"We agree to a fence on the Green Line" - Palestinian PM Ahmed Quriea

[tinnypriv]

"We agree to a fence on the Green Line"
Ma'ariv, 11 December 2003

"Suppose you want a fence, fine. Build it on the Green Line. In that case, we are willing to participate in construction costs with you" - says PM Quriea, in an interview with Ma'ariv's weekend supplement, to be published in full tomorrow (friday).

"You cannot construct a fence, on our land, put us into cages like chickens and hope for the best", says Quriea.

...

On the unilateral steps planned by the government of Ariel Sharon, Quriea says: "If Sharon wants to bring down settlements, fine. We will not stop him from taking down Netzarim. But if he wishes to contruct the fence in order to annex (territory) through the middle of Palestinian land, this is not useful".

...

Palestinians demand a halt to the construction of the fence. But, they (are prepared) to compromise by (only) demanding that the fence encroaching on Palestinian territory beyond the Green Line be frozen.

...

http://images.maariv.co.il/channels/1/ART/605/327.html (Hebrew)

[wtmusic]

1. 'Put us into cages like chickens'

isn't that kinda like what they're doing in Iraqi villages nowadays?

[aquart]

4. No, it's how Israelis live.

Note: it isn't how the Palestinians live. That's obvious by his saying he doesn't want it to happen.

Kind of ironic if you like that sort of humor.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Israelis live much the same as we all do...

To portray them as living all caged up and in conditions like the Palestinians is completely out of touch with reality. The only Israelis who anyone could even try to argue were 'caged in' would be settlers in the Occupied Territories, and their caging in is one of privilege and is completely by choice, unlike that of the Palestinians...

If you have any rational argument for why the fence shouldn't go along the Green Line but should take in large areas of Palestinian territory, feel free to share...


Violet...

[Gimel]

11. Only the rich

those who are able to leave the country, drive in private cars, live as you do. When an Isreli has "everything", that means he/she has a family, can put food on the table and has a refrigerator and a stove and washing machine. In the US, one "who has everything" means he has a sumptuous life style. It's only a semantic sameness.

Israelis are proud of their country. Americans hate their's. Israelis are struggling to survive and carry a large overdraft at the bank. Americans complain about their inability to buy a yacht.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Israelis have the same standard of living as the rest of us...

I didn't say anything about Israelis having 'everything' so I've got no idea why yr trying to argue with me as though I did. I was very clear about what I was saying so feel free to go back and respond to that rather than whatever it was that you think yr arguing about...


Violet...

[Gimel]

29. Do you expect me to

only use your expressions? Maybe you are limited, but I don't accept your rules of the game. I was giving an example from my own experience. Have you ever lived in Israel or the US? On what authority do you speak about the "standard of living" in Israel?

On edit: besides, aquart didn't say anything about standard of living, so why are you bringing that up?

[Violet_Crumble]

80. I do expect if someone replies to my post they'll discuss what *I* said...

Which was something completely different than coming along and replying to a post where the discussion had been about caging Palestinians like chickens, and my post was a response to someone claiming Israelis lived like that. The discussion wasn't about anyone claiming Israelis had 'everything', Gimel. That's a completely different argument, and one that I'm not interested in going into as people can define 'everything' to be whatever they want it to be....

When someone makes a claim that a people live in a particular way, they definately are discussing their standard of living...

Violet...

[Resistance]

25. Americans hate their country?

Pretty radical thing to say, don't you think Gimel? (not to mention totally untrue and offensive to Americans such as myself)

[bluesoul]

26. I guess disagreeing with Bush

is "hating" America and all behind Sharon is "loving" Israel :shrug:

[edzontar]

30. Americans hate their country?

Interesting...the only people I ever hear say things like that in the US are far-right wingnuts who belive that liberals and critics of american war policy are "America haters" and "blame America firsters."

I am not at all sure if that is YOUR position, though.

Could you give us a few examples of what you mean by Americans' America-hating, if only to clarify your own meaning?

[Gimel]

32. What about

flag burners? They remind me of the Palestinian terrorists. The parade around with their loaded rifles and burn Israeli and American flags. Many on DU think Rachel Corrie is a saint and a hero. But she was photographed burning a replica of an American flag.

Does someone (an American) who burns an American flag demonstrate hatred for his country?

No, not all Americans hate their country. Some seem to, however. I'm not speaking of politics now, or the administration in power. Apparently you have confused the two, as is often the case.

Most Israelis are proud of their country. They are proud of the accomplishments and sacrifices. They do their military service honorably, and although it is a bother to have to do reserve duty every year, few complain about it.

Here many complain about their military. They do not support the service men and only fear for their own.

[edzontar]

34. Well, ya see, it is like this....

Flag-burners are not exacly a major force in the politics of this country.

Besides, your statement that "Americans hate their country" had a much broader implication, and suggested that this is a significant attitude or opinion in our society as a whole.

Pointing to the rare and marginalized practice of flag-burning hardly constitues a response to that sort of claim.

Indeed, the only people in the US who pay any attention to flag-buring are the Right Wing fascists who want to exploit the phenomenon as a wedge-issue by proposing amendments to the Constitution to ban the practice.

[Gimel]

36. An underlying animosity

Whether it's honest or not, there is often an underlying disrespect for not only the flag, the pledge of allegiance (banned from schools) and from the time of Viet Nam war onwards, a contempt for military men. Not saying this is everyone, but a considerable percentage of the left political movement.

Disagreement with a political party can cause distortions, understood. I mean this as an observation, as the subject of the diferences of living in Israel and the US was raised. I'm sure that 99% those who show distrespect to the flag and the icons of the country would never consider living anywhere else.

On edit: Burning the flag, or even trampling on it was a violation of law until the 1980's or so.

[edzontar]

37. Well, I have read arguments like these before....

But never expected to see them on a Dem-Progressive forum.

[Gimel]

41. Is it fobidden

on a "progressive" foum to compare living in the US to living in Israel? The sense of patriotism is one thing that I notice as different. That was my point.

[edzontar]

43. I think it is unexpected...

To read attacks on the patriotism and good will of the American left on a progressive board.

I have no objection to fair and reasoned comparisions between Israeli and American life.

[Gimel]

51. Pardon me

I should have limited my comment to a percentage. I am not attacking your personal patriotism. You have given me no reason to.

I was comparing the love of country (call it patriotism if you will). Even though Israelis don't express patriotism as much as they did 20 years ago, they know they need to defend it. For there is not other state, no other land for most Israelis. Germany is willing to repatriate children of citizens, but what kind of life is available there for Israeli Jews?

You see, Israel is an area that is about the size of New Jersey, no distant west to relocate in. It is a fenced in land, still surrounded by enemies. Egypt has recalled it's embassdor more than a year ago. There are attacks on Israelis wherever they go in the world, and attacks on Israelis for no reason than they are Israelis even in their own land. Then they are demonized for protecting their land, and further demonized for building a fence so that military operations would be unnecessary. It is a cruel world. It gives Israelis more reason to love their country.

[edzontar]

53. When was the last time you visited the USA?

After 9/11 there were flags eveywhere.

Some of the patriotism was good: it expressed solidarity with the victims, a united resolve to defend our citizens from terrorist attack, etc.

But some of it was bad: People who expressed opposition to the war policies of Bushco were vilieifed as traitors.

Among the victiims: the Dixie Chicks, Susan Sontag, Michael Moore, and, of course, the majority of posters on DU.

Y'see, DU is, or at least used to be, an anti-conservative, anti-Bush website.

Statements like yours about un-American leftists are not exactly what we come here to read, let alone endorse.

[Gimel]

55. So you're patriotic

As patriotic as Yankee Doodle. Great! That's what I came to hear.

Actually I was in Arlington, VA six months ago.

[edzontar]

61. I don't choose to wear it on my sleeve.

I don't trust people who proclaim their patriotism too much.

And I don't appreciate people who set themselves up as the arbiters of OTHER PEOPLE's patriotism.

I work in a public university. I put in long hours. I pay my taxes. I contribute labor and some funds to political causes and activities.

I am a member of the Democratic Party, the ACLU, and other liberal and human-rights organizations.

I don't wear a flag pin or fly a flag from my house, but I tend my father's old flagpole at my parent's house, raise and lower the flag at night when I am there, and replace the flag on my veteran father's grave during my visits.

Good enough for you?

[Gimel]

66. Comparative

To put it more precisely, I think that Americans take their country more for granted. Israelis don't. It's more precious in that way. Patriotism can mean many things and is less precise. Expressions of contempt for country (such as flag burning) are unheard of in Israel.

[edzontar]

69. I can't evaluate that, but...

It seems like a rather overarching generality to me.

[Gimel]

70. I guess I'm trying

to figure out why "progressive" Americans would come to this board to assail Israel for combating terror which actually threatened existence of the country.

[edzontar]

73. It is not to assail Israel....and nothing against the Israeli people

The issues are security, peace, and justice.

The occupation and the horrors it has wrought have been going on for so long, some of us are impatient with the policies of the GOI that seem only to perpetuate and aggravate the crisis.

Among these, what consistently bothers me is the issue of the settlements.

What is their purpose?

Some argue that they are a bargaining chip for a peace deal, but if that is the case, why keep building more of them and now surround them with a fence?

What many of us suspect is that the REAL plan is to seize the land as part of the "greater Israel" that used to be spoken of more openly, but is hardly ever mentioned now among "polite" company.

I know that most Palestinians believe that the fence is just another instrument intened to establish "facts on the ground" that will drive them out of their homes and their land, or bring them under permanent and unwanted Isreali occupation.

Are they wrong?

[Gimel]

78. security, peace, and justice

These are ideals and virtually unattainable in the absolute sense. More settlements are not being built. The fence may include some of the settlements near the Greenline. One proposal is to surround those which are outside the Greenline for security. Today the talk is about removing some settlements. This will be a long process. Moving up to 50,000 peoples' homes takes time. The issues get spun around among the different interested parties. How to satisfy everyone and yet minimize conflict and maintain a state? It is one of the thorniest issues around.

I know that the inspiration for the fence is totally security. The Palestinians, and most "progressive" posters opposed it from it's inception even if it was not to deviate from the Greenline. Now, low and behold, they have come around, even supposedly Arafat to accepting the fence on "Israeli territory". Of course, they can't call it a land grab if it is only on Israeli territory (if that were ever clear). Then it would have to leave large settlements of Israeli Jews on the Palestinian side. Even those which actually border the Greenline would be cut of from Israel by the fence. That does not make sense as a security interest for Israel.

Terrorists could easily attack families living in those settlements. They would be left totally exposed. So, that puts them in the position of making the move individually behind the Greenline or putting their lives at an incredibly high risk. That's why the settlers have opposed the fence from the beginning.

Some compromises could be made, but compromises and settlements with Arafat are estimated to be unattainable. Any solution is better than no solution and no solution satisfies everyone. In the end, Israel will build the wall and accommodations will be made on one side or another. Facts on the ground? Huh! There are new facts every day. The best fact would be a cessation of violence. That's what the Palestinians don't want. It might put Israel in a better light.

Well, some consider the fence to already have been built, while others think it takes up 50% of the PA territory. I'm sure that is an exaggeration. there are innumerable stories, and one estimate from a reliable source says that 25,000 acres have been put on the Israeli side of the fence over the Green Line. It is causing innumerable problems. Problems can be worked out if there is good will. It will take time.

This has to be done, because the killing can't go on.

[Violet_Crumble]

82. Not so at all...

The Palestinians, and most "progressive" posters opposed it from it's inception even if it was not to deviate from the Greenline.

"Suppose you want a fence, fine. Build it on the Green Line. In that case, we are willing to participate in construction costs with you" - says PM Quriea, in an interview with Ma'ariv's weekend supplement, to be published in full tomorrow (friday)."

That's the article that began this thread, Gimel. Yet yr claiming the complete opposite? Jack Rabbit talked about this in a thread a while back. Claims that many progressives (and I find it insulting to be referred to as a "progressive" because the implication is clearly being made that I'm not progressive at all) are opposed to the fence even if it goes along the Green Line is a red herring. Speaking for myself, I have always believed that while a fence along the Green Line is only a short-term 'fix', that I wouldn't have a complaint about it being built, because if built along the Green Line it wouldn't have been doing a defacto annexation of territory that doesn't belong to Israel. If we had land borders that bordered on Indonesia, it would have been totally legal to build a wall along that border in response to the Bali Bombings. But if a wall had started to be constructed in Bali keeping all the nightclubs and tourist haunts on one side and defining Indonesians as 'long-term residents' who must apply to a military authority for permission to keep on residing where they've lived all their lives, that would have been just as wrong as what Israel is doing in the West Bank....

Rather than take Palestinian territory, if Israel had some legitimate reason it couldn't build a wall along the Green Line, it should have built it on a path inside Israel, because after all, what's a little bit of lost land when it comes to stopping terrorism? I'm sure there would have been good will on the part of Israelis losing their land and livelihoods just the same as there'd be good will on the part of Palestinians losing theirs now, right?

Violet...

[Gimel]

86. Tomorrow isn't 20 months ago

I'm sorry, your comment ignores the facts. Anyway, whatever you think about the bombing in Bali, it is not anywhere near the situation Israel faces, so you can't explain it that way.

[edzontar]

89. I still fail to see how settllements and fences in Palestinain land

Can be anything other than provocation and/or expansionism.

I have yet to hear or read anything that has contradicted this view.

[Muddleoftheroad]

93. It is not Palestinian land until there is a peace treaty

At that point borders will be worked out and even the Palestinians have made it clear in the latest peace attempt that they want more land (a corridor from Gaza to the West Bank).

[Violet_Crumble]

105. What is it, then?

Of course it's Palestinian territory. The fact that it's occupied by Israel doesn't make it any less Palestinian....

Also, what problem do you have IF there were negotiations over a corridor? Does this concern over land also extend to worrying over any land the Palestinians may lose?

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

106. It is territory that likely will end up being part of a Palestinian state

But right now it isn't and there is no such Palestinian state to give it to.

As for the corridor, aside from the ridiculous security issues it would raise, is yet another example of how territory will need to be negotiated during a peace treaty. For Palestinians to assume they get everything back to the Green Line and still negotiate other stuff is almost humorous. It is all on the table when, or if, the Palestinians decide to tackle the terrorists.

[Violet_Crumble]

107. Yes, Muddle. It's Palestinian territory...

No-one's claiming there's a Palestinian state. Please show me where I did, because I most certainly didn't as far as I can remember...

Why is it so unreasonable for Palestinians to want the West Bank and Gaza? I fail to see what's so ludicrous about that at all. A corridor was part of the original partition, so if it was so ridiculous why did Israel agree to it in the first place?

No, the onus is NOT solely on the Palestinian people to tackle the terrorists, however you choose to define the word tackle. What has to happen for the occupation to end is for Israel to either remove itself from the Occupied Territories or for the territory to be handed over to a Palestinian government after peace negotiations. Which seems to be why there's constant claims that there's 'no partner in peace' from the Israeli side, even though it's very clear that with the past habit of Israel in assassinating moderates and ignoring those who can negotiate, that there's no intention from Israel of entering into any negotiations with the genuine desire to withdraw from the Occupied Territories and allow a Palestinian state to be born...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

108. The Palestinians wish to change the status quo

The status quo clearly makes them unhappy. They wish statehood. To get statehood, they need Israel's help. To get Israel's help, they have to tackle the terrorists. It's pretty simple actually.

Lacking a Palestinian state, that territory remains in Israeli control. Territory, you may recall, rests in the hands of states.

The Palestinians can WANT any territory they wish. They can WANT Delaware, but they won't get it. Similarly, they won't get all the territory around Jerusalem.

As for a corridor, the original partition did not take into account 55 years of warfare and decades of terror. Such a corridor would be a huge security risk for Israel. Nevertheless, that is a subject for peace negotiations and if Israel agrees, that is their choice.

[Violet_Crumble]

109. Wouldn't you be unhappy if you lived under a military occupation?

I know I would. That the Palestinians are unhappy is completely reasonable...

No, it's not 'pretty simple'. They don't need Israel's help to attain statehood. If by 'help' you mean 'ending the occupation', yr wrong there too. While terrorism is part of what needs to be resolved, it's definately not the only issue...

I dont' understand why yr still arguing that Palestinian territory isn't Palestinian territory. Clearly it's Palestinian territory. Israel occupation doesn't turn it into Israeli territory. It turns it into Palestinian territory that's occupied by Israel...

Huh? Why would the Palestinians want Delaware? Palestinians don't live in Delaware, unlike the West Bank and Gaza where many of them have lived for such an incredibly long time. They are native to the area, and as such it's not unreasonable at all for them to want the territory they live in. I think what ends up happening when it comes to what land goes where will be in the hands hopefully of people who want a fair and lasting peace, and the sooner the Geneva Accord is picked up and ran with the better as far as I'm concerned....

Oh. Let me get this right. Before 1948 there was no inkling of the hostility that would come? There were no attacks happening before that? Okay...

I'm kind of curious about something. Do you worry at all about security risks for Palestinians? I can see some very real ones even now. Are they unimportant or is Israeli security much more important?

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

110. Various answers

Right now, I think both sides are pretty unhappy with the situation. The Palestinians are unhappy they don't have a state, Israel is unhappy because it doubts it will ever have peace. (It's right about that.)

Yes, they DO need Israel's help to attain statehood. Sure, they can declare it, but I can declare statehood too, it doesn't make it real. Real is having the ability to make it happen.

You keep calling it Palestinian territory, but it's not. It's not until there is a state of Palestine. Until then, it is territory that is held by the state of Israel. As such, they administer it, can build roads, can shut roads, can control borders, etc.

Yes, the Palestinians want all "the territory they live in." So do the Israelis. That's the conflict. Much of the area is jointly occupied. Some of the West Bank was as well, but Jews were kicked out of there.

I have no idea what you are referring to with, "Oh. Let me get this right. Before 1948 there was no inkling of the hostility that would come? There were no attacks happening before that? Okay..."

I worry first and foremost about security risks for Israel because they are outnumbered and surrounded. The Palestinians have more ability to control their own security by simply ending terror. If Israel does as you wish and abandons the West Bank and Gaza, it won't get peace. If the Palestinian terror groups abandon terror, their people will get a nation AND Israel will get peace.

[Violet_Crumble]

111. There's several flaws in what you said...

I'm feeling lazy so I'll do a copy'n'paste...

The Palestinians are unhappy they don't have a state, Israel is unhappy because it doubts it will ever have peace. (It's right about that.)

What's true is that Israel will never have peace while it continues to occupy the West Bank and Gaza. As that's what Palestinians are unhappy about, it would appear that Israel ending the occupation would make both Palestinians and Israelis happy. There is nothing to suggest that Israel in non-expansionist mode and respecting international boundaries would not be as peaceful as any other state...

Yes, they DO need Israel's help to attain statehood. Sure, they can declare it, but I can declare statehood too, it doesn't make it real. Real is having the ability to make it happen.

No, actually they don't need Israel's help to attain statehood. When the East Timorese declared statehood not all that long ago, they didn't need the help of Indonesia to do it. See, Israel doesn't get to decide what sort of state it'll be, or how subservient to Israel it will be, or anything along those lines. Not unless the Palestinians allow them to, and I think that'd be a huge mistake. And, no. You as an individual definately can't declare statehood. Statehood for what? Who can declare statehood is the govt (hopefully elected by the people in the occupied territory), and when that happens, it's pretty damn real, as was the case with East Timor. Whether Israel would then recognise and respect the sovereignty of another state is another matter entirely...

You keep calling it Palestinian territory, but it's not. It's not until there is a state of Palestine. Until then, it is territory that is held by the state of Israel. As such, they administer it, can build roads, can shut roads, can control borders, etc.

Uh, I and much of the world call it Palestinian territory because that's what it is. And why I have such a problem with attempts to remove references to the Palestinians out of any discussion of the Occupied Territories themselves is because to me it usually appears to be nothing more than attempts to claim that it's Israeli territory and that Israel in some way has a legitimate and more solid claim to that territory than the people who live there. Of course it's territory that's OCCUPIED by Israel, and as the occupying power it has an obligation to administer it (though I expect those who drew up the rules on what an occupying power can and can't do didn't ever dream that an occupation would go on for decades the way this one has). As such Israel can do some things, and has a legal obligation to do others, such as protect the occupied population, something that Israel isn't doing. Maybe yr not intending to come across this way, but you appear to believe that an occupied people lose all rights under an occupation and that there isn't a legal obligation on the occupying power to protect them and there's no obligation on the occupying power to refrain from exploiting the occupied territory for it's own gain...


Yes, the Palestinians want all "the territory they live in." So do the Israelis. That's the conflict. Much of the area is jointly occupied. Some of the West Bank was as well, but Jews were kicked out of there.

There shouldn't be any conflict if that's the case. Much of the Occupied Territories is now 'jointly occupied' because Israel has violated international law and moved portions of its population into the occupied territories. And Muddle. So what if Jews were kicked out of the West Bank at some point? Palestinians were kicked out of where they lived as well. Are you trying to say that because some Jews were kicked out of the West Bank that it justifies Israel ignoring the Geneva Conventions and all sorts of international law now? I hope not...

I have no idea what you are referring to with, "Oh. Let me get this right. Before 1948 there was no inkling of the hostility that would come? There were no attacks happening before that? Okay..."

I was referring to yr attempt to explain away why Israel originally agreed to a partition that had land corridors...

I worry first and foremost about security risks for Israel because they are outnumbered and surrounded.

By the Palestinians?? That's news to me! Personally I think you should be concerned about the security risk to all people, regardless of what nationality or ethnic group they are, or how large or small their group is...

The Palestinians have more ability to control their own security by simply ending terror.

Clearly not true at all. They don't have the ability to control much at all because they happen to be living under a belligerant occupation. And there's nothing simple about ending terror, Muddle. And for that to happen there has to be co-operation between Israel and the Palestinians. Neither Sharon nor his soul-mate Arafat are interested in doing that from what I can see...

If Israel does as you wish and abandons the West Bank and Gaza, it won't get peace.

How do you know? It's never been done so you can't say with any certainty what would happen. What does seem obvious to folk who are truly interested in a peaceful and fair resolution to the conflict is that if Israel ends the occupation, the reason for the unending stream of suicide bombers isn't there anymore. Remove that reason and I think peace wouldn't be far off. Of course, it depends how you choose to define peace. As I've said before, yr use of the word in many contexts is one I'm unfamiliar with due to me believing that peace isn't just something where Israelis get to live without fear of attack while the Palestinians have to cop whatever it takes to have that happen. Also, what seems obvious to me is that for a while the most extreme on both sides would still resort to sporadic attacks and violence and the actions of the extremists should never be used to undermine attempts at peace...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

113. Point Counterpoint

What's true is that Israel will never have peace while it continues to occupy the West Bank and Gaza. As that's what Palestinians are unhappy about, it would appear that Israel ending the occupation would make both Palestinians and Israelis happy. There is nothing to suggest that Israel in non-expansionist mode and respecting international boundaries would not be as peaceful as any other state...

Yeah, like Israel will get peace when the Palestinian terror network vows to destroy it. What you don't get about the territories is that the border is negotiable, especially since the Palestinians want more land besides. When there is a peace negotiation that will be discussed. But even then, Israel won't get peace.

No, actually they don't need Israel's help to attain statehood. When the East Timorese declared statehood not all that long ago, they didn't need the help of Indonesia to do it. See, Israel doesn't get to decide what sort of state it'll be, or how subservient to Israel it will be, or anything along those lines. Not unless the Palestinians allow them to, and I think that'd be a huge mistake. And, no. You as an individual definately can't declare statehood. Statehood for what? Who can declare statehood is the govt (hopefully elected by the people in the occupied territory), and when that happens, it's pretty damn real, as was the case with East Timor. Whether Israel would then recognise and respect the sovereignty of another state is another matter entirely...

Again, I can declare statehood. But saying and making it so are not the same. The Palestinians don't have the power to enforce the decision.

Uh, I and much of the world call it Palestinian territory because that's what it is. And why I have such a problem with attempts to remove references to the Palestinians out of any discussion of the Occupied Territories themselves is because to me it usually appears to be nothing more than attempts to claim that it's Israeli territory and that Israel in some way has a legitimate and more solid claim to that territory than the people who live there. Of course it's territory that's OCCUPIED by Israel, and as the occupying power it has an obligation to administer it (though I expect those who drew up the rules on what an occupying power can and can't do didn't ever dream that an occupation would go on for decades the way this one has). As such Israel can do some things, and has a legal obligation to do others, such as protect the occupied population, something that Israel isn't doing. Maybe yr not intending to come across this way, but you appear to believe that an occupied people lose all rights under an occupation and that there isn't a legal obligation on the occupying power to protect them and there's no obligation on the occupying power to refrain from exploiting the occupied territory for it's own gain...

I'll be all for calling it Palestinian territory when there is a nation of Palestine. There isn't. In the meantime, it is territory under Israel's control. Yes, Israel has an obligation to people under its control. But it has a higher obligation to its own citizens and their protection.

There shouldn't be any conflict if that's the case. Much of the Occupied Territories is now 'jointly occupied' because Israel has violated international law and moved portions of its population into the occupied territories. And Muddle. So what if Jews were kicked out of the West Bank at some point? Palestinians were kicked out of where they lived as well. Are you trying to say that because some Jews were kicked out of the West Bank that it justifies Israel ignoring the Geneva Conventions and all sorts of international law now? I hope not...

In case you hadn't noticed, both sides claim much of this land. The part that Isael claims, it is going to keep. That includes areas around Jerusalem.

I was referring to yr attempt to explain away why Israel originally agreed to a partition that had land corridors...

The 1948 war invalidated that land map.

By the Palestinians?? That's news to me! Personally I think you should be concerned about the security risk to all people, regardless of what nationality or ethnic group they are, or how large or small their group is...

Not just the Palestinians. The Palestinians and their many Arab allies. As for national security, you can choose to be concerned about who you wish and I will choose to be concerned about who I wish.

Clearly not true at all. They don't have the ability to control much at all because they happen to be living under a belligerant occupation. And there's nothing simple about ending terror, Muddle. And for that to happen there has to be co-operation between Israel and the Palestinians. Neither Sharon nor his soul-mate Arafat are interested in doing that from what I can see...

There is indeed something simple about ending terror. First of all, you start arresting terrorists, keeping them locked up and moving militarily against their strongholds. If Israel can figure out where some of those are, damn well bet the Palestinians who live there can.

How do you know? It's never been done so you can't say with any certainty what would happen. What does seem obvious to folk who are truly interested in a peaceful and fair resolution to the conflict is that if Israel ends the occupation, the reason for the unending stream of suicide bombers isn't there anymore. Remove that reason and I think peace wouldn't be far off. Of course, it depends how you choose to define peace. As I've said before, yr use of the word in many contexts is one I'm unfamiliar with due to me believing that peace isn't just something where Israelis get to live without fear of attack while the Palestinians have to cop whatever it takes to have that happen. Also, what seems obvious to me is that for a while the most extreme on both sides would still resort to sporadic attacks and violence and the actions of the extremists should never be used to undermine attempts at peace...

That which you call, "the occupation" is how many in that region refer to Israel entirely. They want it gone and consider all of its territory occupied. That's not a recipe for peace, no matter what Israel does.

The best thing Israel can do is wall off the Palestinians and let them live on their own. Minimize any and all contact until they are more willing to talk peace.

[Violet_Crumble]

95. I don't know what happened 20 months ago...

...but it sure wasn't Bali. That was 14 months ago. But I'm not understanding why you think the timeframe of anything justifies a state violating international law, while if another state were to take the same action and something happened perhaps on a Friday afternoon, there's no justification for it at all...

I don't think you understood the point I was making, Gimel. It had nothing to do with some 'this atrocity is much worse than that one' line of thinking, but everything to do with what a nation can and can't do when dealing with attacks on its citizens. What it all boils down to is that Israel as a state is no different than other nations, or a special case compared to them. Israel can't do something just because it's Israel. If it can do it, then other states should be able to as well, none of this 'different time, different place' stuff that is used to try to argue why Israel is justified in doing what we'd all find appalling if done by other states...

Violet...

[bluesoul]

38. Excuse me Gimel

Do you have a problem with the anti-war left? And if so why? Is opposing a war an "extremist" and "radical" view by your standards? Is it not progressive? I would really like to know...

[Gimel]

39. What war

are you referring to? I was an anti-war protester in the 60's and 70's. I think it is a valid response, but I was not a flag burner. There is a differnece.

[bluesoul]

40. It can be a statement

of strong opposition of one's policy. I do not do it, but I can understand why people have done it in the past or present. That doesn't mean that you necessarily "hate" your own country, just a strong statement you are sending with what you think is being done in it's name. That's all...

[edzontar]

45. You seem have drifted a long way....

Since those days, which I too remember.

I also remember who the people were who called us flag-burners and haters of America.

[bluesoul]

46. Frankly

I see the confederate flag waving much more troubling, but then that's just IMHO

[edzontar]

48. For the defense of the Confederacy....

Go to that "other" thread...

[Darranar]

42. Is it "patriotic", therefore...

to accept belief in God being insititutionalized?

[Gimel]

44. Another question

Of course if there is a disblief on the part of a few, then I suppose it is better that the whole country resist the belief, or it's expression. Revert to the old pledge of allegience without the "G" word. But if that's what you really want. Perhaps it's a county where the minority makes the rules.

[edzontar]

47. Its about the protection of MINORITY RIGHTS...

Like the right not to have someone else's beliefs forced into the mouths of our children in a public school.

[bluesoul]

49. Separation of Church and State

is crutial here. Regardless what religion is dominant in a certain country. At least it is so in most democratic countries...

[Darranar]

52. You don't get it, do you?

The US has a wide range of beliefs. All should be protected, and none should be endorsed.

Having the words "under God" in the Pledge is an endorsement of the belief in God. It doesn't matter if 0.00001% of the population doesn't believe in God or if 99.9% of the population doesn't believe in God; their right to believe or not believe in whoever they choose is infringed upon when a belief is endorsed by the government.

[Gimel]

56. Did I disagree?

I understand the rational. But like I said, it's the minority of athiests who are inforcing the changes. Does one have to be an athiest to be "progressive" in your USA?

[edzontar]

59. No-but the majority has no right to impose its deity...

On the minority.

Or don't you get that point?

[Gimel]

63. I agree

Like I said, the old way of saying the pledge didn't mention a diety. Sometime in the 50's that was added.

I don't say the pledge or salute the flag, but I do regard G-d over country. That is my choice. Do you get the point?

[edzontar]

65. I don't really care....

Where you choose to place your faith in relation to patriotism or anything else.

To me, this is a personal choice.

MY point is that no goverment has the right to impose any god or religion on me or my family.

How would you feel if we replaced the word "God" with "Jesus"?

In other words; Take God out of the pledge.

[Gimel]

68. You might

do anything you like in private. I'm really not a part of this argument at all.

As far as Israel is concerned, Israeli Jews would not agree to living under Islamic law either. Should the Moslems be allowed to build a mosque next to every Jewish synagogue in Israel in order for Israel to be concidered democratic?

[edzontar]

74. i have no problem with Mosques anywhere.

Or synagogues, for that matter....

[Violet_Crumble]

83. I'm an atheist...

And if you choose to regard G-d over country, more power to you. Yr entitled to yr PERSONAL beliefs every bit as much as anyone who doesn't believe it. But there's a huge difference between individuals having personal beliefs and a government forcing those beliefs on an entire population. Why should anyone who doesn't believe in the US version of G-d be forced to swear allegiance to her? To remove that from the pledge isn't atheists forcing their beliefs on everyone, because to pledge allegiance to a state shouldn't involve any public declarations of belief in a mythical entity...

Violet....

[Gimel]

87. That is the same

as my point. I am not forcing my beliefs on anyone.

[edzontar]

90. I heard your remarks quite differently.

You seemed to be suggesting that a "minority" of atheists (I am one, by the way) was attempting to force its views on a faithful majority of Americans by trying to get "God" removed from the pledge.

But it is not like we are trying to get "Under No God" INTO the pledge...that would be the true and logical equivalent.

Our argument is that public affirmation of religious faith should not be forces on our children or on anyone else by the government.

As for the rest of it....my presumption is that you emigrated to Israel for religious reasons. You are comfortable with a much closer relationship bwtween faith and state.

That is fine for you. In Israel.

I just don't want that kind of society HERE (although Bush and his gang clearly DO).

But I still live here, and yes, I consider the Republicans to be the enemy, and more, to be the enemy of everything that is decent, honset and true in the world.

That is why I come to DU.

And that does not mean that I hate my country.

As for flag-buring, I agree with Violet on this. Do what you want to do.

It is a piece of cloth. I don't believe in sanctifying secular symbols.

That said, my dad was a vet and I put a flag on his grave.

So whatever,

[Gimel]

118. Revert to the old pledge

This is exactly what I was suggesting. As far as I know, there has not been a petition to revert to the original form the the POA. I've heard about the court cases and that the pledge has been banned from schools. This does seem to bow to the athiests, as the removal of the "G" word would have saved the pledge, which was the main point.

If the athiests wanted to remain loyal to the pledge, they could have gone this route, is what I am saying. Perhaps the POA istself is offensive, and like you, have become so immersed in America that there is no other place anyway, so why even notice a flag. It's old fashioned.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lithos]

98. Yes and no

Yes, you can be offended. But no, you are not to use personally directed and offensive commentary in return.

Use the alert system.

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground

[edzontar]

99. OOPS

I thought i was writing to the Mod!!!

Sorry

[Muddleoftheroad]

100. Happy to

In the past, NO time that I have complained about the anti-religion terms have they been deleted. I would gladly return to alerting on them if that works.

Great!

[Violet_Crumble]

101. I reread my post...

My intention was not to offend anyone at all, and I didn't direct any comments personally at anyone when it came to calling god a 'mythical entity'. What I was doing was naturally enough was explaining how I as an atheist view oaths of allegiance and things like that containing pledges to a god. I never said anything about how other people must believe what I believe. All I did was say what *I* believe, and honestly that shouldn't be offensive to anyone who shares my belief that people are entitled to their own beliefs when it comes to religion. The only thing I find offensive is when governments try to force religious beliefs and traditions on people who don't believe in it...

Violet...

[edzontar]

102. Goodbye all

Have a nice exchange.

After that last bit, I think I am taking a break for a while.

[Violet_Crumble]

112. Ed...

If you do decide to take a break, I hope it's a short one as I'd miss yr posts in this forum. Please reconsider, okay?


Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

81. What about them?

I've seen Australian and US flags burnt earlier this year, and burning a flag has zero to do with whether someone loves or hates their country. A flag is merely a fabric prop that some people mistakenly decide to focus on as all there is to being patriotic. People can be patriotic and love their country, and burn their flag because they do love their country. It's a bit of fabric, ferchristsake!

And there is nothing wrong with criticising the military of our own or any other country. I know people do exist who believe we have to blindly support our militaries no matter what they do, but what they don't realise is attempts to stifle dissent was a tool of totalitarian regimes in the past and has no place in a free, democratic society....

It's natural for most people of ANY nationality to feel a pride in their country. It's not something that's the sole confine of Israelis, Gimel. Americans feel the same way towards the US as Israelis do towards Israel. Where I do get uncomfortable is when people start to insist that they *know* best how people feel and that certain actions they may disapprove of like flag-burning supposedly exempts someone from loving their country...

Violet...

[Paschall]

57. Can I turn the question around?

On what authority do you speak about the "standard of living" in the US? And on what authority do you say Americans hate their country? What exactly do you mean?

That's extremely offensive. So is your remark about Americans complaining about their "inability to buy a yacht."

Do you know 12-15% of the US population lives in poverty? Or that over 30% of Black and Hispanic children in the US live in poverty?

Yacht?

[Gimel]

60. Of course

My comment was an over-generalization. I apologized and I'll apologize again. I wanted to wake people up, and I succeeded in doing that. I was using a relative sense, not absolute.

You've become defensive. I was not even speaking about standard of living. VC brought that into the discussion. I am aware of poverty levels, and I am a native of the US. Israeli poverty and unemployment levels are higher. Palestinian poverty and unemployment is higher still. I'm not sure about Australia, but I think it's closer to that of the US.

I lived more 35 years in the US. Concept of country varies. In the US, it's like it doesn't exist, and it's the government or the Republicans that are the enemy.

Don't overgeneralize and think as one poster that Israelis live the same as Americans or as "we do".

Apartment sizes are small, single family homes are practically unheard of and certainly out of the reach of middle-class families. Often families of 10 or more live in four room apartments on the 4th floor. This is the middle class in Israel. There is no family car.

So the average family has five children, compared to maybe 2 or 3 in the US.

However, living in a boxed in area, is not really dependent on income level. I wrote that the "very rich" can travel abroad, because for the average Israeli, that is only a dream. You can travel by train and bus and cover most of the country in a single day. that's about the size of it.

[Paschall]

88. A comment, a suggestion, and a question

"I wanted to wake people up, and I succeeded in doing that."

You, therefore, admit you were being provocative.

Please don't assume we're asleep. That's illogical at best, arrogant at worst.

So, if I understand accurately, you are a native-born American, but chose to leave the country and emigrate to Israel for religious reasons. Is that correct?

[tinnypriv]

2. Quick comment

I'd really love for somebody to come into this thread and attempt to defend the fence now.

Right at the time the Palestinians are pleading for intl. aid for their shattered economy, their PM says he'll actually pay Israel to establish a fence. Not even before the occupation is even ended!?

"Peace Fence"? What a joke. A sick fucking joke. You've had your fun, time to quit it.

Anyway, the really interesting thing is that it seems the Palestinians are lining up with official US policy (and even going beyond it with the offer to pay), and Israel is clearly doing the exact opposite: with the finger and a fuck you into the bargain.

Now, which side is the US going to support on this matter? If it picks the Pals, does that make the US gov anti-semitic? If it picks Israel, doesn't that mean the US is paying another country to violate official US policy?

Let the rhetorical contortions begin.

[La_Serpiente]

3. The I/P room has been known for some of the most heated debates

I'm sorry, but I'm going to bed.

[aquart]

5. Uh, there's a reason for the fence.

It's those innocent-looking teenagers with bombs strapped to their bodies.

Tell you what, get Arafat to fork over the Palestinian money he's salted away in personal accounts, and start up some homegrown industries, give those kids the hope of a future...

Oh wait. Every time a kid blows up a bus or a restaurant full of Israelis, the Israelis kill Palestinian PROPERTY which really makes it tough to run a business. Or to ask anyone to invest.

Well, give up killing for a few years and see how it goes.

No? Then a wall looks like a desperate desperate attempt at achieving normal, day to day safety. And you're against that? Nice of you.

[tinnypriv]

6. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Fantastic.

Not even an attempt to read the article (either that or tunnel-vision idiocy), and moving to the left of the Palestinian PM to boot (by calling the 'fence' a 'wall').

So, tell me again, which part of the fact that the Palestinian Prime Minister SUPPORTS a fence did you not understand? (notice the font size?)

Not only does he support it, he's prepared to pay for it!

I'll say it again, S-L-O-W-L-Y:

The Palestinian Prime Minister SUPPORTS A FENCE.

He agrees with you.

Agrees.

Get it?

[Violet_Crumble]

8. I know what's happened here...

I suspect that there's people around who have a reading disorder that translates anyone saying they SUPPORT a fence along the Green Line but not into Palestinian territory as reading as: 'I strongly and vehemently OPPOSE!!!! the PeAcE FeNcE going up anywhere at all, even on the Green Line!!!' See, without that translation, they've really got no arguments for the route of the fence at all, and to try to strengthen their very weak stance, they have to portray all who oppose the route the fence is taking as opposing any fence at all, even on Israeli soil...

Violet...

[Gimel]

54. Means nothing

If Arafat doesn't support it. Quriea might even be dumped next week.

[tinnypriv]

62. Bzzt - Arafat does support it

Q: "What are your objections to Israel's erection of a security fence?"

Arafat: "If Israel were building such a security fence on its own territory, we would not object to it. Even though we believe such a fence stands for the very opposite of the open and neighborly relations we would like to forge with Israel and the just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the region. As long as the fence is on Israel's own land, Israel can do what it wants. But the fence is being built on Palestinian land and its purpose is to preempt permanent status negotiations required by the road map by unilaterally creating facts on the ground. It represents a theft of Palestinian land and has nothing to do with Israel's security, as four previous heads of Israel's Shin Bet have recently said. If continued, this fence will be an apartheid fence confiscating 58 percent of West Bank territory and create a Berlin wall around Jerusalem."

...

para 14: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/370766.html

[Gimel]

71. Arafat's words

are meaningless, as I said before.

[tinnypriv]

76. I hope for his sake

Those reading the Arabic translation in Palestinian mosques today feel the same way.

[Gimel]

77. Do you care so much?

They know what he speaks to the press is from one side of his mouth. He is only for Arafat. Later he will sooth them with calls for Jihad.

[tinnypriv]

79. Sure, I care about the fate of Israel + Pals

In the former case, at least as much as those intel guys who recently did a report saying Hamas and Islamic Jihad will take over the occupied territories and turn them into "Afghanistan" if Arafat is killed.

Okay, so they focus on the effects that will have on Israel, and I don't, but I see no reason for you not to hold their opinions.

That report is to be presented to Sharon BTW, for all he cares. That's the outcome he wants, because he's a murdering, terrorist fuck.

[Gimel]

10. "You've had your fun, time to quit it."

The terror attacks must stop. If you call this fun, you have another view coming.

I personally don't care if the Peace Fence is on the Green Line or not. Just build the thing and stop the terror. Arafat could have stopped terror. If they don't like the PF, let them act to bring the criminals in their own land under control.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluesoul]

20. Exactly!

...

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

84. Yes, I have...

And no, there's been no explanation of how the fence does anything to protect Israel that it wouldn't achieve by being built along the Green Line. Someone else pointed out that it was to protect Israeli settlements that aren't in Israel, but as the settlements are illegal, it stands to reason that building a fence to protect illegal settlements would also be illegal and not a good excuse for the protection of Israelis inside Israel itself...

I've got no idea why my post was deleted, so I'll wait for a reply from the mods to explain why it's gone. In the meantime, I'll address yr accusation that I'm "out to lunch". Despite yr accusations to the contrary I do read most if not all of the discussions in this forum, and I've yet to see anyone give a compelling argument that just the mere construction of what's been done so far of the Apartheid Wall (which is a more apt and less nonsensical description than calling it a 'peace fence') has done anything to curb or halt terrorism. There's a wall around Gaza, right? I should have mentioned this in the last post of yrs I replied to where you claimed that progressives were opposed to the West Bank fence even if it went along the Green Line. The Gaza one didn't take Palestinian territory and no-one complained. One would think that if people were opposed to this fence now no matter if it did go along the Green Line, that there would have been a huge outcry over the Gaza one. Anyway, back to talking about walls defeating terrorism. I have a question. Since the construction of the wall around Gaza have there been no suicide-bombers from Gaza? If a wall stops terrorism, as you claim, why are the IDF still launching incursions into Gaza and killing innocent Palestinian civilians?

Violet...

[pistoff democrat]

115. It's all so abstract to just about everyone

on this forum except you, Gimel, and yet I've seen you take some of the hardest hits here! I'm so sorry :pals: ...

[drdon326]

12. "You've had your fun, time to quit it."

it must be nice to sit in comfortable surroundings
not having to worry about being blown into oblivion.

Nice pontifications, eugene.

Hablo es cheapo, huh??

[bluesoul]

13. How about those

Palestinians worrying about being blown up by a bomb or rocket that is supposed to be intended for a terrorist yet kills along many innocent people? Or the daily misery they have to put up? Again you only see one side...

[drdon326]

14. Dude...

you just dont get it....that wouldnt happen if there
was no suicide terrorism.

i give up.

[bluesoul]

15. Those suicide bombings also

wouldn't happen if it weren't for the occupation, land theft etc. I also give up...

[drdon326]

16. "You've had your fun, time to quit it."

lol

thats my new answer i got from mr.priv...

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Not true at all, don...

Even when there's been no suicide bombings, Palestinians have still been attacked and killed. It's amazingly gullible to assume that there'd be any halt to the killing of Palestinian civilians while Sharon is in charge of things....

Violet...

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pistoff democrat]

116. Is it only immediate cause and effect that

is understood here? context, long haul, so on, so on

But, Gimel and Don, I do understand: no empathy, so

they've had their fun here...

[Gimel]

119. And...

vice versa. So you think it should be tit-for-tat and leave it at that. You said this isn't going to happen under Sharon, and I hope I'm not getting your ire for assuming to know what you are thinking, but it seems that you think that any planned operation to prevent terror and the apprehend terror before it happens is a war crime.

Unfortunately, Palestinians will be killed if they for instance race through a check point in their vehicles when warned to stop for, as happened today. All civilian deaths are regrettable. From an absolute sense, the conflict should stop and no more killing period. However, if I were a Palestinian civilian, I would be careful to pay attention to roadblocks and curfews.

[Gimel]

27. Not

There are no bombs dropping on a daily basis. Not nearly as frequent as the bombers attacks on civilians in Israel. Civilian Palestians are warned before an impending demolition or operation against terrorists. Not so Isrealis before a suicide bomber detonates in a crowded bus.

[bluesoul]

28. They are warned

yet still 3 times as many Palestinians civilians are killed by the IDF then Israeli civilians by Palestinians. That says a lot...

[Gimel]

24. How is this, TP

you said:

Anyway, the really interesting thing is that it seems the Palestinians are lining up with official US policy (and even going beyond it with the offer to pay), and Israel is clearly doing the exact opposite: with the finger and a fuck you into the bargain.


All the fuss has been about American MONEY paying for the fence, remember? What do you mean by "Israel is clearly doing the opposite and ...."(obscenities deleted). You have not been reading your Hebrew news lately, that is clear.

[tinnypriv]

64. Eh?

Okay, as usual I don't know exactly what you're on about, but I'll try and respond:

The official US position on the fence (declared position, I obviously do not have access to internal planning) is that it should be built on the Green Line or as close to the line as possible.

The official Israeli position is that the fence will be built mostly in Palestinian territory (innumerous references can be cited to Israeli ministers saying 'we will complete the fence!' 'we will never stop the fence', 'it will be done' etc whenever minor US route objections are put to them).

The official Palestinian position is that they would prefer no fence, but if Israel builds one, one built on the Green Line would be ok and they'd even participate in construction costs.

The Palestinian position is an exact match for official US policy. The Israeli position is about as much the opposite as you could get.

Now, it happens that the United States could very easily stop the construction of the fence right now - it could simply say it does not support it, period. Doesn't have to cut loans or anything like that, a simple message will suffice.

However, in the unlikely event that Israel doesn't get the message from the 'boss-man' (to quote the Israeli press), the US could instruct its UN delegation to propose a UN/SC resolution supporting a freeze on the construction.

In the extremely unlikely event that Israel doesn't get the message even then, the US could deduct every dollar spent on the fence from US-backed loan guarantees.

In the unimaginable event that Israel still tried to continue construction beyond the Green Line after that (bearing in mind it would now be under severe economic, diplomatic, political and interal social pressure, which no small country and withstand for long), the US could suspend a portion of non-military aid to Israel. Say, $300m or so.

And there goes the ball game.

Oh, and I'm not sure what 'news' you've been reading, but it was prominently reported in Israel that, quote:

'Aid Cut Is Tied to Settlement Construction, Not Security Fence' (paraphrased from Yediot).

Hence, the US is paying Israel (in loans, aid) to violate official US policy. The question is whether it will continue to do so, even after the Palestinians and the world declare otherwise.

I personally think that'd be a stupid dumb fuck mistake, but there you go.

[Gimel]

72. Notice

In the extremely unlikely event that Israel doesn't get the message even then, the US could deduct every dollar spent on the fence from US-backed loan guarantees.

This has already been set into law, without the previous run-around that you hypothesized.

Sharon and his government are still considering the future route of the fence. Despite your reading of the comments in "yidiot", discussions are on-going.

The most important thing, from my viewpoint, is that the fence be built. I prefer that most, if not all Israelis be on this side, either by moving the communities (a form of transfer) or by building the fence around them. This is an ideal. However, in view of the reality, it may not be achievable.

[tinnypriv]

75. Like I said

That isn't true. The loan deductions were for settlement construction, not the fence.

I made no comment about the decisions of Sharon regarding the "future route" of the fence, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

If you want speculation, I'd guess that if pressured Sharon will decide to build only on the Green Line, hoping to fill in the rest later. Since there is almost no meaningful pressure, for now, he'll continue to build along the official route outlined by the Israeli government.

Don't take my word for it, Israeli dove Robert Rosenburg said the same thing just the other day.

[JM]

50. Funny and ironic

"Right at the time the Palestinians are pleading for intl. aid for their shattered economy, their PM says he'll actually pay Israel to establish a fence. Not even before the occupation is even ended!?"

And how much money has Arafat and his ilk squirreled away that should be distributed to the Palestinian people? I don't know. Do you? Seems to me they have an awful lot of money available to pay for martys and weapons. Perhaps I am wrong or missing something.

The funny part is Israel is doing exactly what we did, except with evidence. First, they are acting unilaterally against world opinion to protect themselves, but they are using a fence, among other things, to do it. Second, they have endured far more from the Palestinian side than we ever did from Iraq.

"Anyway, the really interesting thing is that it seems the Palestinians are lining up with official US policy (and even going beyond it with the offer to pay), and Israel is clearly doing the exact opposite: with the finger and a fuck you into the bargain."

They are lining up to pay using money received to aid the Palestinian people. How exactly does this aid them? Does is give them better helthcare? Jobs? Roads? Education?

Israel is doing what it needs to do in the face of repeated bombings, short of taking the world's most powerful military (per-capita) and turning the entirety of the occupied territories into rubble.

Yes, Israel can do alot to save face, including not using the fence as a land grab, not killing innocents, removing the settlements. They don't help their cause by shooting themselves in the foot. But the bottom line is if the rest of the world is not going to help Israel defend itself, it needs to do act unilaterally.

JM

[Gimel]

58. the Peace Fence

On Nov 24, a report apeard in Haaretz:

"Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is not opposed to reopening for discussion the route of the separation fence so that it will be possible to complete its construction in keeping with a tighter schedule and at a lower cost. "
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=326397&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
(The date on the page is today's date, but it is actually from Nov 24


On Nov 11:
Goldberg: This is no way to build a fence
<snip>

Speaking to the Knesset State Comptroller's Committee, during a hearing on proposals to create a judicial commission of inquiry into why the fence has not been built yet, Goldberg said the impression he has received shows that there was no long term planning for the fence. "It seems to be hand to mouth. This is no way to build a fence. A multi-year plan like this needs planning and financing from the budget."

He said the plan for fence has not been finished, the route of the fence is only partially drawn and not based on detailed, approved planning. No budget has been allocated to it and therefore it is impossible to even begin it.
<snip>
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=359515&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y


You really have to realize that this is a huge project, and done on an emergency basis. It is still in the planning and simultanieously the construction stages.

[tinnypriv]

67. Response

"And how much money has Arafat and his ilk squirreled away that should be distributed to the Palestinian people? I don't know. Do you? Seems to me they have an awful lot of money available to pay for martys and weapons. Perhaps I am wrong or missing something."

Something on the order of a billion $$ or so. I forget the number, but I know I've posted about it several times. Probably at the same time I called Arafat 'a thug'.

"The funny part is Israel is doing exactly what we did, except with evidence. First, they are acting unilaterally against world opinion to protect themselves, but they are using a fence, among other things, to do it."

Which would not be what the U.S. and Britain did. Since there was zero threat from Iraq, it follows that what they did was not to "protect themselves". One thing you are correct on:

1. Israel is acting unilaterally against world opinion.

One thing you forget to mention, another which you're wrong about:

1. Israel is acting unilaterally against world opinion but doing so in concert with the United States government (not the population).

2. The fence is not motivated wholly for security, as can be easily determined from Israeli military correspondents. They report that in several sections, it would be better to build on the Green Line (perhaps all the sections), rather than in Palestinian territory. For example, Ari'el salient's route is a "security mistake" to quote military sources cited by Amir Rappaport.

"Second, they have endured far more from the Palestinian side than we ever did from Iraq."

True, only in the sense that "we" never "endured" anything from Iraq.

"They are lining up to pay using money received to aid the Palestinian people. How exactly does this aid them? Does is give them better helthcare? Jobs? Roads? Education?"

I assume you would have directed the same questions to Nelson Mandela's ANC, when it was calling for sanctions on South Africa in order to undermine the Apartheid regime. That severely damaged the economy (mostly hurting the black population), but it was undertaken in the knowledge that not doing so would perpetuate the misery for far longer.

In this case, the Palestinian misery is the fence destroying their hopes and dreams and ripping their land apart. They've calculated that the best way to stop this fence is to support a fence. Whether that is a reasonable move or not is up to them, not me or you and it offensive to imply otherwise.

"Israel is doing what it needs to do"

No, Israel has a choice. Green Line or not. It has chosen the latter, but not for reasons of necessity, as is obvious.

"short of taking the world's most powerful military (per-capita) and turning the entirety of the occupied territories into rubble."

So if Israel's actions fall short of complete and utter destruction of the Palestinians, their actions are by defintion ok? Sorry, I have a different moral compass.

"Yes, Israel can do alot to save face, including not using the fence as a land grab, not killing innocents, removing the settlements."

Or, it could do those because they're the right thing to do. Saving "face" is irrelevant.

"They don't help their cause by shooting themselves in the foot. But the bottom line is if the rest of the world is not going to help Israel defend itself, it needs to do act unilaterally."

Well, at least one part of the world is trying to help: the Palestinian leadership.

All Israel has to do is cash the cheque and stop committing criminal acts which will result in a humanitarian disaster. If the latter is their "cause" (judged by their actions), I don't see that it deserves any help, regardless of how they spin it.

No doubt you feel differently.

[JM]

114. Tinnypriv

First, thank you for an intelligent, coherent, non-attacking response. Civil discourse is a good thing. It is refreshing. B-)

------------------

1. Israel is acting unilaterally against world opinion but doing so in concert with the United States government (not the population).

The U.S is giving tacit approval, but is not committing anything resembling action. There is a difference.

2. The fence is not motivated wholly for security, as can be easily determined from Israeli military correspondents. They report that in several sections, it would be better to build on the Green Line (perhaps all the sections), rather than in Palestinian territory. For example, Ari'el salient's route is a "security mistake" to quote military sources cited by Amir Rappaport.

True, but I suspect the fence is primarily motivated by security. There are ulterior or secondary motives to anything anyone in any government does. I am sure part of what they are doing is creating a negotiating buffer of things to give back.

(JM)"They are lining up to pay using money received to aid the Palestinian people. How exactly does this aid them? Does is give them better helthcare? Jobs? Roads? Education?"

I assume you would have directed the same questions to Nelson Mandela's ANC, when it was calling for sanctions on South Africa in order to undermine the Apartheid regime. That severely damaged the economy (mostly hurting the black population), but it was undertaken in the knowledge that not doing so would perpetuate the misery for far longer.

When we talk about the misery they are enduring, I am sure the billions of dollars toward healthcare and business would make a difference. They are not talking a drop in the bucket here. I am not sure the ANC is an accurate comparison, either. I don't know much about the Apartheid conflict, but I am guessing there wasn't financial support being provided to both sides. If there was, I doubt it was at the same levels.

In this case, the Palestinian misery is the fence destroying their hopes and dreams and ripping their land apart. They've calculated that the best way to stop this fence is to support a fence. Whether that is a reasonable move or not is up to them, not me or you and it offensive to imply otherwise.

I am hoping I didn't imply anything about their decisions about the fence. I would imagine it is a smart mov e. For them to try and take on the concept "militarily" would result in an absolute bloodbath, something neither side really wants. Of course the concept of a bloodbath is relative compared to what is already going on in the region. That however, is a topic for a different thread.
"Israel is doing what it needs to do"

No, Israel has a choice. Green Line or not. It has chosen the latter, but not for reasons of necessity, as is obvious.

I was referring to the general concept of the fence, not where it was going.

"short of taking the world's most powerful military (per-capita) and turning the entirety of the occupied territories into rubble."

So if Israel's actions fall short of complete and utter destruction of the Palestinians, their actions are by defintion ok? Sorry, I have a different moral compass.

I don't think I said anything about my support or lack of support of their actions. I made a statement of what they were doing. This in no way is indicative of my moral compass, thank you very much.

"Yes, Israel can do alot to save face, including not using the fence as a land grab, not killing innocents, removing the settlements."

Or, it could do those because they're the right thing to do. Saving "face" is irrelevant.

True, but governments aren't generally known for doing things because they are the right thing to do. They are run by small numbers of people who have collective common agendas.

"They don't help their cause by shooting themselves in the foot. But the bottom line is if the rest of the world is not going to help Israel defend itself, it needs to do act unilaterally."


Well, at least one part of the world is trying to help: the Palestinian leadership.

All Israel has to do is cash the cheque and stop committing criminal acts which will result in a humanitarian disaster. If the latter is their "cause" (judged by their actions), I don't see that it deserves any help, regardless of how they spin it.


I disagree on this. I think there are people within the leadership that are particularly enlightened, that personally do not have blood on their hands, and have the vision of what the region could become. Unfortunately, however, they are not fully supported. Arafat is still a problem, as is Sharon. IMHO until such time as the right leaders are in place at the right time, there will be no peace. People behind the scenes on both sides are trying, but it is going to take a lot of people from the populace on both sides who get fed up with bloodshed to push the process in the direction it needs to go.

Take care,
JM

[tinnypriv]

120. I'll echo your opening comment, and add another response

"The U.S is giving tacit approval, but is not committing anything resembling action. There is a difference."

The U.S. is committing action(s), as I said. To name a few:

1. Vetoing the UN/SC/RES against the fence.
2. Attempting to prevent the matter being referred to the ICJ.
3. Ignoring U.S. law by not deducting loan guarantees used to raise the capital used to build the fence.
4. Pressuring other nations in the diplomatic area to drop the topic from the agenda of international bodies (Australia for example) - this ties in with (1) and (2).
5. Consciously removing all reference to the fence from the 'Roadmap' (more accurately named 'Roadkill' by now, can explain that in more detail if you like, but I've done so elsewhere so will not try to repeat).

etc. It is easy to continue like this.

"True, but I suspect the fence is primarily motivated by security. There are ulterior or secondary motives to anything anyone in any government does."

Of course: even the most ridiculous propaganda has an iota of truth. So I agree that the fence is motivated in part by "security", for what that is worth, since I already noted that in my earlier message: i.e. the use of "wholly".

However, I suspect we're using different terms, so it would be useful to define them. The way you are using "security" is "security for Israelis". I don't accept the definition: the question we should be asking is: security for whom? In this case, there is almost no security whatever for huge numbers of innocent Palestinians, therefore we should be concerned with them.

Regardless, this line of discussion is essentially irrelevant - nobody sane is opposed to security for Israelis and Palestinians, and the former could be achieved without extreme adverse consequences for the latter (which is happening), if the fence was simply built on the Green Line, which is of course the point.

"I am sure part of what they are doing is creating a negotiating buffer of things to give back."

Well, we could argue whether this is a motivation or not, but I see no need, since I don't recognise the legitimacy of taking someone else's land in order to "negotiate" it back to them at a later date. To illustrate, I would be opposed to Syria seizing Tiberias in order to extract concessions from the residents of Haifa.

(Note that the above perhaps would not follow if "military necessity" could be demonstrated, but since that only applies to necessity, not choices (hence the term), it can be disregarded. Even more so if the agreed grounds for discussion are not military, but straight seizure as a "negotiating" ploy, which is even more illegitimate).

"When we talk about the misery they are enduring, I am sure the billions of dollars toward healthcare and business would make a difference. They are not talking a drop in the bucket here."

Perhaps, but I don't see what business we have determining that.

Our efforts should be primarily focused on preventing the current route of the fence from being realised, and providing reparations to those already affected. Afterwards (and only then), perhaps we can give economic advice to the Palestinians.

"I am not sure the ANC is an accurate comparison, either. I don't know much about the Apartheid conflict, but I am guessing there wasn't financial support being provided to both sides. If there was, I doubt it was at the same levels."

This is true, but that wasn't what the analogy was meant to represent (choices, responsibility, tactical questions etc).

In the case of the ANC, the correct moral course was not to criticise the black population for calling for sanctions (saying the money lost could be spent on hospitals), but terminating support for the South African government itself.

This is because we're responsible for the actions of ourselves, not the Palestinians or Israelis. As it stands, the U.S. government is providing the wherewithal for the fence to continue on course (Britain also, but more secondary).

We should terminate that wherewithal first. Then we can give advice.

"I was referring to the general concept of the fence, not where it was going"

Glad to find another serious poster who understands this important distinction. :thumbsup:

"I don't think I said anything about my support or lack of support of their actions. I made a statement of what they were doing. This in no way is indicative of my moral compass, thank you very much."

I apologise and withdraw the comment.

"True, but governments aren't generally known for doing things because they are the right thing to do. They are run by small numbers of people who have collective common agendas.

Agreed, but I hardly see why that should be our concern.

"I disagree on this. I think there are people within the leadership that are particularly enlightened, that personally do not have blood on their hands, and have the vision of what the region could become.

Perhaps an imprecise use of language on my part. I should have said "current Palestinian PM" rather than "leadership". Leadership is not wrong, per se, but not a focused enough term when discussing details.

I disagree regarding "blood on their hands". I discount proposals from people not for their previous terrorist activities, but rather on the content of the proposals themselves. Without this position, I would not be able to support talks with Arafat, Sharon, most of Likud, Peres, etc, to name a few from an all too long a list.

"Unfortunately, however, they are not fully supported. Arafat is still a problem, as is Sharon. IMHO until such time as the right leaders are in place at the right time, there will be no peace. People behind the scenes on both sides are trying, but it is going to take a lot of people from the populace on both sides who get fed up with bloodshed to push the process in the direction it needs to go.

You're forgetting the third party, which you should be concerned with: the United States. This is not a "both" situation, it is at least a "trio" (perhaps more, but that is another topic which I and others have addressed elsewhere, can direct you to it if you like).

Best,
tp

[drdon326]

9. What a great guy....

Quriea wants a fence knowing full well that the lack of security
to the israelis means nothing to him.

hey,quriea, heres an idea...dismantle the terrorists or
the Peace Fence stands....duh.

[edzontar]

31. Move the settllements back behind the Green Line

Then build the fence.

The occupation will be over, and the former settlers will be safe.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. You know that won't happen

The Green Line will not become the permanent border between Israel and a Palestinian state.

Even the Palestinians want different borders. This move here is designed to make sure they get all of THAT land, plus more at a later date. (Any doubts on that one, I refer you to the "corridor" between the West Bank and Gaza in recent negotiations.)

[edzontar]

35. Well, at least you admit it now....

Land-grab imperialism, pure and simple.

[Muddleoftheroad]

85. No, we just disagree on the claims to the land

And even the Palestinians admit that they too would like to divide the land differently. They just want all of the territories and then more besides.

[edzontar]

92. So you think Israel has the right to it ALL?

nt.

[Muddleoftheroad]

97. Israel remains in charge of that territory until there is a treaty

As such, it can make moves to protect its people -- like the Peace Fence.

[Violet_Crumble]

103. So why do you think Israel can ignore the Geneva Conventions?

After all, yr citing international law to support yr claim that Israel can as an occupying power remain in charge of territory until there's a peace agreement, yet the Geneva Conventions, which are also international law clearly set out the obligations of an occupying power to the population of the territory it's occupying....

Violet...

[bluesoul]

104. I guess caring for the lives of Israelis

while totally disregarding the lives of Palestinians, their safety and suffering is quite OK with some...

[pistoff democrat]

117. Well, he might think about it

but it's hard to think when you have Arafat's gun at your temple and others waiting in line to behead you if you really dismantle any terrorists/organizations