# Israel must tear down barrier: UN



## Padraig OCinnead (20 Jul 2004)

Maybe they (UN, EU and ICJ) could get the Israelis to give the coordinates to the IDF military installations to their enemies. (remember that's Israeli _*DEFENCE*_ Force)
Oh, and they could also post the timings when it would be best to attack them. While they're at it they could gather in large groups in Tel Aviv markets so legions of Palestinian suicide bombers could blow their women and children apart because there was no barrier impeding their nefarious deeds.

Once again our brave Canadian politicians sat on the sidelines and abstained from showing a bit of integrity. Soft diplomacy at it's best my ash.

Here's the link
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/07/20/israel_barrier.html

Just by .02


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jul 2004)

I don't know why, but the UN Security Council seems to be a pack of closet anti-Semites.  They are quick to condemn Israel for any violent action, and yet openly invite terrorists (Arafat) as a representative.


----------



## SFontaine (20 Jul 2004)




----------



## Spr.Earl (20 Jul 2004)

I'll finaly make comment.

I'm sick and tired of being made to feel guilty because of WW2 and the Jews yet I was not even born and that how the current press has made me feel for the past few decade's.

It does not matter who is right or wrong it is still a War Crime to kill the innocent whether it was in WW2 or to day in the Middle East wheather they be a Jew or a Palestinian

I just wish we could get a balanced view in regards to the Middle East.

My first real contact with a Jew was as a kid when I first came to Canada in Edmonton,his name was Hiemie Stein and we ended being very good friend's,he ate in our house I ate in his.
We played on the Sinagog step's and the old Rabbi used to come and chase us away.
His uncle who as a miserable so and so lived a few house up from us and Hiemie explained "You see the tattoo? Me Hu? Hiemie told me to watch and you will see it"
Yup he was a Survivor.

I just wish we get the real truth,yet building a Wall should be one of latst thing's they should do in reagrd's to the last War and the Warsaw Gehtto,in my mind it's a bad omen.

Oh I offen wonder what ever happened to Hiemie,we did have fun and were good freind's.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jul 2004)

I have no guilt for the actions perpetrated against the Jewish people before and during WWII.   They are yet another tragic saga of the human condition.

However, I do have problems when Israel is condemned for dealing harshly with groups that have as their stated aim the destruction of Israel and its people.   I would hold no different a view if it were people of a different group in that position.


----------



## Spr.Earl (20 Jul 2004)

But Israel has more than one policy,we only see is the so called Official Policy.

Read the latest from France in regards to Sharon's latest commnet's about Anti Semite's.
They are from the Jewish Population!!


----------



## Spr.Earl (21 Jul 2004)

Sharon 'not welcome' in France


Mr Sharon's remarks have caused anger in France 
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is not welcome in France until he explains his call on French Jews to move to Israel, the French president has said. 
No date had been set for Mr Sharon to visit France, but Jacques Chirac's office said it would not be considered until "an explanation is forthcoming". 

On Sunday Mr Sharon made the call due to what he said was "the spread of the wildest anti-Semitism" in France. 

French politicians and Jewish leaders have reacted with indignation. 

But an Israeli spokesman sought to play down the remarks, saying Mr Sharon's comments to the American Jewish Association in Jerusalem had been badly reported. 

While Mr Sharon urged French Jews to move to Israel because of anti-Semitism, Israel has also encouraged Jewish immigration for demographic reasons. 

If the current population trends continue, it is estimated that Jews will be outnumbered by non-Jews in the territory that Israel controls within 10 to 15 years. 


'Seething' 

The BBC's Caroline Wyatt in Paris says Mr Sharon's remarks have left the French government seething with ill-concealed rage. 

The Elysee Palace said: "[France] has let it be known that from today an eventual visit by the Israeli prime minister to Paris, for which no date had been set, would not be considered until such an explanation is forthcoming." 

The statement followed a request from the foreign ministry for an explanation from Israel of the "unacceptable comments". 


French Jews have also found Mr Sharon's comments unhelpful. 

Richard Prasquier of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions was quoted by French news agency AFP as saying Mr Sharon had poured "oil on the fire in an unacceptable fashion." 

France has suffered a wave of anti-Semitic attacks coinciding with renewed fighting in the Middle East. 

The latest French government figures show 510 anti-Jewish acts or threats in the first six months of 2004 - compared with 593 for all of last year. 


France has seen a spate of attacks against Jewish targets 

Mr Sharon acknowledged that France had made efforts to tackle the problem but still said his advice to French Jews was that moving to Israel was "a must and they have to move immediately". 

Correspondents say there is irritation in France at the idea that life for Jews there is becoming dangerous - especially as the government has made every effort to show that anti-Jewish acts will be severely punished. 

A week ago President Jacques Chirac rushed to condemn an apparently anti-Semitic attack on a Paris train that turned out to be a hoax. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3908441.stm


----------



## Gunnerlove (21 Jul 2004)

Remember long ago when Palestine was a country dealing with a problem. The problem was terror bombings of markets and police stations and assassinations by Jewish terrorist organizations. Now they took controll and are dealing with what they started. Have you looked at a map of Palestine? Nothing is left and a group of people with nothing to lose has nothing to fear as death is better than slavery. 
I feel sorry for all the non combatants living in Palestine because they are paying the price for the ongoing actions of an arrogant government. 

If the demographics change enough in 15 years perhaps peace will finally return to the region, or they could just look to South Africa because their system worked so well.


----------



## SFontaine (21 Jul 2004)

There has never been a country called Palestine. There was a British controlled place but that does not count. Fact is the UN set down land for an Israel and land for a Palestine. Arabs weren't happy and they attacked the week old country of Israel.. Now they're still defending against people who do not want to see Jews have their own land. Simple as that.


----------



## K. Ash (21 Jul 2004)

Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> Remember long ago when Palestine was a country dealing with a problem. The problem was terror bombings of markets and police stations and assassinations by Jewish terrorist organizations. Now they took controll and are dealing with what they started. Have you looked at a map of Palestine? Nothing is left and a group of people with nothing to lose has nothing to fear as death is better than slavery.
> I feel sorry for all the non combatants living in Palestine because they are paying the price for the ongoing actions of an arrogant government.
> 
> I feel sorry for all the families who have lost loved ones due to Palestinian terrorist bombs.
> ...



I feel sorry for all the families who have lost loved ones due to Palestinian militants with bombs straped to their chests.


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (21 Jul 2004)

The opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declaring Israel's security barrier illegal is questionable on at least two counts. 

One is the issue of whether the ICJ has legitimate jurisdiction in the case. A significant minority of United Nations members take the view that it does not. 

A resolution passed by the UN General Assembly on Dec. 8 posed this question to the ICJ: "What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying power, in the occupied Palestinian territory?" 

The vote on the resolution was 90 in favour and eight against, with 74 abstentions. 

Members voting negatively or abstaining may have believed the ICJ should refrain from considering the question because its mandate is to arbitrate disputes between and among states, a condition not met in this case. 

Then there is the politics of the General Assembly and the ICJ's readiness to give its seal of approval to this political tilt. 

The Arab-Muslim states have demonstrated repeatedly that they can deliver a bloc of 50-plus votes in the assembly on any issue. Third World countries hold a bloc of another 50 votes, and together these groups make up a nearly impregnable force on the floor of the world's parliament of nations. 

The ICJ lent credence to the politics of those whose ideology is fixed on Israel's destruction. 

This voting muscle was displayed, for instance, when the General Assembly's infamous "Zionism-is-racism" resolution was passed. 

Judge Thomas Buergenthal of the United States gave the lone dissenting opinion in the case of Israel's wall. He wrote that the ICJ advisory opinion on the question was improper because "the court did not have before it the requisite factual bases for its sweeping findings; it should therefore have declined to hear the case." 

As Buergenthal indicated, the ICJ failed to consider impartially the context in which Israel began erecting a security barrier. Without the unrelenting terror of elements of Palestinian society that embrace the creed of Osama bin Laden and Muslim fascists -- Hamas, Islamic Jihad and various other groups engaged in suicide bombings -- there would have been no reason for the wall. 

In denying this, the ICJ lent credence to the politics of those whose ideology is fixed on Israel's destruction. 

These elements, through their insidious influence on Arab-Muslim governments, can muster majority votes in the General Assembly and win support from world bodies under a cloak of respectability. 

The consequences of such politics in fuelling violence, hate, resentment and anti-Semitism in the region and beyond will remain with us for a long time. 

For critically thoughtful Muslims, and non-Muslims who care about such matters, Islam in practice has been perverted by the spread of fascist politics in the Arab-Muslim world. Muslims who resist fascism within their midst and seek a just peace with Israel are intimidated, coerced and, where possible, killed as was the one-time president of Egypt, Anwar Sadat. 

Justice cannot be done to Palestinians by conceding to bigotry against Jews and Israel. And there will be no progress for democracy or economic development in the region, as Sadat realized, without unambiguous acceptance by Arabs and Muslims of Israel's right to exist peacefully. 

Those who deny Israel's right to defend itself, behind the cover of the ICJ opinion, are lending support to the entrenched anti-Semitism of the Arab-Muslim world and abetting its resurgence elsewhere. 

The court has subverted justice by misapplying the principle that two wrongs do not make a right -- a teaching of Jesus, who was both the founder of Christianity and a prophet of Islam. 


http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/London/Salim_Mansur/2004/07/21/550433.html

From Padraig, the bog trotting mic,

The reason why I posted this editorial in full was to show how a large bloc of voters in this assembly could take control of it's voting agenda and sway the UN to come out with such a preposterous boneheaded vote. Many of these rogue nations are themselves are guilty of vicious human rights abuses, so they are no human rights advocates as the vote outcome would predict.

The whole point that I disagree with is not so much the obvious anti semitism,  I can't see into their dark little hearts. It's that I disagree with any group of nations telling one lone nation (with very few allies) that it cannot take any precautions to defend itself against any transgressions. You might remember the arms embargo in FRY in the early nineties. It affected only those who required these weapons to defend themselves against the predictable outcome of ethnic cleansing.  The right of self defence is one basic to all people. The barrier/wall/fence is just another tool that they can and should use for their very survival, one not so deadly as pre-emptive rocket attacks against Hamas leadership, or the razing of possible camps housing the arms smuggling tunnels where all these supposed desperate young people are encouraged by their entrenched elders to go off to paradise via a chest load of semtex as long as it takes some 8 yr old kids in a bus. The very entrenched elders who only recently have had any retribution wrought unto them by those pre emptive strikes.


----------



## Gunnar (21 Jul 2004)

The UN has ceased to function as an organisation guaranteeing human rights.  It was started as an attempt to have a World Policeman, or World Court that would do these kind of things.

Then they invited Communist China and Russia into the group.  That was the death of the UN.  No communist country has ever stood for human rights, and no communist country ever will.  Since Russia was there at the inception, the handwriting was on the wall at that point.

The UN has been systematically anti-US, anti-Israeli (I won't say anti-Semite because, although they hate to be reminded of it, Palistinians are Semitic too) because the US never stands up for itself.  It constantly apologises for being a free country and tries to negotiate with its destroyers.  How, except by negotiation of this sort would Libya be on the Human Rights Council?  And you wonder why there seems to be a slant in the UN???

As a recent example:

Iraq has WMD.  We will go in to eliminate the threat.
UN protests, and is correctly treated as irrelevant by Bush.
Iraq invaded, conquered, straightened out.
Bush "apologizes" for trying to protect America - Iraq was really about getting rid of bad ol' Saddam, and bringing clean water and democracy to Iraqis, we're sorry.
Arab nations now see that the US doesn't really have a moral leg to stand on - they're apologizing!  Now the hand-wringing and petitions to the UN can start.
World vilifies the US, who constantly tries to tell the world about all the good things they're doing in Iraq:  it wasn't about defense, it's because we care!
World replies that you don't care enough.  You're just a bad guy.  US caves, gives concessions, negotiates with UN members and Arab league so that they'll like it a bit more.

If you go out to be liked, you won't be respected.  If you go out to be respected, you probably will be liked, but even if you're not, people don't mess with you.

==========
Notice the different policy they pursued in Afghanistan, and how the world is quiet about it.

Afghanistan has terrorists.  We will eliminate them.
UN, and even Arab countries can't fight them on this after 9-11.
US invades, conquers Afghanistan.  Kicks out unpopular government who allowed terrorists free reign, *incidentally* freeing a number of Afghanis.
US sets up replacement government which is friendly to the US.  Does not apologise.  Brings benefits of civilization to Afghanis because they are there, and because they can.  Does not attempt to justify their invasion in these terms, because they KNOW they were justified.
UN and the Liberal press keep their unsanitary sewers closed.


----------



## winchable (21 Jul 2004)

> the UN set down land for an Israel and land for a Palestine. Arabs weren't happy



And why should they be?
The Arab inhabitants of the territory didn't commit the holocaust, which is what brought the issue of a Jewish homeland to the forground. Now they are expected to live in permanent refugee camps like dogs. I don't condone suicide bombing as an appropriate response to any percieved injustice, but, how can anyone expect the Palestinians to accept the situation? I don't disagree that the Jews deserve a homeland, whatever their reasons, but at the expense of another?

The UN Mandate and British partitioning is the reason we find the whole region in conlfict today.
You couldn't have put two more incompatable people in the same area. Looking back to the Philistines and Hebrews, they were in constant conflict. Each side slaughtering the other on more than one occasion, unlike today, the Philistines were essentially the dominant side.

No one here will be able to give a definitive answer about what to do, and if they can, your talents are at waste here...Go...mediate.
Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians (and I'm not just talking the minority who would go so far as to kill themselves and others) are going to be perceptive to the idea of the other maintaining complete control over the entire region.
The best idea, I suppose, would be a 2 state scenario. But like any other conflict theres always a minority who refuse to think of the larger picture, and both sides have guilty parties when it comes to this.

Anyway, the wall, it's not such a bad idea in the short term. Keeps the bombers where they are. But I believe all it is going to do is enforce the idea that the Israelis are uncooperative with regards to finding a permanent solution to the problem.
Of course, it will provide for some great footage (Think Berlin wall coming down) when they do find a permanent solution and both groups can live side by side (yeahyeah...optimism) and they knock it down.

Hang on let me take off my rose-coloured specs. 

The wall won't keep everyone out, the Israelis will have to step it up and use their nuclear program that they _don't_ have. The focus of every terrorist cell in the world will be instantly brought to Israel..which will understandably get very pissed off. Endgame, Checkmate and the world comes to a fiery end which I will miss out on because I've built my bomb shelter like everyone else on my block.

 I will emerge to a small rock floating through space...there will be one other person on that rock, who as it turns out, is a beautiful Israeli girl..we will mate, creating a species of Arab/Israeli children, who will at first get along by finally reconciling the two religions and races into one. Unfortunately there is a minute discrepancy between the two religions (One side believing I, am the father of the religion, while the other side believes my Israeli counterpart is the matriarch and hence the more important of the two....not that it matters we've been dead for hundreds of years) and a splinter religion is formed.

The two religions fight long after our smaller rock crashes into a large planet similar to the old earth. The two sides now have the ability to procreate and grow larger and larger, until thousands of years later, the two sides have been moved into a small country via poor diplomacy on behalf of a group of countries who have decided they are superior enough to decide where the originators of the entire planet should live. Hence we find them, after hundreds of years have past and hundreds of measures have been taken by each side to ensure the other one is as uncomfortable as the other. As I said, we find them in this small piece of land where they stand toe to toe ready to fight each other to the death...


Pardon the longwindedness, I should know better, but I started writing the little history of mankind and I just kept going.


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Jul 2004)

The UN is nothing  but a useless toothless tiger, and sadly I dont have much respect for the organisation anymore. There was a time not so long ago I thought differently.

The wall in Israel must remain (along with other extreme measures) until these hidious killings of the innocent general populus stop.

I am NOT pro Israel by any means, but look whats going on. Often I view both sides in this 'tit for tat' killing spree, as both being as bad as one another.

The wall is a fact of survival, and will be there for a long time yet. 

Regards,

Wes


----------



## K. Ash (21 Jul 2004)

Che you must have been out of breath after that one...or your fingers must have been tired or something...ah you know what I mean.


----------



## RCA (21 Jul 2004)

Part of the issue is where the wall is. Israel has the right to defend its own land, but parts of the wall are occupying disputed land. The wall will only insight more violence, thus furfilling a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Palestinians are displaced people moved to make room for the creation of Israel (as a side note, the British considered the Israeli's terrorists back in the late 40's because if actions against them trying to force them out of the mandate).

It seems a lot consider the Israelis always in the right, and the Palestine's always in the wrong. It is not that simple. Suicide bombing of civilians is just as wrong as helicopter gunships firing into populated areas, eliminating designated targets, but killing bystanders as well. 

One other point. Israel can ignore an UN resolution because its basis  is anti-semitic and they have the US's backing. However, wasn't that one of the reasons for going to war in Iraq?


----------



## Tpr.Orange (21 Jul 2004)

One of the things that has failed to be mentioned through out the news is what in fact the wall has already done for Israel. Most people find it offensive and that its on the disputed property but let me tell you, I was in Israel 6 weeks ago, The wall has brought terrorist attacks within   Israel down 65%. The wall has also made it harder for arms to be passed throught the westbank and gaza strip. Do i think the wall is effective heck ya... do i think Israel should take it down and risk more terrorist attacks and arms trading ...heck no...I think many people voicing their opinion on this topic haven't heard both sides. but at least for now you are educated a little bit better on the Israeli side of things before automatically going against Israel like many people have been. And yes i do understand that in the areas in which this wall is going up there are decent hard working Palestinians. Unfortunatley there are many more violent and offending People in those areas that need to be kept out. 


well just a little rant.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jul 2004)

Were the Arab inhabitants of the new state of Israel displaced, or did they displace themselves?

Did the Arab inhabitants of the new state of Israel make war on the new state, or did neighbouring countries make that decision?

Has the point of the 55 Years War been to resettle the refugees or to exterminate Israel?


----------



## jutes85 (21 Jul 2004)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Were the Arab inhabitants of the new state of Israel displaced, or did they displace themselves?
> 
> Did the Arab inhabitants of the new state of Israel make war on the new state, or did neighbouring countries make that decision?
> 
> Has the point of the 55 Years War been to resettle the refugees or to exterminate Israel?



1. When the Arab nations declared war against Israel (Jewish Settlements), they (Arabs) promissed that Palistinians that they would quickly exterminate the Jews and expel them. This did not happen however. The Arabs that stayed in the Jewish settlements were then granted full citizenships and a life inside Israel. The Arabs that left, settled into refugee camps or the Gaza Strip or West Bank. So basically, those who left, screwed themselves over, those who stayed, lived a "peaceful" life inside Israel.

2. Israel never declared war on any Arab country. The surrounding countries declared war on Israel in 1967, known as the Six Day war. Basically, Israel defeated them in Six Days and took even more land in a strong offensive.

3. For the past 55 years, the Arab's objective was always to exterminate Israelis and Jews. Israel always wanted peace, however, the refugee problem was not their main problem.


If the Arabs (Palistinians) put their weapons down, there will be peace.
If the Israelis put their weapons down, there will be no more Israel.


----------



## Tpr.Orange (21 Jul 2004)

jutes said:
			
		

> Brad Sallows said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## winchable (21 Jul 2004)

Don't give him too much credit for that,
He didn't think of that neat little catch phrase! ;D


----------



## jutes85 (21 Jul 2004)

Che said:
			
		

> Don't give him too much credit for that,
> He didn't think of that neat little catch phrase! ;D



Yeah, its been quietly floating around.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (21 Jul 2004)

Just to hammer home the message others have already made


Matthew.


----------



## K. Ash (21 Jul 2004)

jutes said:
			
		

> Che said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




heh...at least he admits it.

As for the PLO charter....pls...my bullshit tolerance level is becoming a little top heavy.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (21 Jul 2004)

absent_element said:
			
		

> As for the PLO charter....pls...my bullshit tolerance level is becoming a little top heavy.



BS Tolerance Level???   

Yeah, you're right....keep your head up your arse if it makes you comfortable.

Links:    
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/PLO_Covenant.html
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_plo_charter_revise.php

Very intellectual response by the way....



Matthew.


----------



## K. Ash (21 Jul 2004)

Ok Ok I may have been a little out of line wrt the bullshit tolerance level regarding the PLO charter.....so fucking sue me.

Go have fun with Yassar!


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jul 2004)

I've had some jewish friends and i never really liked their whole 'im jewish and the whole world is against me' attitude. The whole "a hate crime is just a hate crime unless its anti-semite, then its REALLY a hate crime" feeling i get from my jewish friends and the news really irks me. I'm not saying everyone is like that of course but thats the feeling *I* get.

That being said these guys have been putting up with attacks for a long long time.The idea of a wall doesn't bug me. It's lowered attacks by 65%? Thats awesome. Thats a lot of lives saved.
Both sides have done some stupid things, one side is trying to destroy the other while the other (basically) wants to be left alone.   Maybe someone screwed up in the past by giving this side land or doing something to the other side, who cares. I think were beyond being able to fix things how they were.   It's easy to judge the situation here. Imagine going to the mall and watching every single person to see if it's a little warm that day and if their wearing a heavy coat?   Imagine the stress living in a place where riding a bus, going to the market or having coffee downtown makes you a target?

The UN is condemming the wall, didn't they cause this mess in the first place? I've seen stuff on both sides that i don't like but im not going to fault Israel for saying enough is enough and putting their foot down. It's stopping some hard working palastines from going to work. Well tough. Your buddies are attacking israel, do something about your own people and get them to stop sending out suicide bombers and you wouldn't need the stupid wall.


----------



## Tpr.Orange (22 Jul 2004)

I hear ya ghost ...

Im jewish, but i dont play like is everyone against jewish people far from it i share your view that many jewish people do that. And yes the 65% is a huge number which is tons of lives saved. The fact that the UN doesn't want a wall there because they dont like it, doesn't even begin to make sense to Israel when they have the US support and when the results are as staggering as they are.


----------



## Gun Shy (22 Jul 2004)

As for a person that has spent 6 months on the Golan Heights, I have traveled throughout Israel and the The Occupied zones (West Bank). i have seen both the pro and cons to both sides. The Israelis primary concern is security for the the state   and its people. Whereas, the Palestinianswant they land back. They were displaced during the 67 War. However, how can you see the other side when someone else is living on your land. Rememberin the Former Yugoslavia we call it "Ethnic Cleansing.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (23 Jul 2004)

Gunshy,

The only problem I have with the Palestinian Land Claims as a whole is it omits the fact they were more
than willing to let the Arab Armies roll into "UN-identified" Israel, kill every last Jew, then walk in and 
plant stakes claiming that land as their own.

My take on that note is that if you're an accomplice to a war of aggression where you seek to gain some 
sort of spoils, you should be penalized if you get your ass kicked.  

Agree, disagree?



Matthew  ???


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (23 Jul 2004)

absent_element said:
			
		

> Ok Ok I may have been a little out of line wrt the bullshit tolerance level regarding the PLO charter.....so ******* sue me.



No worries....



Matthew.  ;D


----------



## K. Ash (23 Jul 2004)

Ok Mathew fair enough. 

The way I see the Jewish people in Israel is with great respect. They persevere against great adversity. They are surrounded by enemies who wish to exterminate their entire race and they still kick their fuckin asses. And if they feel they have to build and maintain a wall to ensure their survival....so be it!


----------



## Bert (25 Jul 2004)

I agree that the creation of a wall is a short term remedy to an impossible situation.
The UN cannot impose a better solution that hasn't already been proposed and rejected
by the Palestinians and the Israelis before.

I think the UN is right to criticize the wall.   It will keep the Palestinians isolated, both
physically and economically.   The UN cannot provide a solution to the problem
and keep everyone happy.   The organization of the UN is not about solutions but
more consensus and discussion.   To that end, the UN is effective.   

Syria and Jordan criticize Israel yet don't provide much assistance to the Palestinians.
Syria maintains a Hezbollah link as well as Iran.   Jordan is underpressure due to the
numbers of Palestinians within their own borders.

Largely, the Palestinian people would accommodate an Israel yet elements within their
populations wouldn't.   Terrorists and suicide bombers crawl out of the population
woodwork.   The Palestinian leadership support terrorism and are often found corrupt.
The Israelis do not have a common perspective (look at the factional government)
and have elements of the population that are just as hostile to the Palestinians.

In order to find a solution, the Israelis cannot push the Palestinians into small land
areas and wall them away.   The Palestinians must accommodate Israel and build
a progressive society rather one bent on enemies.   Just look at the a map of the
middle east and the entire land mass.   Theres no room to maneuver anything
especially perspectives.   Children are often   brought up with guns and taught the
art of killing.   Given the nature of attitudes of Arabs, Israelis, and Palestinians in
the region, there can never be a consensus to a solution.   One like has to be
imposed in time.

I find it funny that many things are said and done in the name of Allah or God.   Didn't
Allah or God create the Ten Commandments?   Just think, if people actually followed
the Ten Commandments which is found in the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran,
do you think this crisis would continue?   What is done and said in that region
(and over 2.5 million years of human history everywhere) is rather contradictory.
History repeats itself as someone else wrote.


----------



## Linc (28 Jul 2004)

Great post Bert.

Thought I'd wade in with a few points to the discussion:

First, this is a map of the original Palestine Partion, as created by the UN partition plan of 1947, divided roughly in half, between Arabs and Jews.   In the 1948 war, Israel rightly and competently defended itself, but annexed the Arab half in the process.   Both parts were subsequently recognized as the State of Israel by the international community (except theArab/Muslim states until recently). This is now part of Israel, and is not to be confused with the current land dispute over the Occupied Territories, which is something different.   The Arab 'citizens' of Israel mentioned earlier are the Arabs who remained in their homes and were given citizenship in the new country, but many fled to neighbouring countries and became refugees. 
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/partmap.html

The Occupied Territories, not depicted in the map, are the areas of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan which were captured by Israel in the 67 war and upon which Israel built settlements and the wall. This is the disputed Israeli territory, although a 2-state solution will probably include some of the original Arab territory form the '47 plan.  The controversy over the wall, as was previously noted, is that it is built on this disputed territory, not within Israel's recognized boundaries, and around most of the settlements that Israel built on occupied land. 

With regard to the Arab Israeli Citizens, they do enjoy SOME of the rights of citizenship, like the right to vote, but are barred from most public sector jobs by either law or common practice, including public utilities senior govgovernmentd of course the military.   Many private employers also require proof of military service from applicants and make no distinction for Arabs who are banned from military service.   Also, Arabs are banned from living in designated Jewish areas and the boundaries on Arab towns are permanently fixed to prevent expansion.   Building permits are almost never issued to Arab towns, and those who build or modify thier their without permits are either fined or have their homes demolished.   To Israel's credit, the Supreme Court is now slowly bringing reform, and challenging discriminatory laws, which is a complement to the integrity of their system.   Israel is a democracy, but it is a democracy similar to the US before the civil rights movement.   The govt still enforces segregation and Arab citizens are still second-class citizens in many regards.

If only moderates from both sides could find enough common ground and patience to get the peace process on track.


----------



## Demophobia (2 Aug 2004)

I think the wall is a method for the moderates to regain control of the peace process in Israel. There are extremists on both sides which want all of the land for themselves and who view peace as the worst possible outcome. 
The Palestinians want land for a homeland and the Israelies want security. To this end the peace process has been one of land for peace. The problems arise when Israeli settlers settle in disputed land and Palestinians use suicide bombers to attack Jewish civilians. Tactics which will very effectively derail any negoitiations. No land for the Palestinians since Jewish settlers live there and no security for Israeli civilians. 
Untill now the only recourse for Israel when it was attacked was to launch a reprisal using helicopters and tanks. The wall is a passive way for Israel to ensure it's security. Now if it is attacked it has the option of clamping down on it's border security to try and stop any more attacks. A more restrictive border is inconvinent for some but at least it may break the cycle of violence.
The wall has been viewed as being imposed on the Palestinians by the Israelies but it also has the effect that it limits Israeli settlers incursion into the disputed land. Now that Israeli settlements have been physically separated from suicide bombers the extremists attempts to derail a land for peace deal may finally be over.


----------



## joaquim (4 Aug 2004)

The barrier will greatly decrease the number of military casualties and the number of military personel needed to guard the border. Everyone can understand this. Everyone should be happy about this. Everyone except the UN bureaucrats and all antisemites.

A concerned civilian


----------



## Linc (6 Aug 2004)

Nobody is disputing the effectiveness of a wall, or even the legality of 'A' wall, the problem is that they built the wall on the disputed territory.  Why couldn't they just build the wall on Israeli territory instead of on the Occupied territory.  Its like if we had a border dispute with the US so the US builds a security wall through Northern Ontario instead of along the 49th parallel.  This is significant because it is seen as a land-grab by Israel, whom they think is intending to make the wall permanent.  Why does everyone keep ignoring that?


----------



## joaquim (6 Aug 2004)

Linc said:
			
		

> Why couldn't they just build the wall on Israeli territory instead of on the Occupied territory?



Linc, Israelis have given their sons & daughters, husbands & wives to win not one but THREE territorial wars against neighbouring arab states (1948, 1967, 1973), the very purpose of these wars being the position of this infamous border. As the military victor of these wars, they have the privilege of tracing the border on the map. Like ALL other nations in this situation, including all western democracies and the precursor of Canada (English-French war, 1759), they could have kept the whole country they conquered and exterminate, exile or enslave its inhabitants. Israel chose to keep a small portion only, and to leave the rest to a people sworn to her destruction. 

When was the last time you read the Israeli-Palestinian conflict discussed in such terms? If never, why? Why is it so unfashionable to win a war lately?

Note: The actual route of the security barrier is an improvement (for the palestinian side) over the map Barak offered Arafat in 2000 ( http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/maps/finalstatus/2000wb_israeliproposal.jpg ). This offer was rejected by the palestinians at the time.


----------

