Tim Blair

It has never been easy to be right and it has always been easy to say that compromise will bring resolution. Anyone who has created a successful enterprise knows that you have to have one quality overall and that is to say "no". Israel has said "no" to terrorism. They have to do what they have to do.

More power to the Australian government for their support.

We had a history of abstaining on similar votes, and I've been proud that lately we've been coming out in support of what's right.

Canada - Land of the jew-hating left-wing "intelligentisia" (not to be confused with someone who is intelligent)

I am so ashamed of my country.

I can now get the jew-hating Al-Jazeera on cable.

But not Fox or HBO because they aren't good for me.

Let's say someone lives in a bad neighbourhood, with vicious killers on the prowl.
Is it still legal for that person to lock the doors and windows?
Fuck, am I simplifying the issue? Because I don't get the reasoning behind the ICJ's decision.
Hope ICJ stays the powerless parasite it is.

It makes me so proud to see this. Australia is really at the forefront of world affairs and showing the grit to do what is right.

As for the popular call that Australia is subjugate to US will; how much less flak would Australia cop if it joined with the other 150 countries supporting the ruling? All other factors considered I doubt it would have affected our relationship with the US much at all, and it would have kept us on nicer terms with the other nations. However our government chose the difficult route of standing up againt terrorism. We rock!

That's a lot of countries off the to-visit list. Hello, Marshall Islands and Palau.

From the New York Times:

Nasser al-Kidwa, the Palestinian observer to the United Nations, hailed the outcome as "magnificent," saying: "The debate is completed. It is now time for implementation and compliance and at a later stage for additional measures." ... "The threat of veto will not thwart us, and all others who respect and uphold international law," Mr. al-Kidwa said in the debate on Friday that led to today's action.

Palestine respects and upholds international law. You've gotta be al-Kidding-a.

It is terrific to read that Australia and the United States stood up to this deeply offensive resolution. I think the Aussies and Yanks can be proud of themselves - and the Pacific Islanders as well. Just because a pile of autocratic states, states with excitable Muslim minorities, and delusional European states (including, I am sorry to note, the UK)vote for it does not make it any less offensive. Another bad day at the UN but since there is no chance that it will change the reality of the security wall, what does it really matter? And what does it tell us that we did not already know? We just have to hold the line and do what is right and trust to the future.

The vote in the 191-nation assembly was 150-6, with 10 abstentions.

Huh? Maybe my math is fuzzy, but that doesn't add up.

Palau is a prime dive destination. Well worth the thrip.

And my comments are well worth the preview...

Try again: Palau is a prime dive destination. Well worth the trip.

The UK voted against this being heard at the ICJ. I am very disappointed that they would turn around and cast a vote for the extermination of the Jewish people. Because that's what it is.

Just goes to show what a few million Muslims in your population does to the spine of European nations to stand up to terrorism.

Those dastardly Jews! They've conquered entire miles of land with their illegal wall-making conquest! When will the oppression end?

... just doing my part to pre-empt carlos. ;)

Katherine, it's probably worth a thrip as well

Thank you Australia. Always knew there was a reason I'd rather go there then any other country.

25 countries were absent.

Abstaining: Cameroon, Canada, El Salvador, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Uganda, Uruguay, Vanuatu.

Absent: Angola, Benin, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Niger, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tajikistan.

Revisiting the Times:

"Nasser al-Kidwa, the Palestinian observer to the United Nations, hailed the outcome as "magnificent," saying: "The debate is completed. It is now time for implementation and compliance and at a later stage for additional measures.""

We all know what he means by that, don't we?

The wall is working which is why the moonbats of the world are getting so desperate. Terrorism is down, the Israeli army is pulling out of the towns it no longer needs to patrol, curfews, and other hardships are no longer imposed.

Of course, without the IDF patrolling its towns, the PA would actually have to govern instead of devoting its energies toward recruiting and planning bus bombings. More importantly, the lucrative fundraising for terrorism via "charities" might dry up leaving the corrupt terror masters without a source of personal enrichment.

While they will always be able to complain about having their land stolen (sometimes in reference to the Fence's route but usually in reference to the whole of Israel), the use of this complaint to deflect responsibility for their home-grown incompetence, corruption and thuggery will ring even more hollow. All who support the Palestinians and wish them a better future should cheer the wall and also pray for Arafat's downfall - but they wont.

"Liberty is, in it's essence, simply the ability to say 'no' and make it stick."
-- Can't Remember Who

It's?

Hrm. Must be margoitis,,,

I can't wait to see the fury of the Sydney Morning Herald letter-writing cabal once they return from writing anti-semitic slogans on local walls.

If the letters earlier this week in response to NZ's spat with Israel are any guide, you should be able to hear the whine from inside the paper.

London to a brick on, terms like "pariah state" for both Australia and Israel, and "US lackey" will appear.

does this mean isreal can continue building the wall all around the "palestinian state" and then fill it with water.
Solve 2 probs at once !;)

Yes a vote to kill Jews for sure. Aaww! didums Now the Pals cant slaughter innocents any more .. no fair!!!

Looks like the PA is imploding anyway. Finish the wall and seal em in so they can just get to killing each other. Arafat is a fucking JOKE and should do us all a favour and pop his clogs asap.

And NZ voted for it. I'm so proud.

At last! Australian Foreign Affairs starting to show a little backbone. Great to see. I imagine that there will be much gnashing of teeth,tearing of hair and beating of breasts on ABC television news and current affairs tonight. The usual suspects will be trundled out and portrayed as experts; minor academics, leftoid newsies (is that a redundancy?) and disappointed office seekers. All with the underlying message that Hitler's greatest fault was that he failed to finish the job. Most of these bottom dwellers will yet again let slip the fact, that for them, the history of the Israeli/Arab conflict began in 1967.
It will be interesting to see the stance of Biffer Latham and his adherents. One can imagine Rudd the Unready frantically trying to reach Biffer to get the Party line. And think of poor Peter Garret? Which way does this poor sod jump? "Give us a clue Biffer, give us a clue".
As for the actual UN vote? Well, that was no surprise really, was it? The real usual suspects in spades.
Ah well, "all the worlds a stage, etc, etc......

Those Christian Israelites must get mightily pissed off at having their fates forgotten all the time.

Isn't Saudi Arabia building a wall on their Yemeni border and India doing likewise on their Pakistani border and yet they voted in favor of the resolution.
Google search for India Pak wall
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:VZ_7Ik2uK8kJ:www.mmorning.com/ArticleC.asp%3FArticle%3D1532%26CategoryID%3D7+india+pakistani+wall&hl=en

For the Saudi Wall
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Saudi%20Yemen%20barrier

This is how it is being reported on the SMH site:

"The Palestinians won strong international support - but not from Australia - as the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly backed a World Court ruling calling on Israel to tear down part of its West Bank barrier".

As you would expect.

I bet the knackerlacker would have had us vote in favour of the UN and all it's acolytes.

Im still waiting to see if the UN are going to rule on whether suicide bombers are illegal.
Or maybe shooting pregnant women and their children while sitting in their cars. Yeah I can see it now, "tear down this wall Mr Sharon"
Latham will be howling and I'll wager the palis wont continue killing innocent people anymore.

I'll just go saddle my Unicorn now...

Build the wall, make it air and watertight and then fill it with petrol and light it. That should end the palestinian terror threat.

>>"It is now time for implementation and
>>compliance and at a later stage for additional
>>measures.""

>We all know what he means by that, don't we?

Yep. "Additional measures" is the bit that comes before "final solution."

"Absent: Angola, Benin, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Niger, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tajikistan."

Hope they all had a note from their parents.

Tear down the wall!

NZ isn't against walls - it just wanted a portion relocated to protect their cemeteries.

...and at the same time, UN 'workers' in PA-controlled Gaza were bolting for Israeli-controlled Jerusalem:

The United Nations has decided to move 20 people working in UN facilities in Gaza - about a third of its foreign crews - to the UN headquarters in Armon Hanatziv in Jerusalem.

The UN can take commonsense measures to protect themselves from the Pallies, but not the Israelis???

I second Mr. Gillerman's statement.

This is called Calculated Hysteria.
The ruling/vote is that the position of the wall is illegal not the wall itself. In some places on Palestinian land, cutting them off from schools, etc. Israel can build their wall on their own side of the street-as high as they like.

ha carlos! humour right?

No, not that, but this is an attempt:

I can imagine, Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe being anti-semitic, but Iceland???
What's with that?

Or, it was rumoured that the Australian delegate didn't mean to vote against it but his arms were flapping around for lack of oxygen when he sucked the US delegate's arse too hard.

Well, it's an attempt at humour - sorry.

lol @ carlos. more humour!!!

"Israel can build their wall on their own side of the street-as high as they like."

Well, when the neighbors are trying to kill you, taking their sensibilities into account tends to come in rather low on the priority list.

"Well, it's an attempt at humour - sorry."

It's ok.

Not necessarily the point carlos. The ICJ has ignored the huge number of attacks on Israelis from various parts of the Palestinian territory. In an era of suicide bombers, the alleged cartography of an entity that is not a state anyway is less important than Israel's right to muscular self-defence.

The ICJ decision states explicitly that not only must Israel cease building the wall but it must also pay compensation ("reparations") and also do away with the "regime" - presumably military and legal - associated with it.

The nations of the world are directed to give no recognition to the wall or the validity of it. Completely ignored is the security situation - not one word in the judgment addresses the context of this measure. Not one. The ICJ seems to think the only smoking gun with evidenciary oomph is the explosive fallout of a suicide bomb or maybe of a mushroom cloud. From the decision:

In conclusion, the Court considers that Israel cannot rely on a right of self‑ defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall. The Court accordingly finds that the construction of the wall and its associated régime are contrary to international law.

For the record: the ICJ President is Judge Shi (China); the Vice-President is Judge Ranjeva (Madagascar); member judges: Guillaume (France), Koroma (Sierra Leone), Vereshchetin (Russia), Higgins (United Kingdom), Parra‑Aranguren (Venezuela), Kooijmans (Netherlands), Rezek (Brazil), Al‑Khasawneh (Jordan), Buergenthal (USA), Elaraby (Eygpt), Owada (Japan), Simma Germany) and Tomka (Slovakia).

I suppose there are a few civilised, stable nations in the list. But not many. Mostly BACs: Busted Arse Countries.

Hmm. You are right, Carlos - that was a sorry attempt at humour.

If the security fence (only the 4% where pali snipers have been able to target civilians is a physical wall) saves lives, I am all for it.

It saves lives. Bottom line. On both sides. Nice for the UN to think this is a bad thing.

{But I suppose after stealing $10 Bn from the Iraqi oil-for-food program (and killing tens of thousands of Iraqi kids in the process), and before taking the INACTION that will kill hundreds of thousands of negroes in Dafur, they would like a bit of Jewish blood on their hands too. The old blood on UN hands from hundreds of thousand more negroes in Rwanda is but a distant fond memory for the UN, I suppose. Ah well, they will fill more mass graves soon enough to keep them happy in the UN.}

And the fence saves the lives of people like that poor, eight-months-pregnant woman and her little daughters, murdered by three heavily armed subhuman fanatic scum. I suppose it took three Palistinian 'heroes' to have enough guts between them to murder an unarmed, wounded pregnant woman and some small girls strapped in to their safety seats. THAT is what a 'shahid' really is. A baby-killer.

I have little time for Howard, I am a swinging voter and think he is past his use-by date IMHO.

But he just got my vote, guaranteed. Rock solid. The ugly little bugger has balls, a clear insight, and has Australian national interests foremost in his mind.

I do NOT like him. But I certainly do respect him, because he knows how to LEAD. No-nuts latham can't even spell the word.

MarkL
Canberra

Mark, have you run that by your press adviser?

"Sharon, tear down this wall, and reposition it" ...hmm, not quite the same ring to it.

Alexander Downer stated Australia's position as being:

Israel must find ways of defending itself against terrorists and it isn't reasonable to tell the Israelis that they can't erect a security barrier to protect the people of Israel from suicide-homicide bombers. That is not to say we approve the particular path of the security barrier - we do not think it should transgress the green line and wander off into the occupied territory.

For all the complaints against this wall, I still haven't been able to discern what is the actual argument against this position: that Israel may build the wall, provided it follows the 1967 border/green line.

The ICJ actually mentions an international law breach, but that only applies because the wall crosses the green line. I've read the judgment and I can't work out why they are saying those parts of the wall which are within the green line are also illegal.

I'd even go so far as to say I'd be quite prepared to accept the ICJ's verdict provided I could just have this question answered.

The ICJ decision against Israel’s wall also states that, without UN approval, a nation cannot in self-defense attack terrorists operating in another nation if the second nation is not passively or actively supporting the terrorists. You can see how that ruling would let things get tied up. Australia, for instance, could have to wait on the UN in order to be allowed to attack terrorists operating from somewhere among Indonesia’s many islands against Australia.

The ruling appears to depend on a rather labored reading of the word “international.” See “Judges' ruling rewrites UN Charter on self-defence” by Leanne Piggott, The Australian, July 12, 2004.

Little wonder that several judges of the ICJ felt the need to publish separate opinions expressing disagreement with the ICJ's pronouncements concerning a state's exercise of its right of self-defence. Judge Pieter Kooijmans (Netherlands) observed that the ICJ had failed to note that the Security Council resolutions condemning international terrorism, on which Israel relied, do not refer to an armed attack "by another state" but to acts of "international" terrorism.

:( I am ashamed to say that the UK has voted "yes". What a state - but that's TB for u!

There is only 1 Palestine - and that's in TEXAS.

Hypothetical:

Say the U.S votes in favour...

what does Australia do?

Why do people keep citing the ICJ? It's just a worthless bit of crap intended to keep the internationalists busy, isn't it?

For a good summary of problems with the ICJ judgement, see this article. Though slightly overwrought in spots - for example, the lawyerly reading of UNSC 242 - it demonstrates clearly the many problems with the "judgement".

The UN is a sick, corrupt waste of time.

Look who voted. SUDAN! For fuck's sake

Not only should Sudan not be voting,it should
be full of blue helmeted troops stopping the
slaughter.(Then again,the blue hats should be
used properly,not like the normal stuffs ups).

As for Israel. Well you get what you expect
from the Arab nations.

France\Germany? Say no more.

Canada? Rapidly become a bastard offspring
of Michael Moore and Islam.

NZ is fucked,thanks to Helen Hamas.

The UK vote is to be expected.The foreign
office is full of Arabists,and I expect our
newspapers will be full of the usual suspects
accusing the Australian vote of sucking up to the
US.

looks like it's canary in a coalmine time again
for the evil Zionists and their plans for world
domination.

Thank goodness this time they are armed to the teeth.

Tahks you so very much Australia. You are a nation of mensches (stand up men)!

I need to write My Congressmen and tell them that the Foreign Aid bill should only have 5 countries on it.

Good fences make good neighbors. After the Palis get through eating themselves alive, maybe they'll look at all that green grass on the other side of the fence and decide they should learn how to grow some of that for themselves. We'll see.

RebeccaH (who never saw a cliché she didn't like)

Good on you, Australia!

The wife and I really need to take a trip down there sometime soon, with a stopover at Palau.

I must say this vote doesn't surprise me. Not at all. It is just sad commentary on the twisted view of the world most countries seem to have.

A famous man once said, we've just declared the UN
an outlaw organization, the bombing starts in five minutes.

My thanks and appreciation to the nations of Australia, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, and Palau.

Say no to terrorism!

Israel should keep building and they will...they realize that the U.N. is not concerned about their security. We in the U.S. who support GW realized that a long time ago.

When I do my blog post on this, I'll look at what the numbers would be if the EU (which bloc voted, and only voted yes because they watered down the original) and non-democracies are removed from the equation.

The UN established Israel in the first place. This fact is ignored by the "intelligentsia". Israel extended its borders after it was attacked with the public aim of extermination by its neighbours...they lost.

Israel is putting up a fence. Would Yasser Arafat prefer to put up a fence or annihilate Israelis?

A little story. An old friend of mine in the 70's was the personal pilot of King Khaled of Saudi Arabia. Arafat was then the head of the PLO, an active terrorist group but his travel around the Middle East was on King Khaled's aircraft (see they sponsored terrorism even then). My friend would file a flight plan and about 20 minutes into the flight Arafat would enter the cockpit and tell him where they were really going.

One day in a show of gratitude Arafat entered the cockpit and handed my friend a silver bullet from the cartridge belt he habitually wore. I will always remember my friend's comment: "The guy thinks he's the fucking Lone Ranger!"

Just thought this valuable insight to his character would be useful. If Paul McGeoch wants my friend's name I am happy to share although he is a US citizen and thus not credible.

And in a supreme bit of irony, via Instapundit, we learn what an avowed group of internationalists do when the shoe is on the other foot:

Cement barriers, 8-foot-tall chain-link fencing, and heavy black netting have been installed around the protest zone outside the FleetCenter, angering protesters who say they will be penned in and closed off from Democratic National Convention delegates.

Perhaps the DNC would remove the barriers if the protesters threatened to become suicide bombers.

I live in hope that some good will come of this:
1) Hamas Helen has given decent Kiwis another reason to vote for Brash come the next election.
2) The hypocritical UN has taken another step towards the abyss that consumed its equally impotent predecessor.

This American gentile will be opening up a bottle of Aussie Shiraz and toasting you this weekend. If I get drunk enough, I might even open up some Vegemite. ;-]

Good on ya, mates.

I'm an American and enjoy talking to people from other parts of the world no matter if we agree on certain issues or not.

One thing that ALWAYS amazes me is the "sucking American Arse" comment. Let me see if I can understand. If the Aussies vote with the Yanks at the UN they are "sucking arse"? What are they doing then if they vote along the lines of other countries?

Sorry, but I consider the Aussies vote as showing some balls. The people who accuse others of "sucking arse" are the TRUE "arse suckers" in my book. Sorry for the harsh language. Great blog, btw!

Gary and the Samoyeds said: "I need to write My Congressmen and tell them that the Foreign Aid bill should only have 5 countries on it."

Thank you Gary, but we don't take or want a cent of American money, and I think that's important. I think you should have a hard look at the countries you pay so much tribute I mean aid money to. It seems to me that with a few exceptions, the more money you give them the more they go against you.

Off all the countries that voted against the Israeli's the one I am most disappointed in is New Zealand.

KIWI'S...........what the hell is going on over there? You used to be a group that had your own voice and did what was right. Now you've become all isolationist and very iffeminate. You severe links with a country over something so stupid (keystone cops buying passports under false names) and then vote on the side of terrorists for the pulling down of a security wall.

I wonder what your grandfathers would think?

parallel:

You refer to "the lawyerly reading of UNSC 242" which you find overwrought. Presumably you have the impression that the distinction between withdrawing 'from territories' and 'from *the* territories' is one which was drawn after the event by partisans of Israel in order to twist the evident intent of the resolution. This is not the case. The arguments for and against the inclusion of the word 'the' in the English version were canvassed in the debates leading up to the resolution, and were explained with great explicitness by Lord Caradon immediately afterward. I believe that the French language version is closer to the Arabs' preferred formula.

Lofty:

You ask "KIWI'S...........what the hell is going on over there?"

In response I can only say, I'm buggered if I know; but I hope that people won't write NZ off on the basis of lunatic diplomatic processes (consider that the UK and many other decent countries cast the same vote.) Diplomats sometimes get so involved with the actual process of diplomacy that it looks to outsiders as if they don't have a grip on the reality that the diplomacy is supposed to affect. NZ's other recent actions are not so shameful as this appears to be.

"...we don't take or want a cent of American money"

David Blue, speak for yourself. At my place any donations are welcome.

SteveGW,
I agree totally with not writing the Kiwis off. But if their government has the support of the majority of the people, in voting for the removal of Israel's security wall, then the country certainly has a long way to travel if it attempts to come back to a saner reality. I just expected more from our cousins, that's all.

As for the UK and other decent countries, why did they vote as they did? Is it due to pressure from outside, percentage of population in those countries with ties to palestinians, anti-zionist feelings, isolationist leanings or what?

And how did Germany vote again? Oh. Who knew.

Always proud to be an Australian , even more so when we stand up for what's right .

Always proud to be an Australian , even more so when we stand up for what's right .

As an Aussie I'm feeling a little isolated from the rest of the world or at least their Governments by this stand.

Oh fuck it, I never liked em' anyway.

Go the Judeo, Christians Oi oi oi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SteveGW,

I find the hair-splitting over 242 to be overwrought, NOT because I think that Israel should withdraw behind the Green Line, but because 242 is no longer operative. It originally made requirements on both sides (Israel to withdraw, the Arabs to leave her in peace). Since the second part has never been accepted, the first has no force (and to attempt to enforce it now, over a generation later with vastly different facts on the ground such as the withdrawal of Jordanian and Egyptian claims over the West Bank and Gaza Strip) is, to my mind, absurd.

Since the second part has never been accepted, the first has no force (and to attempt to enforce it now, over a generation later with vastly different facts on the ground such as the withdrawal of Jordanian and Egyptian claims over the West Bank and Gaza Strip) is, to my mind, absurd.

Who knows, perhaps the UN is just slow...in that case, we can look forward to them starting to "enforce" their 1990's Iraq resolutions circa 2025.

1990s, even (the decade, not the year).

From carlos: This is called Calculated Hysteria. -and then this gem- on Palestinian land, cutting them off from schools

The schools... THE SCHOOLS! Israel has CONQUERED SCHOOLS, PEOPLE, WHY AREN'T YOU OUTRAGED AT THIS?

Calculated Hysteria indeed.

parallel:

You'll get no argument from me on that.

Lets just fly a plane into the UN building in New York and be done with it. The UN is a hall of fools and laughable JOKE. Fuck the UN to hell, useless pricks. Ruled over by corrupt despots that would not know decency and democracy if it bit them on the arse.

So I have a question for our Australian friends. I am an American, and I have met two Kiwis: one who is a confirmed leftie who hates large corporations (while working for one, naturally), and another, who is a hard-core member of the moonbat left. My general impression of New Zealand is that bears the same relationship to Australia as Canada does to the USA: a smaller nation that is resentful of the success of its larger neighbor and touts its "moral superiority" to make up for it. Is this at all accurate, or have I just gotten unlucky?

You have been unlucky, but your conclusion is about right. Kiwis also feel a little frustrated because within living memory NZ was more economically successful than Australia, and they used that wealth to institute a wide ranging and very progressive welfare system. And now for some incomprehensible reason the Australian economy is much stronger than theirs.

On the other hand Aus and NZ are much more similar societies than Canada and the US. Both are constitutional monarchies, both are based on the settler traditions of Victorian England, etc. The two countries feel very similar, and the rivalry is almost always friendly. (This is more especially true in the general population. In my experience the harshest words of criticism come from Australian political circles where NZ's policies in many areas are seen as irresponsible and likely to lead to difficulties for Australia.)

I think the leftist tradition really started to bed in with NZs withdrawal from ANZUS ,nuclear powered ships etc etc in the 80's. Apparently those actions were thrown out to the left as a sop to placate them while NZs economy was being modernized.Just goes to show how far a country can fall with a bad decision.

Tom Ault,
Yes, its the illness of small neighbours.
you cut off your nose to spite your face.
You might add ireland during WW2 to the list.

From Haaretz
The UN is moving its staff from GAZA
where to?
BEHIND THE WALL IT WANTS DESTROYED!!

The United Nations has decided to move 20 people working in UN facilities in Gaza - about a third of its foreign crews - to the UN headquarters in Armon Hanatziv in Jerusalem. The other 40 non-Palestinians working for the UN in Gaza will remain at their jobs.
The transfer was ordered by Peter Hansen, UNRWA commissioner general in Gaza, who is also responsible for the security of all the UN organizations operating

ABC Al- "Just goes to show what a few million Muslims in your population does to the spine of European nations to stand up to terrorism."

Rubbish. That didn't stop the UK from invading Iraq!

The point is that Israel is building the wall on territory which it has no sovereignty over; get that into your thick skulls!!

Three questions:
1.Why can't the Israelis build the wall on exclusivley Israeli-owned land?
2. If I am anti-Likud, or anti wall, does this make me anti-semitic? If so, why?
3.And would that make those Israelis who vote Labour or who are anti-wall anti semitic too?
I would be interested to see if any Sharonites or pro wall types can give a coherent, logical answer to these queries. Because up till now I haven't heard one.

"The point is that Israel is building the wall on territory which it has no sovereignty over; get that into your thick skulls!!"

Actually, I believe in fact, they do. Witness: the wall.

I think you are all forgetting that the land belongs to the Palestinians. Israel as a country is less than 100 years old while the Palestinians have been there for centuries.

Why should the Palestinians fight for what belongs to them (and was until the Jews claimed the land as their own). Unfortunately they have to resort to terrorist tactics because they cannot fight the Isralie army. An army which also recieves support from the US of A. Dont get me wrong here I do not support the terrorist tactics of the Palestinians.

Here is a question: how else would you fight someone who has one of the best equipped army in the world and has invaded your country claimed it as their own. It dosent stop there either. The invaders of your land are backed up by a super power country (US of A). You have no army and no one gives a fuck about you or your people. So what would you do?

Some people who have posted on this site have obviously been brain-washed by the Jewish owned media. There are always two sides to every story but some idiots dont bother to find out what that other side is.

I am not Palestinian or Islamic but I did look at the other side of the story. I am ashamed that the government of my country, Australia is stupid enough to follow the idiots in America

Nice to know that the Aussies still have backbone. Not to mention a sense of right and wrong.

Some people who have posted on this site have obviously been brain-washed by the Jewish owned media.

No anti-semitism in the criticism of Israel, nope nope nope!

CB, you sound like you think that you are a reasonable person. You are wrong. You are a bigot.

Israel as a country is less than 100 years old while the Palestinians have been there for centuries.

Here's a more realistic view of the situation. Both Muslims and Jews have lived continuously in the area for centuries.

However, the Muslim population only dates from around 800 AD. The Jews were living there for far, far longer.

Be careful of using the "They were there first!" argument. It can backfire.

Here's the thing: Germany (the country) is younger than Israel. East Prussia, formerly German territory, is now part of Poland.

Millions of Germans were forcibly repatriated after the Second World War.

No one seems to be upset about this and demand East Prussia's reintegration into Germany.

No one seems to be upset about this and demand East Prussia's reintegration into Germany.

Well, there are the "Vertriebenenverbände" (associations of displaced persons) who make the occasional comment about the need to retain the "German cultural heritage" in areas like the former East Prussia or Bohemia, and some hardliners of which don't accept the validity of the German borders as they are nowadays, but that's a rapidly collapsing fringe.(No wonder; even those who were children during those forced repatriations are at retirement age now, and their offspring generally don't care enough to take up the cause. Wish that much was true in Palestine, too...)

And, needless to say, nobody has ever bombed Polish or Czech commuter buses over this.

CB,
I understand what you are saying. Certainly I wish that the Israeli's didn't need to construct a wall to protect their people. However, with the continual murder of innocent Israeli's, the lack of support from the Palestinian authority to curb such acts and absolute pathetic response from the UN to resolve the situation, there really was no other choice.

What alternative did the UN propose to stop the terrorism immediately if the wall came down? What proposals did any of the member countries put forward that could stop the deaths in the near future?

The closest I believe the region came to peace was while Clinton was still President of the US, but Arafat could not handle having peace. It was not to be a "peace at any price" agreement, such as what the British PM Chamberlain signed in the 1930's, but an honourable solution for all.

That is the point, it must be a win-win for all parties involved or nothing will ever be resolved. Arafat's decision was one of pure self-interest, not for the benefit of his people.

As for you being ashamed of our government, I'm sorry to hear it.

As an American and as a Jew, I thank Australia for having the guts to stand up for what is right. Islamic fundmantalism, which is the source of the terror - including Palestinian terror, threatens us all. Anyone who believes otherwise is either appeasing or is a turtle hiding in their shell.

As a side note - Quentin george's statement that Germany the country is younger than Israel is utterly false. The Nazis who were in charge of the GERMAN Government - were killing Jews before the Jewish state was formed. Oh yeah, Germany was not created as a refuge for Germans from anti-Germanism, while on the other hand Israel was formed as a refuge from anti-Semitism. Funny that he mention Germany. Anyone remember the Holocaust?

I think Quentin was being silly. But maybe I've been hypontised by CB's "Jewish owned media"

I guess China forgot about a certain other wall in it's courty.

Umm, I said country right?

Quentin george's statement that Germany the country is younger than Israel is utterly false.

The Federal Republic of Germany was founded in 1949. Israel was founded in 1948.

1948 is before 1949.

By the way, my comment shouldn't have been construed as an anti-Israel comment.

I was pointing out that Germany and Israel have been able to integrate refugees of similar ethnicity expelled by other countries, yet the Arab States (Jordan, for example) choose not to.

Walls are made of Bricks. Bricks can be brought down as was the case in Berlin.
part of israel's wall is In the "DISPUTED territories NOT in the Occupied terrirtoties as pointe out by UN resolution 242.
should there be negotiations with a new palestinian leader ship the wall can be dismantled or rerouted easily.
perhaps we should bear in mind that as we write thousands of Sudanese are beung oppressed and slaughteres and the UN does nothing to stop it.
Its constant castigation of the only democracy in the ME is mere;y a diversion from the duties it continues to conveniently ignore.
Australia can be justifiably proud of its vote. it is a vote against global Islamic Jihad.
The primary duty of a prime minister is the protection of the people against attack.
kofi Annan asks the israelis in gentle terms to commit suicide for the sake of "world peace"
it is nothing short of an outrage !

Mark Twain travelled through Palestine and remarked on how empty and arid it was.

Ukrainian Jews arrive in the late 1800's and begin irrigating, planting and fertilizing.

Miraculously, "Palestinians" begin showing up and coveting the newly-fertile land. Shockingly, they cast their lot with the Nazis, who luckily have a handy "kill all the Jews" policy.

(remainder of history lesson skipped. Screw it. I'm tired, I'm probably getting some detail wrong that someone will pounce on, and I'm sick of pointlessly explaining this to anti-Semites and fools whose entire moral worldview is strong=evil and weak=good.)

CB, can you give me one good reason, in the light of such bigoted remarks as "the Jewish-owned media" and "the idiots in America," why I should not ban you from this site? "Dissenting voices" are one thing, bigots who repeat stupid canards right out of the Islamonazi handbook are another.

CB, you are a leftoid idiot bigot with near-troll behavior. Seriously. I have seen more coherent rants from paranoid schizophrenics.

Expecting people to take you seriously is a long reach. Better ramp up your medication.

bill,

As no-one else appears to have explicitly addressed your questions, I'll have a shot.

1) Could the wall/fence be built on purely Israeli owned land? I presume you mean "within the pre-1967 boundaries". The answer is - no, it couldn't - for various reasons - but I would question as to why it SHOULD. The correct placement of the wall is between the two sides, in such a location to prevent arab attacks on Israelis. This means taking hills that overlook Jewish roads and towns, and protected new jewish areas outside the old borders such as east Jerusalem and, I think, Gush Etzion. Note that some of these were jewish prior to 1948 but the population was driven out prior to the foundation of Israel. Unless you are of the opinion that those jews living outside the green line are sub-human, undeserving of protection...

I have problems with the route, but I think that the Israeli processes of judicial review, compensation, etc. make the wall the lesser of evils.

On the question of SHOULD, I want to know what are the grounds of complaint of the side that is doing the attacking - against civilians - that a defensive wall against those attacks is built on land that they claim? If they don't want the wall built, then STOP THE ATTACKS.

2, 3) If you are anti-wall, that does not necessarily make you an anti-semite. It is a question of why, I guess.

Nice try parallel, but I'm betting you a donut that we will never hear from bill again.

The Arabs started this continual war, remember the terrorist phase (late 60's, early 70's to now) was started because their military forces failed time and time again against Israel.

Why should the Arabs not have the war fought on what some think is their territory? Why should they be spared the consequences of the war they started.

The wall would be totally unnecessary if the Arabs had not started the war.

On the question of SHOULD, I want to know what are the grounds of complaint of the side that is doing the attacking - against civilians - that a defensive wall against those attacks is built on land that they claim? If they don't want the wall built, then STOP THE ATTACKS.

What if the people doing the attacking are quite happy to see the wall built where it is? Isn't it plausible that they are secretly welcoming the wall, and all the new recruits it will bring with it? Are there any non axe-grinding sources out there which say a wall will significantly reduce terrorists' attacks on Israeli citizens? (I've heard that attacks have dropped but they will always find new ways). I'm sceptical but I can understand why people would support it, regardless of its effectiveness. To me it symbolises Israel's saying enough is enough (if that makes sense!)