Free Dartmouth
 
  home  
  join
7/13/2004 08:40:00 PM | Timothy

Nathan Newman on conservatives and the Wall
In some ways, it is perplexing that conservatives don't roar their support of the World Court's decision condemning Israel's construction of the wall slicing through Palestinian land. Or at least they should support the parts that read like a strong anti-"takings" decision protecting property rights:
Israel is accordingly under an obligation to return the land, orchards, olive groves and other immovable property seized from any natural or legal person for purposes of construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In the event that such restitution should prove to be materially impossible, Israel has an obligation to compensate the persons in question for the damage suffered.

This is the most basic statement of required takings compensation doctrine that exists, yet conservatives don't even seem to care. This highlights how unhinged is conservative support for every abuse by the Israeli regime, since they blithefully support actions by Israel that they normally denounce as economic evil.

Of course, the takings compensation portion of the World Court decision is only part of the decision, but the basic idea that the wall will fatally disrupt the economic viability of Palestinians corralled into the remaining portions of the West Bank has been the basic criticism all along. Yes, the Wall is also an international land grab by Israel, but it is its deliberate economic disruption of life for the Palestinians that is most condemned.
MORE ON THE ICJ RULING: Ted Belman on IsraPundit has this analysis:
In my article, Implications of the ICJ Decision I chose instead, to first of all set out what the court decided, to show it went far beyond declaring the fence illegal. It also declared that the Palestinian people exist, that all settlements are illegal, the Jerusalem is occupied territory and that the UN has a sacred trust to hold all the territories for them.
Another poster on Israpundit says: "Last week's decision by the International Court of Justice in The Hague concerning Israel's security fence was nothing short of obscene."



Links to this post:

Create a Link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Dartmouth
The Free Press

Alums for Social Change
The Green Magazine
The Dartmouth
Dartmouth Observer
Dartmouth Review
Dartlog
Inner Office
The Little Green Blog
Welton Chang's Blog
Vox in Sox
MN Publius (Matthew Martin)
Netblitz
Dartmouth Official News

Other Blogs
Ampersand

Atrios
Arts & Letters
Altercation
Body and Soul
Blog For America
Brad DeLong
Brad Plumer
CalPundit
Campus Nonsense
Clarksphere
Crooked Timber
Cursor
Daily Kos
Dean Nation
Dan Drezner
The Front Line
Instapundit
Interesting Times
Is That Legal?
Talking Points Memo
Lady-Likely
Lawrence Lessig
Lean Left
Left2Right
Legal Theory
Matthew Yglesias
Ms. Musings
MWO
Nathan Newman
New Republic's &c.
Not Geniuses
Ornicus
Oxblog
Pandagon
Political State Report
Political Theory Daily Review
Queer Day
Roger Ailes
SCOTUS blog
Talk Left
TAPPED
Tacitus
This Modern World
Tough Democrat
Untelevised
Volokh Conspiracy
Washington Note
X. & Overboard

Magazines, Newspapers and Journals
Boston Globe Ideas
Boston Review
Chronicle of Higher Education
Common Dreams
Dissent
In These Times
Mother Jones
New York Review of Books
New York Times
Salon
Slate
The American Prospect
The Nation
The New Republic
The Progressive
Tikkun
Tom Paine
Village Voice
Washington Monthly

Capitol Hill Media
ABC's The Note
American Journalism Review
Columbia Journalism Review
CQ
Daily Howler
Donkey Rising
The Hill
Medianews
National Journal
NJ Hotline
NJ Wake-up call
NJ Early Bird
NJ Weekly
Political Wire
Roll Call
Spinsanity

Search
Search the DFP

www.blogwise.com
Powered by Blogger

The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.