In my haste to slam the Washington Post for giving short shrift to the Tristan Anderson shooting, I credited Ethan Bronner with a good job on his Times story re the Bay-Area activist, whose survival is in our thoughts tonight.
Bruce Wolman set me straight. "I believe you let Ethan Bronner off too easily today.
Here is an e-mail that I just sent him:"
Mr. Bronner,
In your article today, you wrote "Israel has been building a barrier made up of fencing and walls for about five years. It says it is aimed at stopping terrorists from entering Israel; Palestinians and other opponents say that it takes land away and makes daily life very difficult for the Palestinian villagers there."
While by itself this might seem like a balanced presentation of the Israeli and Palestininian views, I find it very curious that you would not mention a far, more authoritative ruling. According to the New York Times, "The International Court of Justice ruled … that the major portion of the barrier Israel is building violated international law because it was rising on Palestinian land on the West Bank….
In your article today, you wrote "Israel has been building a barrier made up of fencing and walls for about five years. It says it is aimed at stopping terrorists from entering Israel; Palestinians and other opponents say that it takes land away and makes daily life very difficult for the Palestinian villagers there."
While by itself this might seem like a balanced presentation of the Israeli and Palestininian views, I find it very curious that you would not mention a far, more authoritative ruling. According to the New York Times, "The International Court of Justice ruled … that the major portion of the barrier Israel is building violated international law because it was rising on Palestinian land on the West Bank….
The opinion, endorsed by all 15 justices with the exception of the sole American, Thomas Buergenthal, found that the barrier ''constitutes breaches by Israel of its obligations under the applicable humanitarian law'' and that it ''cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order.
…. the court determined that the barrier violated international humanitarian and human rights laws, infringing on the Palestinians' right to self-determination and right to freedom of movement. The Palestinians don't take issue with the barrier as long as Israel confines it to its pre-1967 borders. But many sections of the barrier that cut into the West Bank separate Palestinians from their farms, schools and jobs. The Palestinians also argued that Israel was effectively confiscating land that the Palestinians are demanding for a future state. The court agreed.''
Even the American Judge did not rule the boundary of the barrier legal. His view was that the ICJ did not have jurisdiction.
Mr. Anderson was injured protesting the wall in an area outside of Israel's boundaries.
I would hardly consider the International Court of Justice just "other opponents."
Among "other opponents" include the United Nations General Assembly, the Red Cross, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Some list of just "other opponents".
Even a minimal amount of research in Israel would reveal that "security" was not the only determinant of the barrier's placement.
I know you don't like to hear this, but I am afraid your characterization of the barrier is another indication of the difficulties you have in providing unbiased reports with respect to Israel and its confrontation with the Palestinians.
Respectfully yours,
Bruce Wolman
Bethesda, MD
…. the court determined that the barrier violated international humanitarian and human rights laws, infringing on the Palestinians' right to self-determination and right to freedom of movement. The Palestinians don't take issue with the barrier as long as Israel confines it to its pre-1967 borders. But many sections of the barrier that cut into the West Bank separate Palestinians from their farms, schools and jobs. The Palestinians also argued that Israel was effectively confiscating land that the Palestinians are demanding for a future state. The court agreed.''
Even the American Judge did not rule the boundary of the barrier legal. His view was that the ICJ did not have jurisdiction.
Mr. Anderson was injured protesting the wall in an area outside of Israel's boundaries.
I would hardly consider the International Court of Justice just "other opponents."
Among "other opponents" include the United Nations General Assembly, the Red Cross, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Some list of just "other opponents".
Even a minimal amount of research in Israel would reveal that "security" was not the only determinant of the barrier's placement.
I know you don't like to hear this, but I am afraid your characterization of the barrier is another indication of the difficulties you have in providing unbiased reports with respect to Israel and its confrontation with the Palestinians.
Respectfully yours,
Bruce Wolman
Bethesda, MD
