that your analysis makes sense. Why can't it be both? Did the Israeli supreme court not make that decision?

            It seems that they are moving the barrier in response to the reasons you posit and that they are probably trying to conform with their own Supreme's heading into September.

            Not sure I see the big deal here.

            DK4: For those times when pissing in the hummus isn't enough

            by volleyboy1 on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 02:50:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i'll side with the opposition for a change of (0+ / 0-)

              pace..

              I don't know the details of the Supreme Court ruling, obviously (particularly concerning time frame)...but if the IDF is able to stave off a judicial ruling for that long a time and respond to it only when the political climate, or protests, rather than judicial order, demands....

              doesn't that really limit the Supreme Court's jurisdiction?  Strikes me as dangerous if the military is able to flout the courts.  Although if the courts gave an unlimited time-frame, then they're not flouting the courts at all....

              But I see weasel's point.

              •  Umm ok, but I don't really disagree with weasel's (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mets102, livosh1, leftynyc

                comment.

                I think actually he is on to something. However, the reason I think it is happening at Bil'in is that the IDF was in violation of that judgement and they (in trying to look better for the world) are responding to that. Had the Supreme's not ruled that way it is my opinion that the barrier would not be being taken down right now.

                So really there is no opposition here. Sorry.

                DK4: For those times when pissing in the hummus isn't enough

                by volleyboy1 on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 04:52:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  no--i was being a bit facetious. (0+ / 0-)

                  No big deal.

                  I guess my larger question is how much of the ruling is being responded to in this move?  Is this a reactive move in one particular area, or part of a broader adherence to the decision?

    •  There's more.. (5+ / 0-)

      ..detail from the Popular Struggle Coordination Committee,  which reported the story yesterday.     They began moving the wall Tuesday morning..so certainly worthy of a diary...but not exactly "BREAKING".

      "It's not the end, It’s the beginning." ~ Nadia Magdy, protester in Tahrir, Feb 11th

      by sofia on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 02:39:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not sure what the cause is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Noah in NY, Terra Mystica

      It's four years since the Supreme Court ruling and six years of peaceful protest by both the villagers and international solidarity folks. To call either the cause begs for a third explanation. I posit the large number of YouTube videos and social media and the resultant bad PR because the Bil'in protestors are clearly not violent while the IDF is.

      For example,

      Add a more recent demonstration with a model of a flotilla boat in it.

      Note the grass fires in the last video. A recent UN investigation of the Naksa incursion from Syria found that the anti-tank mines were set off by tear gas rounds and not the (invisible) Molotov cocktails.

      A UN report on the Naksa day events said the IDF used tear gas, smoke grenades and live fire to prevent the demonstrators from crossing the ceasefire line.

      It stated: "Several anti-tank mines exploded due to a brush fire apparently started by tear gas or smoke grenade canisters near UNDOF facilities at Charlie Gate, resulting in casualties among protesters."


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site