Soccer Dad

Sun Blight

The Baltimore Sun today ran an editorial "Rerouting Israel's fence" While most of the editorial is a fine tribute to the strength of Israel's democracy, the Sun's opinion writers couldn't avoid:

Although the court didn't address the penetration of the barrier into the West Bank (an inappropriate taking of vast swaths of land to protect Jewish settlements), the impact on Palestinians should be lessened.

This is mistaken.
The court ruled (see paragraph 32):

We found no defect in the process of issuing the orders of seizure, or in the process of granting the opportunity to appeal them. Regarding the central question raised before us, our opinion is that the military commander is authorized - by the international law applicable to an area under belligerent occupation - to take possession of land, if this is necessary for the needs of the army. See articles 23(g) and 52 of the Hague Convention; article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. He must, of course, provide compensation for his use of the land.

The court was quite explicit in stating that the seizure of the land was legal and proper. Perhaps the Sun's editors should have taken the time to read the opinion instead of applying their baseless opinions to Israel's efforts at self-defense.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Posted by SoccerDad at July 7, 2004 09:42 PM | TrackBack