West Bank wall bigger than Berlin's

[subsuelo]

The greatest obstacle in the way of peace today is an infrastructure of apartheid. American policymakers must make clear to the Israelis that this matrix of settlements, walls and checkpoints must change to make the territory for the Palestinians, and a two-state solution, viable.

If it is the objective of U.S. policy to let a two-state solution fail, then little has to change.

However, if committed to the two-state solution, the next administration must be willing to work specifically toward the dismantling of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the removal of roadblocks and checkpoints. It must also be ready to demand that human rights for Palestinians, including the freedom of movement and education, are as important as Israeli security.
...

Sen. Obama delivered a significant speech in Berlin, just hours after arriving from Israel, in which he promised, if elected, to tear down the walls that divided citizens of the world from one another.

The next commander in chief, be it Sen. John McCain or Sen. Obama, can start by trying to tear down the wall in the West Bank, which is much larger than the one that once divided Berlin, but far more important for creating a peaceful, stable and democratic Middle East.

SF Gate - read more

[subsuelo]

1. A real achievement

To have developed both an Apartheid system *and* build a wall bigger than Berlin's - at the same time!

Impressive.

[pelsar]

2. not to mention...the roadblocks....

but then again....no more israeli busses, restaurants and shopping malls being blown up....sorry i shouldnt have mentioned those details they really arent that important.

[subsuelo]

4. Every Apartheid system has excuses that can be drummed up

This one obviously is no different in that respect

[Vegasaurus]

5. Before the wall

lots of suicide bombings

After the wall, none.

I'd say the wall is doing its job.

If people don't like the wall, they should stop suicide bombing.

Then the wall will go away.

Very easy to understand (for most people, anyway).

[subsuelo]

6. Thanks for listing the excuses

Good job.

[Vegasaurus]

10. To you they may be excuses

but they are the reality.

Too bad that you don't like that Israeli citizens' lives come first.

If a wall protects them, and history bears that out, than the reality is that one person's Apartheid Wall is another person's Lifesaver.

Since Israel is in the business of protecting its citizens, their well being comes first.

Perhaps the government in Gaza should learn something from this.

They would be better off putting the welfare of their citizens over the murder of another's.

[subsuelo]

13. "Lifesaver" yeah right - the wall is another way to steal land from the natives

I notice how the land theft is never mentioned by advocates of the Apartheid Wall. How the wall conveniently just happens to steal more land from the native Palestinians. It just happens to somehow wind up cutting Palestinians out of their own neighborhoods.

Gee now how did that happen to work out?

If the Wall were built on Israeli land, not on native Palestinian land, the excuses for Apartheid might have the appearance of being somewhat legitimate. But that just isn't the case - is it

[Violet_Crumble]

7. 'If people don't like the wall, they should stop suicide bombing.'

So anyone who's opposed to a wall being built in the West Bank is a suicide bomber?

[subsuelo]

14. There you go again getting all logical and stuff

You're gonna confuse people with that you know ;)

[pelsar]

9. having my kids safe is an excuse?

i guess for some.....for me i prefer having my kids alive and able to go to the mall, get on a bus, go to a summer camp, take a school trip....as opposed to coming back in pieces

i do understand that for some its just an excuse...for those who live in it, the reality of pre wall and post wall is stark

[subsuelo]

11. fine, don't compain when others rightly describe it as Apartheid

[Vegasaurus]

16. Israelis don't care what you call it

They only care that they and their families are safe.

[subsuelo]

17. Fine then don't complain when others protest Israel's Apartheid

By the way, keeping families safe is probably the worst excuse I have ever heard for stealing Palestinians land.

How does it possibly keep families safe by stealing land and building an Apartheid Wall that cuts right through someone else's neighborhood?

Actually that's the height of stupidity, if the goal is really to keep families safe.

Gee, yeah let's make the people safe by stealing the land of their neighbor, and build a wall right through their neighborhoods. In fact, let's steal as much land of theirs as we can, yeah that will make us safe!

That is stupidity, not security.

It's also a ridiculous excuse.

[Dick Dastardly]

21. I dont see him complaining about protests

In any case he has every right to challenge BS like aparthied claims

By the way, keeping families safe is probably the worst excuse I have ever heard for stealing Palestinians land.

So you believe it is wrong for Israel to protect its citizens and that Israel should accept their families being attacked?

Its not stealing land anymore than governments using eminent domain to build a highway or some other public works. In this case it is also disputed land

Actually that's the height of stupidity, if the goal is really to keep families safe.
Gee, yeah let's make the people safe by stealing the land of their neighbor, and build a wall right through their neighborhoods. In fact, let's steal as much land of theirs as we can, yeah that will make us safe!

Well suicide bombing and other terror is way down because of it.

As I said its not stealing

Text

[subsuelo]

38. "disputed land"??

It's only "disputed" because Israel thinks it has the right to steal everything it can from the native people.

[Dick Dastardly]

43. So you are saying

That Jews are not native whether they were originally from there or immigrated but the Arab population most of whom immigrated like the Jews and did so in greater numbers than the Jews are natives by default.


So you are saying

International Law does not apply because you say so

[Violet_Crumble]

50. No, what Sub said was this....

"disputed land"??
It's only "disputed" because Israel thinks it has the right to steal everything it can from the native people.

[pelsar]

29. i guess you dont like that it works?

is that the problem

How does it possibly keep families safe by stealing land and building an Apartheid Wall that cuts right through someone else's neighborhood?

i dont know...but since the wall went up the successful suicide bomber is about zero..i guess its just a coincidence......

[subsuelo]

33. I guess you approve of stealing other people's land?

If the Wall were built on Israeli land, not on native Palestinian land, the "security" excuses for Apartheid might have the appearance of being somewhat legitimate.

But that isn't the case, is it.

[eyl]

55. So I take it

that if the wall was entirely on the Green Line, you would still view it as an excuse for apartheid, just a more palatable one?

I'm touched by just how much the welfare of my fellow citizens concerns you.

[subsuelo]

57. Obviously Israel can build whatever it likes to build on it's own land

The wall is an outgrowth of their Apartheid system which I disapprove of (and so should you).

But building their Apartheid Wall right in the middle of the neighborhoods of the people being dispossessed - that is where human-rights minded people really have to take issue.

There can be no excuse, no justification for building *anything* - let alone a huge Apartheid Wall - that cuts through someone else's neighborhood.

Just imagine if, say, Lebanon decided to build an Apartheid Wall, that cut through Israeli neighborhoods. Would you sit there and make excuses for it? Or would you say hey that's not right

[eyl]

65. You seem to have forgotten that for years

it was the Israeli left who was demanding the barrier - the right was strenously against it.

And given that you apparently think that terrorism against Israel is the result of Israel's "apartheid policies" - please explain the prevalence of such attacks prior to 1967.

[breakaleg]

109. Just following the thread here, but can you show me where Sub said that

"terrorism against Israel is the result of Israel's "apartheid policies""?

[oberliner]

114. I actually believe that he has said the opposite

There was a report from the UN Human Rights Council written by John Dugard that made the claim that Palestinian terror was the inevitable result of occupation.

In the discussion on this forum regarding that report, Subsuelo posted:

If we accept this argument...

Are we also prepared to accept arguments that describe Israeli war crimes as the 'inevitable result' of Palestinian terror?

IMO the better approach is to argue that both are inexcusable. Both are not "inevitable results" of crimes committed against one another. We need to hold both sides to higher standards.

Here is the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=201282&mesg_id=201282

[LeftishBrit]

117. 'Both are inexcusable .. We have to hold both sides to higher standards.'

Couldn't agree more!

[subsuelo]

118. Thank you for that.. I stand by those comments.

[eyl]

161. See post 160

you need to improve either your phrasing or your logic.

[eyl]

160. see post 57

The wall is an outgrowth of their Apartheid system which I disapprove of (and so should you).

But building their Apartheid Wall right in the middle of the neighborhoods of the people being dispossessed - that is where human-rights minded people really have to take issue.

He implies here that it's an "apartheid wall" regardless of whether it takes land or not - especially as this post was a response to my question of whether he would have a problem with the barrier if it was wholly on the Green Line.

Furthermore, whatever additional ulterior motives you may choose to assign to it, the barrier was erected as a response to Palestinian attacks - until those attacks occurred (and for quite a while after), the Israeli right strenously objected to its creation. Therefore, if the barrier is in response to terrorism and subsuelo maintains it is an outgrowth of Israel's apartheid system, then logically terrorism is a result of Israel's apartheid system.

[Dick Dastardly]

22. Why not when its a complete load of dung n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

51. When it comes to the Occupied Territories, apartheid is what it's very similar to n/t

[azurnoir]

20. Fine keep your kids safe

the problem here is that their safety comes at the expense of Palestinian kids, build all the wall you want as high as you want but build them in Israel, what I get from the "proIsrael" posters here is that Israel has no intention of ever leaving the West Bank and already considers it part of Israel.
I see alot of "lip service" about how terrible the settlers are but the reality is they are the "home guard" so to speak and the front line in enforcing the occupation.

[pelsar]

26. yes thats true....

my kids safety does come first at the expense of the Palestinians...its the pecking order we all have and i see no reason to pretend it doesnt exist.

and the settlers and the westbank?...i would suggest that when it can be shown that kassams and katushas and mortars wont be launched from the westbank you'll have an argument for moving the settlers.....


but since that is a very likely scenario.....any reason why israel should move back the settlers?.....

[subsuelo]

34. No, obviously stealing land comes first.

[breakaleg]

44. If it was just about keeping your kids safe, the wall would be built on Israeli land. nt

[subsuelo]

62. exactly

[oberliner]

75. Haven't you argued that there is only one state in the region?

What exactly differentiates Israeli land from Palestinian land in your view?

[subsuelo]

84. How many states do you count in the region?

[oberliner]

88. So it's all Israeli land since that is the only state in the region?

What, then, is "Palestinian land"?

[subsuelo]

94. You tell me

I'd like to see just how far some will go to justify the land theft and the Apartheid Wall.

So, you tell me where Palestinian land is.

[oberliner]

96. It will probably end up being about 94-98 percent of the land east of the Green Line

Plus some portion of land that is now west of the Green Line inside Israel. And, of course, Gaza.

But these details must still be worked out between the two parties in final status negotiations, which, sadly, seem to be on hold indefinitely due to the internal problems on both sides.

[subsuelo]

102. "details must be worked out"

Right, while Israel continues to create more 'facts on the ground' (a clever phrase concocted to obscure the reality that they're stealing more land)

[Vegasaurus]

105. What's to steal?

It's all one state anyway, right?

:shrug:

[subsuelo]

107. We all know Israel is stealing land from the Palestinians

When you pretend otherwise, it doesn't lend much to your credibility.

[Vegasaurus]

112. I'm not pretending

I happen not to be in favor of settlement expansion, as I have made clear here umpteen times.

I am also not in favor of a single state, or your idiotic assertion that it already is one.

[subsuelo]

120. do you know how to count?

I've asked this before, and you've been unable to answer:

How many States exist in the region?

[Dick Dastardly]

150. You do realize the settlements actually comprise only

about 2% of the WB if I am not mistaken(I know its somwhere around that)

Also under Res 242 Israel is not required to leave all of the WB and final borders are subject to negotiation. Just these few facts make the ad nauseum repetion of "Israels stealing land" a fabrication and a joke

[Vegasaurus]

99. You talk out of both sides of your mouth

Time and time again, you say you count only one state in the region.

And yet you keep saying Israeli's are stealing Palestinian land.

How can they be stealing land if there is only one state in the region?

Please try to keep your hyperbole to one argument only.

[subsuelo]

100. One state and two large reservation camps

I'm sorry it's so difficult to grasp the concept.

[Vegasaurus]

104. Are the "reservation camps" part of this "one state"

or are the "reservation camps" on the land you claim the one state is stealing?

You are having some semantic difficulty.

[subsuelo]

106. No, you're the one trying to have it both ways now

You're the one that has bitterly complained in the past about arguments for One State. Now, you think you can twist that argument and use it to Israel's advantage.

One State exists in the region. If you're counting more than that, you need help with math. Unaccounted for land also exists, and that land belongs to the Palestinians - it just hasn't been accorded the recognition of official statehood. Now, is that going to happen or is it not? That has been where the previous discussions have focused on. I'm sorry these concepts are so extraordinarily difficult to comprehend. Perhaps if you dropped the agenda you could see the truth more clearly.

[Vegasaurus]

115. Why haven't the Palestinians announced statehood yet?

or ever?

Because they want the land that is Israel's too.

Are you having trouble with that concept?

If so, I have plenty of rhetoric from the political and religious leadership that will set your mind straight.

The only reason that the Palestinians haven't made good on their goal to obliterate Israel and all the Jews is because they don't have the firepower.

That is the only reason.

It's a good thing Israel has superior firepower, and a good thing that they show restraint in its use.

[subsuelo]

119. So the recently murdered Palestinian kids is "restraint"?

While you moan and complain about the stated goals made by Palestinian militants, Israel *really is* obliterating the Palestinians - by stealing all the land from them, and murdering kids that take part in non-violent protests against Israel's Apartheid.

So you tell me, what's worse, talking about destroying someone else, or actually doing it?

[oberliner]

122. Stealing all the land from them? Murdering kids that take part in non-violent protests?

Surely you are not claiming that Israel is "stealing all the land" from Palestinians?

There is some dispute over whether or not the protest you are referencing was non-violent and it should be noted that the Palestinian who died was 18 years old.

Just two days ago, Palestinians killed three 18 year old Palestinian kids themselves.

Clearly, the conflict is a violent one, but I think that your characterization of the situation is unfair.

[subsuelo]

123. In my opinion, that is what is taking place.

Israel's goal, it seems clear to me, is to take all the land - or as much as humanly possible - from the native Palestinian population. Where we're heading is towards a single state with two large reservation camps ghettos for the millions of natives.

Regarding the killings, the reports I've heard was that there were 2 kids, aged 10 and 17. Democracy Now described the protest as non-violent. It sure does sound like murder to me.

[oberliner]

125. Ynet reports that he was 18 and that there was stone-throwing

Here is their version:

Immediately after Ahmed Yusef Mussa's funeral, violent clashes erupted between the residents, IDF soldiers and Border Guard officers, inside the village an area where a separation fence is being constructed.

Several Palestinians were injured by rubber-coated metal bullets. Amira, who was shot in the head, was critically injured and rushed to a Ramallah hospital.

After learning of his death, the Border Guard said in a statement that when a proper complaint is filed, it will be looked into. An initial inquiry has revealed that Palestinian, left-wing activists and foreign peace activists began rioting in the area, some of them hurling stones.

"The forces responded with crowd dispersal means, including firing rubber bullets," the statement said.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3577472,00.html

There is another article in Ynet that has information disputing Amira's involvement in any stone-throwing. (Link can be found on that same page)

I think this is the same person referenced in the Democracy Now report. In that report, his name is listed as "Yousif Amira" while the Ynet article lists his name as "Ahmed Amira". It seems, however, that they are both talking about the same person.

[subsuelo]

127. Even if stones where thrown it doesn't justify killing anyone

regardless of age.

For perspective on most things regarding the situation, I usually ask the question - what if the situation were reversed?

So let's suppose the situation was one of: Palestinians firing on a group of Israeli youth, killing two of them and injuring several others, as a result of those youth throwing some stones?

Would anyone here find that a legitimate response to stone throwing? Would some possibly be calling it murder? If so - would you have a problem with that judgment?

[oberliner]

133. What happens if a group of protesters throws rocks at police officers in the US?

Police Fire Rubber Bullets, Tear Gas Into Peaceful LA Immigration March

In Los Angeles, an afternoon immigrant rights march ended when police fired dozens of rubber bullets and tear gas into the peaceful crowd. Families with young children were forced to flee for their safety. Eyewitnesses said police gave little or no warning before firing the rubber bullets.

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/5/2/police_fire_rubber_bullets_tear_gas

And that was a peaceful demonstration.

[azurnoir]

136. That is true however US police

I believe, use rubber bullets* which are a bit less likely to cause severe injury not rubber coated steel bullets. However in Naalin it was a live round that killed the 10 or 11 year old

*actually call local PD and asked them

[oberliner]

140. The incident to which I refer did involve rubber bullets

That is to say, the incident involving the either 17 or 18 year old with the last name of Amira.

This is not in reference to the 10 or 11 year old whose death is under investigation, with the officer in question being held under house arrest.

[azurnoir]

146. Maan and jpost

Amira was shot twice with rubber coated steel bullets from close range by Israeli border guards during the funeral procession of 10-year-old, Ahmad Husam Mousa, who was shot and killed in the village during a previous demonstration against the wall.
7
http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=30931

Border Police said Amera was injured Thursday by a rubber-coated bullet during a riot that broke out in the aftermath of Mousa's funeral.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331192120&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The kid's full name is Yousef Ahmed Amira which would explain any confusion
.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

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

[subsuelo]

129. "a people that celebrates death"

And now the real views come out. Under pressure, after some feeble attempts at arguing the losing side of this discussion, the real source of anger becomes apparent. But hey, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel about "these people".

You've expressed this view how many times here? And had those views deleted by moderators how many times as a result?

Here let me remind you: Your 'views' get deleted every single time.

When are you going to get it?

From the rules:

Do not make over-sweeping or stereotypical generalizations of any group or individual. This includes making statements, either overtly or subtly, which are Anti-Semitic or Anti-Muslim.

At this point, I really have to wonder, how hard is it for you to follow this one rule regarding stereotyping and generalizations? Why *must* you insist on repeating the same claims about "these people" over and over and over?

Edited to add: Is there anyone else that wishes to defend these generalizations?

[LeftishBrit]

130. While I agree with you that Israel are not committing anything within a million miles of genocide...

(and that the term is one that should never be used trivially), I cannot agree with you that the Palestinians are 'a people' that 'celebrates death, hands out candies and pays families of martyrs'. That makes it sound like something special to Palestinians. The Palestinians are certainly a group that have had both bad luck and bad judgement in picking their leaders, and need to get their political act together if they're not to collapse in civil war before they even have a state. But tney're not intrinsically a 'death-celebrating people'. That is a bit like saying, "The Americans are a people that celebrates death, engages in pre-emptive war, and validates torture" or "The British are a people that worship imperial power, collaborate with warmongers, and do not value civil liberties" (I have seen statement similar to both on DU, and have objected to them!)

As you know, we generally agree on the basics; but I don't agree with broad-brushing any 'people', as opposed perhaps to a political organization or entity (if you'd said 'Hamas are a group that celebrates death, hands out candies, and pays families of martyrs', I would have agreed completely!)

[Vegasaurus]

137. I agree that ALL Palestinians don't celebrate death

unfortunately, however, it is not just Hamas, but a good percentage of the Palestininan society who does.

Is it 50%, 60% or more? There was a recent poll on the number that favor ongoing violence/terrorism.

It clearly isn't everyone, but it is more than the leadership.

Most of the time, I am clear that I blame the political and religious leadership for the problems of the Palestinians.

Unfortunately, they are not the only ones who support violence and terrorism. Many citizens do as well.

I think we need to decry this celebration of martyrdom and terrorism.

[Violet_Crumble]

139. You don't see a problem with saying the palestinian people celebrate death?

This isn't the first time you've made negative generalizations about the Palestinian people and Idoubt it'll be the last. I know every time someone explains to you why comments that you've made are unacceptable and show you how they'd be just as ugly aimed at the Israeli or American people, you either ignore them or try to clumsily justiffy why you should be able to negatively stereotype an entire people.

If yr idea of decrying terrorism is demonizing an entire people then somewhere like LGF would welcome that sort of mindless crap.

[Vegasaurus]

141. Why when you actually read what people say, and not simply interpret from your own POV?

Thanks, but I have said a million times that I am opposed to violent resistance, to the political leaders promoting and inciting hatred and violence, and also opposed to Palestinians who celebrate death and murder.

Unfortnately, there are too many people in favor of militancy and violence. Just the facts.

[Violet_Crumble]

166. What you said was they're a people who celebrate death..

It's a negative generalisation, which is why the other million times you've said it, it's always been deleted. If you want DU to have rules against stereotyping entire groups except for the Palestinian people, then take it up with the mods....

[Sezu]

142. Well you know it might be easier if there were some

media examples and statements for the world to see from that region which show the OPPOSITE of celebrating death. Got some? Got any? Got enough to show it's some kind of anomoly rather than the norm?

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

168. So you think they are a people who celebrate death?

I dunno. I can no more show the opposite when it comes to them than I could when it comes to us Australians. So, like, can you start calling us a culture of death or something as well? I know a few emo kids who will love you for it!

[LeftishBrit]

172. The point is that one could say similar things about other countries

In the US, it isn't 'just the leadership' either, as people had to *vote* for the leadership; and even if one takes election fraud into account, it's clear that *close* to 50% voted for Bush. A higher proportion initially supported the Iraq war.

In the UK, there was never a majority in favour of the Iraq war, but 'war fever' has been common enough with regard to other wars; and although it's a long time since a British Government has officially organized celebrations of war or violence, the popular media are often very gung-ho in celebrating violence in war. Of course it's not as extreme as we are not at war with our neighbours, or in a civil war. But it's not that long since there was a civil-war-like situation in Northern Ireland, and much popular sentiment on both the Protestant and Catholic side glorified the violence (see some of my other posts).

This sort of attitude tends to be associated with a country being at war. In this respect, I *will* say that Israel seems to do *better* than many other countries: Israelis don't seem on the whole to be sentimental about the glories of war and violence. Maybe this has something to do with the universal military service, and some positive characteristics of IDF training? (Not saying that everything that Israel or the IDF do is positive by any means; but they seem to be relatively lacking in this *particular* negative characteristic.)

As regards percentages of hawks/doves in general: I would say that in general the proportion of hawkish-inclined versus dovish-inclined people in many societies is fairly close to 50%, and the percentage of hawks tends to go up in times of war or major conflict.

[oberliner]

74. Where does the Israeli land end and the Palestinian land begin?

Aren't those details still yet to be determined?

[breakaleg]

77. Not as much as you claim. And I think you know that.

[oberliner]

78. Israelis and Palestinians have yet to make that determination

Once Israelis and Palestinians are able to reach a comprehensive agreement whereby there is the formation of an internationally recognized Palestinian state with clearly defined borders then there will be no discrepancy as to what land belongs to what country.

[breakaleg]

79. That's Israel's side. You make it sound as if those Palestinians who live along that wall,

always knew their land was inside Israel's 1967 border and therefore possibly a part of Israel.

Tell me this, when the land of a Palestinian is confiscated for that wall and their land is then inside what Israel has determined its new border, are the people themselves considered a part of Israel? Are they granted Israeli citizenship?

[oberliner]

82. The wall ought to be built along the Israeli-Palestinian border

However, that can realistically only happen once it is made clear what the border is between Israel and the new Palestinian state.

It is more than unfortunate that there are so many internal political problems for both Israelis and Palestinians which stand in the way of making this happen.

The world community ought to be focused on working towards the goal of two states living side by side at peace with one another.

Hopefully, an Obama administration can help make that a reality.

And, hopefully, once that happens, there will be no need for a wall at all.

[subsuelo]

86. What is so difficult about admitting ...

... that the Apartheid Wall should not cut right through Palestinian neighborhoods?

If Israel really wants it's antifaschistischer Schutzwall so badly, let it create one on it's own land. But clearly we see that Israel has another agenda - one that has nothing to do with security. We see it's not at all about security. It's about stealing more and more from the native Palestinian people.

[oberliner]

90. What is so difficult about admitting that a two-state solution would resolve this issue definitively

I'm not sure why that is so distasteful to some folks here.

You are correct that Israel would like some of the land inside of the West Bank to become part of Israel. The Israeli government has offered to exchange an equal amount of territory inside of Israel to be handed over to the new Palestinian state.

The Palestinians have also indicated some willingness to make a territorial exchange, although not as substantial as what the Israelis have asked for.

This is just one of the areas for negotiation between the two sides. Hopefully they can work out a deal that is agreeable to both.

In addition, Israel does believe that the wall brings additional security and has helped to thwart suicide attacks inside Israel. You are certainly free to dispute that assessment, however, I do not think it is fair to claim that there is no security component involved at all.

A solution involving two states living side by side at peace with one another would hopefully resolve both the security issues and the territorial ones.

[subsuelo]

95. negotiate for some of the West Bank?

Think about how ridiculous that sounds from a Palestinian point of view. You're talking about their land. Not Israeli land. Land that Israel thinks it can steal more and more of from the Palestinians. And that is precisely what Israel continues to do - steal more and more from the native Palestinians. When will it just end? If Israel truly wanted this two-state solution, it could stop stealing Palestinian land stop building an Apartheid Wall on Palestinian land, and instead build it's beloved wall inside it's own borders.

Why is that such a difficulty? Why does Israel have to steal more? Why can't it be satisfied with the land it already has acquired? The natives got pushed out into reservation ghettos, and Israel has plenty of land for it's beloved Apartheid Wall. It has no need to steal more and more. Why does it? Explain that.

[oberliner]

98. Have you looked at the Geneva Initiative?

Many Palestinians agree that a territorial exchange would be included in a final peace agreement.

The Geneva Initiative, for instance, includes such an exchange.

Here is the relevant excerpt from the summary of the accord:

2. Borders and settlements:

* The border marked on a detailed map is final and indisputable.
* According to the accord and maps, the extended borders of the State of Israel will include Jewish settlements currently beyond the Green Line, Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, and territories with significance for security surrounding Ben Gurion International Airport. These territories will be annexed to Israel on agreement and will become inseparable from it.
* In return to the annexation of land beyond the 1967 border, Israel will hand over alternative land to the Palestinian, based on a 1:1 ratio. The lands annexed to the Palestinian State will be of equal quality and quantity.

http://www.geneva-accord.org/general.aspx?FolderID=250&lang=en

This is an accord that was drafted by both Israelis and Palestinians working together to find a peaceful and just solution to the conflict.

[subsuelo]

101. Thanks I am familiar with it

I also recognize that most leaders - particularly Israeli leaders - are against the G.A.

Why are they against it? Because they want to steal more land.

It's all about the land - it's about stealing it all from the native Palestinians, and anyone that defends the Apartheid Wall defends that land theft. Again, if the Apartheid Wall was about security, Israel would build it on their own land, not cut through Palestinian neighborhoods and extend the land grabs to build it.

[LeftishBrit]

111. Most leaders are initially against anything that will require a compromise

There is NO WAY that peace is going to be established without both sides making very painful compromises and sacrifices. But the alternative would be worse.

I think that there needs to be an end to the occupation, and Israeli withdrawal to something akin to the 1967 borders, with land exchanges where it's not possible to make this exact. Israel has to stop land grabs and settlement building, and Palestine has to end violent attacks on Israeli civilians.

I hope that when (not if) the Occupation ends, it happens with two secure states, which, if not bosom friends, are at least on similar terms to those between Israel and Egypt, with no walls required.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

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

[breakaleg]

110. I'll take that as a NO. So, by default, even Israel recognizes this is not Israeli land. nt

[oberliner]

116. As of now, I would say it's neither "Israeli land" nor "Palestinian land"

Until a Palestinian state is established and final borders are determined, the areas in question could best be described as "disputed territory". That is to say, territory that Israel believes ought to be a part of Israel and Palestinians believe ought to be a part of a newly created Palestinian state. Again, it is up to the two sides to negotiate what that border will look like.

[breakaleg]

126. Israel's belief that certain parcels of land "ought be be a part of Israel" are based on

the simple fact that they want it. Not based on let's say any armistice line.

Think about this in a context other than Israel for a minute. Imagine two peoples fighting for the same piece of land. At some point there is a truce and a line is drawn in the sand. It's only natural to have that line be the basis for any division of land.

Yet you seem to think that one side, can simply demand more, take what they want of the land beyond this line, any time they wish. And the other side is supposed to accept it silently.

This makes no sense to any rational person.

And frankly I'm sick and tired of reading your posts in which you present the Israeli point of view as if its widely accepted fact. Israel calls that land "disputed territory". The rest of the world calls it "occupied territory". And there are specific rules regarding such territory that Israel has patently ignored. And with that, they've lost all credibility. The least you can do is speak the truth.

[oberliner]

131. I don't think one side can demand more and the other side is supposed to accept it silently

Firstly, I'm not sure that I've ever presented the Israeli point of view as if it is widely accepted fact. If I have done so, I apologize. That is certainly not my intention as I do my best to look at things from both the Israeli and Palestinian perspective.

I agree with you that the West Bank is designated as occupied territory. The goal is, that, at some point (hopefully soon), the Palestinians will have their own state with clearly defined borders. It is not clear that those borders are going to be drawn exactly along the Green Line. Both Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have presented proposals whereby some of the land that is currently part of the West Bank would be exchanged for some of the land that is currently inside of Israel.

Both Israelis and Palestinians have ignored the specific rules to which you refer. There have been (and continue to be) violations of international law on both sides of the conflict.

Would you agree with that?

In any event, we should all be working together to get Israelis and Palestinians to sit down and negotiate an agreement which will lead to the creation of a Palestinian state with clearly defined borders.

[Dick Dastardly]

152. You are wrong

Think about this in a context other than Israel for a minute. Imagine two peoples fighting for the same piece of land. At some point there is a truce and a line is drawn in the sand. It's only natural to have that line be the basis for any division of land.

The armstice line was all of the WB, Jerusalem and Sinai. Are you saying that those should be the boundries.

in any case your claim is not valid, just one of the reasons being aggression would be rewarded. Negotiation is the basis

Yet you seem to think that one side, can simply demand more, take what they want of the land beyond this line, any time they wish. And the other side is supposed to accept it silently.

When you lose a war to destroy someone, you are not in any position to make demands. In any event res 242 does not require Israel to leave all of the WB. Final borders are subject to negotiantion

Text

And frankly I'm sick and tired of reading your posts in which you present the Israeli point of view as if its widely accepted fact. Israel calls that land "disputed territory". The rest of the world calls it "occupied territory". And there are specific rules regarding such territory that Israel has patently ignored. And with that, they've lost all credibility. The least you can do is speak the truth.

It is widely accepted fact by International law experts including the drafters of res 242 that Israel has better title and is not required to leave all of the WB. What gets tiring is the repeated false claims otherwise that are based on propaganda. I have much more than this


Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) states in What Weight to Conquest

"The facts of the June 1967 'Six Day War' demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR's use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of UNEF.

"It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated.

"The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest."



"(a) a state acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense;
"(b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense;
"(c) Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.
"... as between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt."

http://books.google.com/books?id=AnJIfuDAtp4C&pg=PA206&...

http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isb...

Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, pg. 13, qtd. in Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:

Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.



• Journal of Palestine Studies, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring - Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:

Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?

A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” The can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2536020
http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/jps.1976.5.3...



Arthur J. Goldberg,5 the U.S. Ambassador to the UN in 1967 a professor of law at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago, and was appointed in 1962 to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1965 he was named U.S. representative to the United Nations. Judge Goldberg was a key draftee of UN Resolution 242
“The notable omissions in language used to refer to withdrawal are the words the, all, and the June 5, 1967, lines.

In other words, there is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from the (or all the) territories occupied by it on and after _June 5, 1967. Instead, the resolution stipulates withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal. And it can be inferred from the incorporation of the words secure and recognized boundaries that the territorial adjustments to be made by the parties in their peace settlements could encompass less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories

Goldberg, “U.N. Resolution 242: Origin, Meaning, and Significance.” National Committee on American Foreign Policy.
http://www.mefacts.com/cache/html/arab-countries/10159....


Eugene Rostow, a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, 1966-1969. He helped draft Resolution 242.

The New York Times, “Don’t strong-arm Israel,” Feb. 19, 1991:

Security Council Resolution 242, approved after the 1967 war, stipulates not only that Israel and its neighboring states should make peace with each other but should establish “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” Until that condition is met, Israel is entitled to administer the territories it captured – the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip – and then withdraw from some but not necessarily all of the land to “secure and recognized boundaries free of threats or acts of force.”






Proceedings of the 64th annual meeting of the American Society of International Law, 1970, pgs 894-96:

the question remained, “To what boundaries should Israel withdraw?” On this issue, the American position was sharply drawn, and rested on a critical provision of the Armistice Agreements of 1949. Those agreements provided in each case that the Armistice Demarcation Line “is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims or positions of either party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.” ... These paragraphs, which were put into the agreements at Arab insistence, were the legal foundation for the controversies over the wording of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Security Council Resolution 242, of November 22, 1967. ...

The agreement required by paragraph 3 of the resolution, the Security Council said, should establish “secure and recognized boundaries” between Israel and its neighbors “free from threats or acts of force,” to replace the Armistice Demarcation Lines established in 1949, and the cease-fire lines of June, 1967. The Israeli armed forces should withdraw to such lines, as part of a comprehensive agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in the resolution, and in a condition of peace.

On this point, the American position has been the same under both the Johnson and the Nixon Administrations. The new and definitive political boundaries should not represent “the weight of conquest,” both Administrations have said; on the other hand, under the policy and language of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, and of the Security Council Resolution of November 22, 1967, they need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines. ...

This is the legal significance of the omission of the word “the” from paragraph 1 (I) of the resolution, which calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces “from territories occupied in the recent conflict,” and not “from the territories occupied in the recent conflict.” Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word “the” failed in the Security Council. It is therefore not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the Cease-Fire Resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation Lines.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2199210

http://www.asil.org /
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2199210
http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/242drafters.asp

[Sezu]

143. But some here don't need no stinkin borders do they?

That would limit their dogma to rationality.

[subsuelo]

85. Maybe Israeli land ends where Palestinian homes and neighborhoods are?

You know, the neighborhoods where the Apartheid Wall cuts right through?

[oberliner]

89. The vast majority of Palestinians do not live in those neighborhoods

It is a minuscule percentage of Palestinians who live in neighborhoods that the wall goes through.

[subsuelo]

103. Talk percentages all you want, it's no excuse

If this was about security, Israel would build the wall on it's own land.

[oberliner]

108. Israeli High Court is taking action towards that end

Court slams state for ignoring order to change West Bank fence route

The High Court of Justice has given the state 45 days to submit a new route for part of the separation fence that runs through lands belonging to Bil'in villagers. Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch and Justices Eliezer Rivlin and Ayala Procaccia criticized the state on Sunday for ignoring the court's ruling in the matter a year ago.

A petition was filed in 2005 against the route, which is intended to encompass Modi'in Ilit from the east. In September, 2007 the High Court of Justice ruled that the route in the Bil'in area is illegal, and ordered the state to devise, within a reasonable time, an alternative route that would be less detrimental. The court also instructed the state to plan the route so that it runs through state land, not privately owned Palestinian property.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1008160.html

[subsuelo]

121. There shouldn't be any question

If security was really all this was about, Israel would build within it's own recognized borders. How difficult would that really be? But the priorities are made obvious by building beyond it's borders, aren't they? The priorities are to take more and more land from the native Palestinian people. If Israel really wanted a two-state solution it could have had it, but instead it continues it's expansionist plans. And why not? It's working. Palestinians continue to have less and less as Israel takes more and more. Who is going to stop the land theft? Nobody. So why not steal more if nobody's stopping it? History can be fabricated - the tough part is now, in having to deal with all the outcry. Oh, and there is that pesky question of what to do with all the millions of native people that have been forced into the reservation ghettos. But obviously for Israel, dealing with that later has been the answer. The first thing to do - is steal the rest of the land. And it will remain precisely on that course.

[oberliner]

134. If stealing land was really all this was about - why the Israeli High Court decision?

Clearly the Israeli High Court believes that the route of the fence should not cut into the West Bank as much as it does. It has issued a ruling calling for a portion of it to be dismantled and rerouted.

[Violet_Crumble]

170. The government doesn't control the High Court n/t

[breakaleg]

176. And it seems that the High Courts rulings are often ignored by the IDF. What a nice relationship.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[subsuelo]

35. Earth to Vegasaurus

Stop excusing stealing land from the native population

[Vegasaurus]

52. Face it, the wall saves lives

Facts on the ground, so to speak,

[subsuelo]

58. Stop excusing stealing land

[azurnoir]

46. Reality for Vegasaurus

Your claim that gee only if those bad Palestinians would stop those suicide bombs........
Sounds so simple evcept that the Israelis claim that the wall is why the suicide bombs have stopped there for the wall stays-forever You see so simple.

Now as to why build the wall on Palestinian land Pelsars answer seems to be a wordy "because who's going to stop us"

[pelsar]

47. you got it partially right..i'll help you complete it

evcept that the Israelis claim that the wall is why the suicide bombs have stopped there for the wall stays-forever You see so simple. you forgot 2 parts:....as long as the attempts continue...and it continues to be so effective.

i guess you didnt want to add them, because they are true and they really really really ruins the simplistic thesis of how the "wall is bad"

which brings us to the third part of "whos going to stop us"...its goes to sanctity of life: some believe that life is more important than land ownership and nationality....others believe that land ownship is sacred and is far more important than preservation of life....

[azurnoir]

49. OK

if Israel needs a wall to be safe build it in Israel, no problem.

This part though and I will be more blunt than usual

"which brings us to the third part of "whos going to stop us"...its goes to sanctity of life: some believe that life is more important than land ownership and nationality....others believe that land ownship is sacred and is far more important than preservation of life...."

Is sanctimonious bullcrap and the route of the wall has more to do with the value of olive groves than the value of lives even Israeli ones. It is easy to say all that nice stuff about valuing life more than land or nationality when you belong to the nationality that is doing the taking.

[pelsar]

53. you dont understand how it works.....like most here with that claim....

so i shall explain....and keep in mind that it works.

the wall is not on borders of israeli settlements..its on the borders of Palestinian villages etc. If it was on 67 border for instance..where israelis have kibbutzs, cities etc..once the wall has been hopped, our suicide bomber would just have to pick which house or office or factory he/she wants to blow up...and kill em. (as done in the past)

But with wall keeping them in their villages in order to leave their village they have to go through one of the walls openings first before they get to the "open fields"...that is a major problem for the bomb carrier.....

and once they've cleared the wall, they're journey has only just begun...they now have the gauntlet of roving patrols, checkpoints, ambushes etc to get through, all the while carrying their bombs....not an easy task.....


thats one of the major reasons the wall buts up against the Palestinians and not the israelis....it goes toward the system that saves lives
_____

if you want examples of why walls on borders dont work so well to protect its citizens, look at gaza and lebanon.....israeli citizens on the border get attacked, sniped and mortared...not in the westbank

as far as nationalism goes..i really dont care whos "flag" flys over the area...but it should be the flag that reduces the killing to a minimum.... (i think that is more important than land ownership). Again examples are found in the short history for good and bad: sinai, gaza, lebanon and parts of the westbank....

[subsuelo]

61. And the East German govt called it "antifaschistischer Schutzwall"

Or "Anti-fascist protection wall" (this was in reference to the Berlin Wall for those that don't know)

Excuses are always readily available to those defending systems of oppression and Apartheid.

[Vegasaurus]

66. The wall isn't there to oppress people

It is there to save people's lives.

It is really too bad that you have so much trouble understanding the distinction.

If the mere goal was oppression, the Israelis could have built a wall 60 years ago, or even 40 years ago.

But the Palestinians traveled freely, had jobs, etc., before they decided that their "violent resistance" was their nationalistic goal.

There was NO wall before suicide bombings became the celebrated way of life.

So, to save Israelis' lives (which the wall has done very effectively), the Palestinians' lives are more oppressed.

Oh well,

Stop bombing every Israeli at every opportunity, and the wall can come down, just as the Berlin wall did.

So easy a baby could understand.

[Violet_Crumble]

69. You do realise that the people it's punishing aren't suicide bombers or those who celebrate them?

The wall is punishing the people who live along its path. Are you honestly trying to tell everyone here that all Palestinians affected by its construction celebrate suicide bombings and have a national goal of "violent resistance"?

[pelsar]

73. call it what you want...

my kids and their friends go the malls ride buses, go to summer camps now....things that were only done with great worry.

i understand you think israelis dont need any kind of personal security...as you constantly claim that the wall is only an excuse and therefore not required....but then you get to preach from far away dont you? and we get our to have our personal security back where it belongs..with the IDF

[azurnoir]

81. What a nice neat system and not to mention

it's "practically" self substantiating.

But with wall keeping them in their villages in order to leave their village they have to go through one of the walls openings first before they get to the "open fields"...that is a major problem for the bomb carrier.....

Yep if only a few of how many million Palestinians on the West Bank carried a bomb then well we can make them all pay

and once they've cleared the wall, they're journey has only just begun...they now have the gauntlet of roving patrols, checkpoints, ambushes etc to get through, all the while carrying their bombs....not an easy task.....

so if this is thew theory explain then why the Wall cuts off olive groves and some of those villages , why 'cause once again who will stop us? and well there should be some benefits to us......

Nice attempt at smarmy propaganda actually no, closest to honest I have seen at least in apparent attitude. And the Palestinians have to prove please their maste Israel before Isrtael will possibly maybe , might , think about loosening up.


odd Israel did not require the caveats from Egypt wonder why?

[Vegasaurus]

83. When were Egyptians blowing Israelis up in cafes and on buses? nt

[azurnoir]

91. When have the Palestinians launched

full scale wars? Oh thats right 1947 and they're paying it. Egypt did this on 3 occasions and well they got oil wells for their efforts, they did not have to "prove" themselves to Israel before negotiations. and Israel kept it's word, why is that?

[pelsar]

113. Egypt (and Jordan) did prove themselves.....

after 73 they stopped attacking, stopped feeding the terrorists.....and that led to confidence on the israeli side and the subsequence peace treaty....so too with jordan

in short, they proved themselves capable of not attacking israel and kept their word BEFORE the treaties....theres your proof of how to make peace with israel... remember it, we'll come back to it again when one wonders why the Palestinians have to prove themselves first.

[azurnoir]

132. The part you leave out

is that Jordan and Egypt were not under an occupation that busily creating "facts on the ground" while oppressing the people in the area. As far as "how do we find suicide bombers" have all the check points you want on the Israeli side of the border one every 18 inches for the first 3 miles if wanted or perhaps depending on the final disposition of Jerusalem, Israel could bar West Bank Palestinians all together, just like Gazans and the Allenby bridge is open...........

[pelsar]

135. i didnt leave anything out...

israel makes peace with those who stop attacking it.....its that simple and history proves it. If the Palestinians believe the settlements are reason enough to attack, then so be it.....but there shouldnt be any illusions about making peace.

and of course your solution wouldnt work...how do we know this?..because we have history as our teacher. Israeli citizens live on the borders, its doesnt take much to hop a fence, go around a checkpoint and kill people.

More so, whether one likes it or not, the settlers are humans and also deserve to live, irreguardless of their political views (unless of course one believes that land ownership is more sacred than lives...) and consequently deserve protection as well.

___

of course it could be that your view is that they dont deserve any protection and should be left to fend for themselves.....do you?

[azurnoir]

138. So you do support the settlements!!? wow

However is it the settlements or the actions of the settlers?

and of course your solution wouldnt work...how do we know this?..because we have history as our teacher. Israeli citizens live on the borders, its doesnt take much to hop a fence, go around a checkpoint and kill people.

in my post I said checkpoints, as for fence that is your rhetorical device, in any recent posts including this thread I have said wall as "fence" sounds flimsy and have in the past said that if Israel feels the need it could dome it self so to clarify Israel can build all the walls it wants as many layers deep and as high as deemed necessary but build them in Israel on Israeli land

[pelsar]

147. i support not killing settlers...so you avoided the question again....

lets try again....because your not being clear.....as i understand it, your for not giving the settlers any kind of defense from the various Palestenians jihad type groups who attack jewish israelis as their target.

[azurnoir]

149. Puleez

I am for the settlers leaving that way they need no defense now do they?
But thanx I guess so you are saying that what Israel wants as a "peace" agreement is "official" approval from the PA of the situation that exists right now IDF, roadblocks, settlements and all else including Israeli domination of the water supply.

[pelsar]

159. since the settlers arent leaving tomorrow....

and there is a general agreement on a land swap....it appears the many of the settlers wont be returning to pre 67 line......
_____

that leaves the position of the wall/checkpoints today. At the 67 borders many israelis will not have IDF protection....so is that what your proposing?

[azurnoir]

163. So in other words

Israel wants Abbas to rubber the existing situation, he may and you will have your wish another and far more valuable Gaza, with all the consequences of that for the Palestinians of course. israel will ultimately gain what it has intended all along that being all of Judea and Samara, which explain all the shrill screaming about how the Palestinians want all of Israel, when it is apparently the reverse that is true.

[pelsar]

174. there you go again....skipping the realistic question...

if i recall its your proposal that there be no wall built or checkpoints beyond the 67 border....given the simple fact that there are settlers living beyond the wall...and the reality that they will probably stay as per the agreement in taba..

i'm just inquiring if you believe they should get any IDF protection ....this is one of those simple questions that always seem never to get answered. It may be that you believe they shouldnt, and they should be left at the mercy of the jihadnikim for their sins...if so, then just write out.

[breakaleg]

175. Not that you asked me, but I'll answer. I don't. They made their bed. They chose to live outside

the borders and protection of Israel.

[Dick Dastardly]

148. Israel built many settlements in the Sinai so your claim is false

Part of the WB will be on the Israeli side of the border
Israel does not have to withdraw from all of it per Res 242

[azurnoir]

151. I did not say no settlements

and Israel did withdraw from them didn't they? And even more "generously" gave Egypt oil wells

[Dick Dastardly]

153. You said they did not create facts on the ground which are settlements n/t

[azurnoir]

154. Nice paraphrase

Full quote

"Jordan and Egypt were not under an occupation that busily creating "facts on the ground" while oppressing the people in the area

meaning the settlement building was not stepped up or continued while negotiations were going on, also there were not as many settlers and settlements, but then they had only 12 years not 41 years as in th West Bank.

[Dick Dastardly]

155. They were expanding settlements

Then Begin underscored his position by defiantly and provocatively beginning new construction of Sinai settlements two months after Sadat's visit
http://books.google.com/books?id=6T_Ff6Ra57sC&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=sinai+settlements&source=web&ots=E6ED1VkCfU&sig=J_rh0BcC_DwZfKCt8s7uzPewLRU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result

[azurnoir]

156. Yes he did say that

but did it actually happen? No

[Dick Dastardly]

158. Yes they were expanded

On that same day, Israel revealed it was establishing four new settlements in the Sinai. Carter and Sadat were both furious, suspecting that Begin was purposefully fouling the peace process.

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/1098/9810083.html



Egypt was also not attacking while negotiating as the Palestinians

[azurnoir]

164. So I will conceed

Israel built settlements or at claimed they did only to give them up, why, apparently it was a game.
Egypt as you point out did not attack but wisely bided it's time, knowing that it was not keeping Egyptian land that was Israels true goal
.
The Palestinians however are another story, a story told in these excerpts from your link and I thank you they will prove quite valuable in the future.

Unlike Sadat, Begin delighted in the parsing of sentences, the splitting of words, the elaboration of nuances. He was a subtle and wily negotiator enamored with the rhetorical flourish but trustful only of the technicalities of negotiation. He was as wedded to the concept of Israeli retention of Eretz Yisrael, the land of Israel, meaning Jewish control over Samaria and Judea, the West Bank, as Sadat was to getting back Egyptian land. As Ezer Weizman noted

The major problem was not the return of Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, which had little significance for Begin, but retention of the West Bank with its Jewish settlements. Sadat had vowed that he would not only regain the Sinai but also gain self-determination for the Palestinians. As he said publicly shortly before going to Jerusalem: The Palestinian problem was the “core and crux” of the Arab-Israeli conflict and that “no progress” could be achieved without its solution.14

Under the framework dealing with the West Bank and Gaza (the Golan Heights was not mentioned), “full autonomy” was promised the Palestinians after a transitional period “not exceeding five years.” The transitional period was to begin with the election by the Palestinians of a “self-governing authority” (administrative council), at which time “the Israeli military government and its civilian administration will be withdrawn” and the self-governing authority would establish “a strong local police force.”

[eyl]

162. Well for starters

there are place where there aren't three miles between the Green Line and large Israeli towns.

As for barring "West Bank Palestinians altogether", LOL - as soon as Israel does that we'll get compaints from everyone here who's currently complaining about the siege of Gaza.

[pelsar]

97. i believe one of the main complaints..is that it collective punishment....

Yep if only a few of how many million Palestinians on the West Bank carried a bomb then well we can make them all pay

yes it is......so too is collective punishment when a whole country is under attack by suicide bombers, where freedom of movement, personal security is no longer....is that not 'collective punishment? since you've never mentioned that i can i assume you dont see it as an issue?

and since you dont like all the Palestinians being check for bombs, i guess your suggestion is that the IDF shouldnt check them? (as they werent in the past-when israelis were being blown up.

but of course this is the best part..the part you wont answer....how to find the bomb carrier if he is wearing civilian clothes and there are no checkpoints or walls....

[Vegasaurus]

3. The wall will come down when suicide bombers are not celebrated

for killing as many Israelis as possible.

It's so hard to see the truth, isn't it?

[Violet_Crumble]

8. I didn't realise you were an Israeli govt spokesperson...

Also, I didn't realise the official Israeli reason for building the wall inside the West Bank was to punish anyone who does do a happy jig over suicide bombers...

[subsuelo]

12. Notice there is no mention of the path of the wall

Which of course steals more land from the natives

[pelsar]

28. bummer isnt...when a plan doesnt come together...

seems those native suicide bombers designed to terrorize israel only backfired and made the Palestinians lives miserable.....dumb idea. Before the bombers they had freedom of movement, no walls, few checkpoints....

and the stealing the land part?....actually part of the path is security oriented and part political....but it was designed to protect israeli citizens..including those living on both sides of the green line.....

and if that includes part of the future Palestinians state....so be it...like the berlin wall it can be removed when things change.....

[subsuelo]

36. Yeah, the plan to steal the land from the native people

That *is* a bummer. That's a bummer for all the people whose lives and families are torn apart thanks to Israeli Apartheid and destruction of native Palestinian homeland.

Sorry to have such a problem with that.

[pelsar]

48. i think the problem...

is that you value land ownership over the preservation of human lives.....

reminds me of a sort of tribalism attitude.....

[subsuelo]

87. Sorry to oppose Apartheid and land theft

It's been said over, and over, and over and over and over and over now.

Let's say it one more time for those still not getting it.

If it was about 'security' and saving lives, Israel would build it's beloved antifaschistischer Schutzwall on it's own land. But it isn't doing that - is it.

[Shaktimaan]

157. why?

If it was about 'security' and saving lives, Israel would build it's beloved antifaschistischer Schutzwall on it's own land. But it isn't doing that - is it.

No. If it was about 'security' and saving lives, Israel would build it's wall around the communities that its citizens live in. Which is what it did.
Some of that land is not within Israeli sovereign territory. It is on disputed land which currently belongs to no nation and the sovereignty of which is TBD via negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

Israel's gone on record stating that the wall's path will not influence future border negotiations. It can always be demolished or moved. Were Israel annexing this land independently of any negotiations then you could have a case that they were stealing it... depending on the exact land in question. Moreover, if it was Israel's intent to use this wall as an excuse to preempt negotiations via a land grab, then why did they wait for almost 40 years to do it?

There's also two ways of looking at this. You see it as Israel creating facts on the ground whereby should a peace deal not materialize within the next ten or twenty years Israel will have turned all the land on its side into de-facto Israeli property via construction and expanding settlement blocks, making its "return" to Palestine all but impossible. This is probably true.

In this way it behooves the Palestinians to make peace while they can still negotiate over that land. Now this isn't any change at all in motivation for them actually. Time is not on their side. Every time the Palestinians delayed or rejected peace it has resulted in a reduction in the possible area of their state. Fence or no fence, that's the reality of their situation. They're gonna keep losing land until they are able to declare a sovereign state. The wall doesn't change this fact, it just highlights it to everyone who wasn't paying attention before.

And over time they have been losing, (NOT gaining) the support of the rest of the world, particularly the Arab states and especially the Gulf states. As the world economies continue to flatten out and rely on each other for stability, making Israel more and more vital to their own nations' success, their interests will increasingly align with Israel's and drift away from Palestine's. We can already see this beginning to happen.

The "good" news though, is that the fence doesn't just keep the Palestinians out. It also keeps Israel IN. While the Palestinians might not like the wall's path for a border now, in the event that they are unable to reach a peace agreement at all then it will eventually be working in their best interests, halting further Israeli creeping-expansion and ensuring them some kind of guaranteed real estate for a longer time than anyone else has ever had in the history of the world to establish their state on.

Let me guess... sounds crappy to you, am I right?

Look, if the Palestinians are unable to negotiate some kind of peace deal soon then they will end up losing that land anyway... wall or no wall. If they are able to hammer out a treaty then the wall's current path won't matter because it'll be demolished or changed anyway. But in the event that this conflict drags on for another 30 years then the only "fact on the ground" that the wall will reinforce is likely to be the existence of Palestine.

Personally, I don't think it'll matter in the end. It's been 60 years now. If the Palestinians were unable to create a state so far then they're probably never going to be able to do it. Not that it's all their fault or anything. But there WERE opportunities. None were perfect, but then, none ever are. But their odds are getting increasingly slimmer all the time now... and they don't seem to realize it.

[shira]

165. so Subsuelo.... if Israel built the wall within the 67 borders......

and in doing so, many more lives were lost - let's say about 200 more on both sides - would you then be against moving the wall outside the 67 border to where it currently is - in an effort to save life? In other words, how many more hundreds of lives lost would it take to make you see the wall needs to be where it is right now?

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

169. So Shira..you should really support moving the parts of the wall in the West Bank to test it out...

Y'know, apart from the fact that the parts of the wall that deviate from the Green Line and go into the West Bank are illegal under international law, do you want to try to explain why you think those bits of the wall being where they are are saving lives?

[eyl]

173. For one thing,

they cut off Jerusalem* from the WB to the east of the city, rather than going through it. That's a major advantage right there, since it's easier to sneak across (or tunnel under) in a built-up area

*The majority of deviations from the Line are in the Jerusalem area)

[azurnoir]

25. Yes it or to "see" the truth for some anyways

the reasons for the wall remaining are self substaning and deliberately designed to be that way

[Sezu]

15. The root of this "apartheid," bullshit was Soviet propaganda.

I'm sure you fellow travelers will be glad they snared you.

[azurnoir]

18. Soviet propaganda?

That has not existed since 1991 which predates the wall, so you are obviously referring to South African apartheid as being "only" bullshit propaganda, gee what color are your sheets let me guess......

[Sezu]

24. It doesn't surprise me that your education and Violet's are

sorely lacking about the origin and intentions of the spurious Israel/Apartheid meme. It might spoil your fantasy.

http://zionism.netfirms.com/linguistics_of_antizionism.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp517.htm

"On 12 December 1968, Bertrand Russell addressed an open letter to Polish Prime Minister Wladyslaw Gomulka in which he wrote: "By some twisted logic, all Jews are now Zionists, Zionists are fascists, fascists are Nazis, and Jews, therefore, are to be identified with the very criminals who only recently sought to eliminate Polish Jewry."1 Russell was protesting against the wave of anti-Semitic agitation and propaganda in Poland, which was part of a larger campaign the Soviet Union had launched after Israel defeated its proxies, Egypt and Syria, in the Six-Day War (June 1967). The grouping together of such accusations is an example of "amalgamation," a propaganda technique used to extrapolate "from Jewish self-defense to aggression, from a desire for self-determination to racism, and from a wish for independence to imperialism."2 According to the late Stefan T. Possony, an accomplished American strategist and specialist in Eastern European affairs, Komsomolskaya Pravda published the real message of this propaganda on 4 October 1967: "Zionism is dedicated to 'genocide, racism, treachery, aggression, and annexation...all characteristic attributes of fascists.'"3 Bernard Lewis reported the use of nearly identical language at the World Conference of the International Women's Year held in Mexico City in late June and early July 1975. He observed that "the 'Declaration on the Equality of Women' issued on that occasion repeatedly stresses the share of women in the struggle against neocolonialism, foreign occupation, Zionism, racism, racial discrimination and apartheid."4

The distinguished historians of the Soviet Union, Michael Heller and Aleksandr M. Nekrich, reported that the Six-Day War represented a turning point in the development of anti-Semitism in the USSR:

The Six-Day War in 1967 opened a new chapter in the history of Soviet anti-Semitism. After that, the authorities ceased to be ashamed of anti-Semitism, and it acquired full rights. Zionism became the latest approved and authorized object of hatred, just as Nepmen, wreckers, and kulaks had once been. In books and periodicals, published in millions of copies, and in movies and television broadcasts, Zionism was depicted as a most serious threat to the Soviet state. A Permanent Commission was established under the Social Sciences Section of the USSR Academy of Sciences "to coordinate research dedicated to the exposure and criticism of the history, ideology, and practical activity of Zionism."5 "

Feel free to educate yourself or wallow in your ingested propaganda.

[azurnoir]

27. Doesn't surprise me that you try in vain to weasle

out of your statement, the word apartheid is not mentiond n any of the original quotes and only brought up as a butt covering that was the firat link the wiki page was an education in recent editing both could have said the same thing in a couple of sentences or less-they're "anti-semites"

Me thinks both doth protest a bit too much

BTW who helped you write the post?

[Sezu]

31. LOL you are really something. The jury is out on just what that

may be. Like I say, the truth is out there, educate or stay brainwashed, the choice is yours. I have provided several links to start you off in no particular order; there are scads more. Still, I feel some reluctance on your part. Knock me over with a feather.

[azurnoir]

32. Brainwashed nope and no reluctance

when it comes to Israel's actions on the West Bank they speak for themselves no matter how they are parsed and it took me years to come to that conclusion, any reluctance on my part was to believe the bad press about Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. I'm 'wallowing in ingested propaganda' by merely asking you to back up yr claim??

Holy crap! Remind me never to ask anyone in this forum a question again! ;)

Now, I asked you if you had something to back up yr claim that the Soviet Union was the first to use the term apartheid in relation to the Occupied Territories. Nothing that you posted gives any information about that at all, though it is amusing to notice that while I was labelled an ingester of propaganda for daring to ask you for information on a claim you made, you don't seem to have a problem at all with propaganda like JCPA...

The reason I asked you about the initial use of the term apartheid was because back not long after the end of the Six-Day War, Rabin (from now on I'll refer to him as my fellow ingester of propaganda) warned that annexation of the West Bank would create a South African situation. Back then, his was a prediction of what could come about, but I wouldn't imagine comparisons to apartheid would have started to be made until the settlement venture was rolling along in the early 1970's. So unless you have anything to produce to support what you claimed, the earliest reference to apartheid I've come across is Rabin's. Damn commie he was!! ;)

[Sezu]

59. Jeebus, can't you read?????

Here is what I said

"The root of this "apartheid," bullshit was Soviet propaganda.
I'm sure you fellow travelers will be glad they snared you."

I then posted some links which people could use to investigate the Soviet propoganda which led to the practice of demonizing everything Israel did by making comparisons to other events which elicited distaste and horror in people generally.

But you are more interested in who used a word the first time. This may be because of cognitive dissonance on your part. Hard to admit your most treasured rhetoric came from propaganda isn't it?

[Violet_Crumble]

67. Yeah, I can read fine. Can't say much for yr comprehension skills, though...

See, the root of something means that it's where it started. So you point everyone to something that doesn't even mention apartheid. That doesn't work. If the Soviets were the root of the word when used about the Occupied Territories, then it seems obvious to all but blind freddy that they'd have been using the word to start with.

Instead of accusing everyone you don't agree with of using propaganda, why don't you explain (minus the hostile attitude) why you think that anyone seeing similarities between Apartheid and the practices of the Israeli govt in the Occupied Territories is demonising Israel? Have you read what bemildred and I have posted about Rabin and other Israeli politicians who have made the comparison?

[Sezu]

76. So you didn't look at the links I provided I see.

Otherwise you'd understand how the root was Soviet propganda tactics. How will you ever learn if you ignore the available info?

Now sure, there are and will be Israeli politicians and citizens who repeat the propaganda because it has become fashionable among a certain segment of the left but the fact remains that while you can cherry pick some similarities, the situation in Israel is FAR from Apartheid.

Calling it Apartheid is like saying humans have 4 limbs and eyes; so do cows; therefore, cows are human. The fallacy is immediately recognized and the urge to repeat said fallacy can only arise from ignorance or purpose;in this case, the demonization of Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

171. I did and they didn't show what you were claiming n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

23. Those darn commies are everywhere!!

And do you have anything to back up yr claim that the term apartheid or pointing out comparisons between the occupation and South Africa was first used by the Soviets?

[subsuelo]

37. Run for the hills! The commies are in our midst everyone!!

[Sezu]

39. Another history impaired poster I see. The point is not that they

are in your midst, but that their propaganda forms the basis for most anti-Israel and antiZionism talking points. That propaganda is now mindlessly repeated by those ignorant of its origins or those who find it neat to propagate.

[bemildred]

40. Still absolutely nothing to back up your claims?

Anti-zionism and anti-Israel-ism seem to me to be pretty much the same thing.

Anti-semitism was common in the USSR, but it is hardly something unique to them, or originated by them, on anything else of that sort. It was really just a continuation, perhaps less severe, or what was going on in the Tsarist situation.

[subsuelo]

42. lol you're a piece of work I'll say that much

signed,

"Another history impaired poster"

bwa hahahahaha :rofl:

[Sezu]

45. Yet another non-substantive reply. Always the same old eh? n/t

[bemildred]

41. The war's seventh day

The Zionist dream's realization and the Jewish people's national rebirth through the creation of Israel were achieved not because of the Jewish side's superior number of tanks, planes or other aggressive means. The State of Israel was born because the Zionist movement realized it must find a solution to the Jews' persecution and because the enlightened world recognized the need for that solution.

The enlightened world's recognition of the solution's moral justification was an important, principal factor in Israel's creation. In other words, Israel was established on a clear, recognized moral base. Without such a moral base, it is doubtful whether the Zionist idea would have become a reality.

The Six-Day War was forced upon us; however, the war's seventh day, which began on June 12, 1967 and has continued to this day, is the product of our choice. We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one - progressive, liberal - in Israel; and the other - cruel, injurious - in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day.

This guy does not seem to be a Russian:

The author was attorney general from 1993-96

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=136433

[Violet_Crumble]

56. Yeah, I was gonna dig up a few more quotes from Israeli pollies...

But I ended up posting the Rabin warning about creating a South African situation coz it predates anything else I've seen referring to apartheid.....

[bemildred]

60. I knew about that one because of a book I am reading.

But I think it's a waste of time. Apparently "where ideas come from" is a distinct issue from "who said it first". I don't believe that, rhetorically speaking, I want to spend much time on "discussions" where such "distinctions" are made.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. It's not by Shlomo Ben-Ami, is it?

I've picked it up again after getting halfway through it and getting distracted, and it's a really good book...

[bemildred]

72. A guy named Morris Berman -- "Dark Age America"

Berman, hmmm, sounds like some sort of ethnic name ...

Anyway, he had an earlier one called "The Twilight of American Culture" which I found interesting, so I picked this up when I ran into it.

I don't agree with all he says, but he has intesting things to say. One might need to have an inside view of American history and culture to fully appreciate it, he goes pretty deep, but he knows his history and literature and politics and all that, he is no ignorant dummy. Very gloomy stuff as you might imagine. Relentlessly intellectual, an elitist if I ever saw one.

Anyway, although it is not his focus in the book, he has some sections on Israel and the Middle East, as it relates to US policy etc., and he mentions the Ben Yair quote in a chapter header, and I'd just read that when this little donnybrook came up.

[bemildred]

80. It's on page 195, the note (#50 for that chapter) to it mentions the Haaretz article,

Which is how I knew to google it up.

[Sezu]

63. So because he "doesn't seem to be a Russian," the words of

a LABOUR PARTY member would never echo Communist talking points? What planet do you live on?

[bemildred]

64. So you think the Israeli Attorney General is a "useful idiot" for the defunct Soviet Union?

The Attorney General of Israel is an anti-zionist, anti-semite, etc. etc. Even if you prove that the USSR was the first to bring it up, what does that show other than they were the first to bring it up? The rest of your "argument" is pure ad hominen.

[Violet_Crumble]

70. Well, you know what these LABOUR Party types are like...

We've got one as PM now and I'm always having to shoot off emails to him going 'Kev! Watch it, mate! Yr sounding like yr yr echoing Communist talking points when you talk about things like affordable housing, climate change initiatives and stuff! Stop being such a lefty and start coming down hard on immigration, loosen up those gun-laws, and at least if yr commie talking point arse can't do anything else, drop in a few mentions about how indigenous Australians can't look after their own affairs and need us to do a paternalistic intervention on some remote community somewhere!'

[LeftishBrit]

71. To be blunt...

if you think that the average Labour Party politician in power in a 21st century or even 1990s Western or strongly Western-influenced state is normally going to spend much time echoing Communist Party talking-points, you are living in a time-warp - and indeed most never did to a great extent in most countries (Labour parties usually have some very left-wing members but they are usually kept a million miles from actual power). I wish New Labour *would* occasionally echo something other than Thatcherite talking points!

I don't know in detail about the ILP factions; but especially as there is at least one mainstream party (Meretz) to the left of the ILP, I would doubt that the ILP are very left-dominated.

Incidentally, the early Zionists would have been another matter. Contrary to some people's assumptions nowadays, early Zionism actually had far more links with the Far Left than with the Religious Right. So I suppose that despite what I said above - there *could* be an indirect influence of communist opinion, not via Labour Party affiliation, but via influences of early Zionism.

[Sezu]

92. The talking points no longer belong to the Soviets having

been incorporated into the lexicon of certain segments of the left. I am sure you are aware of that and the dirty little secret of the left that supported to the end some of the worst mass murderers of all time because they seemed "socialist." Times change but many of the memes remain everywhere the left may be. Wiser leftists have renounced the more blatant propaganda but old commies never die; they adapt.

[LeftishBrit]

93. Not just because they seemed socialist...

IMO, some left-wingers supported the likes of Stalin and Mao not just because they seemed socialist, but because they had some of the same enemies. Stalin was after all against Hitler. Mao was an enemy of the American and other Western Right *and* of the Soviet Union, which by then had disillusioned many on the left.

It's the old phenomenon of what I call 'mirror-image-ism': the uncritical assumption that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' and that the Good Guys/ Bad Guys distinction made by one's opponents is fundamentally valid but needs to be simply reversed! Similarly, ex-Communists or those who lived under Communist rule have too often assumed that all that is anti-Communist is a Good Thing (I knew a Polish student in England in the 80s, who thought that McCarthyism must have been a 'very good thing', apparently just because Pravda et al didn't approve of it!). Anti-Soviet people of the 80s (yes, even some liberals as well as right-wingers) sympathized with the forerunners of the Taliban, because they were opposed to Brezhnev and the Soviet Union.

Nowadays, some left-wingers sympathize with Ahmadinejad because he's against Bush, or Mugabe because he's still seen as opposing British/Western imperialism. Others are prepared to make common cause with far-right isolationists such as Ron Paul or even Pat Buchanan because they're against the war. Fortunately the latter phenomenon doesn't seem to have spread to Britain yet; I haven't seen many left-wingers here seeking common cause with the BNP or LePen.

However, I really don't think that most mainstream Labour politicians are showing these phenomena or have anything in common with communism (I wish most of them were *further* to the left - economically and socially!). There are very few 'old commies' in contemporary Labour-or-equivalent Party politics; and those few who actually are ex-communist, such as John Reid over here, tend to be the most right-wing and Thatcherite of the lot! I would *really* doubt that any ILP politician has much in common with the Soviets. We have to be careful not to see 'reds under the bed'.

ETA: I believe, and have sometimes argued here, that anti-Zionism among certain left-wing Europaean groups *does* owe much more to the effects of old Soviet propaganda, as opposed to the Right's current scapegoat of 'pandering to Muslim immigrants', than is sometimes assumed. However, that doesn't mean that every left-of-centre criticism of Israel, especially by Israelis, is Soviet-influenced!

[Sezu]

124. Once again you make good points and essentially I agree

but my main point is that it is obvious given the amount of Apartheid Isreal we hear coming from parts of the left that the talking points have taken. Certainly trade unions in many countries have embraced the meme. A meme that arose from Soviet propaganda; a meme that is fallacious as saying dogs are human in terms of logic. A meme which demonizes rather than reflects a logical take on the facts on the ground. It has become a dogma and a dangerous one and besmirches much of the more rational left.

So no, not EVERY left of centre criticism is soviet inspired and of course I didn't say THAT did I?

[Igel]

19. Of course it's bigger.

It has a different purpose, and to some extent--if engineers have their way--form proceeds from function.

The Berlin Wall was, in some ways, like the Israeli wall. In some places it's concrete slabs, high enough to serve the purpose. In other areas, it's a fence.

It doesn't help that in the heavily populated areas the Israeli wall is a single wall. That means it has to be higher: There's no "dead zone" between layers of the Israeli wall, no second wall to get over.

Sadly, both sets of people were or are highly motivated to get across the wall. But the motivations of those intended to be most affected by the wall are about as opposite as they can be.

Both are shameful. The Berlin Wall, because it was used to keep people from seeking free lives. The Israeli wall, because it's needed to keep people from seeking to free other people of life.